WE Blog

HLP you stupid son of a bitch, the story says less ice in the Artic and Antartic. You are a blubbering fool.

:roll:

They’re alredy gathering the kindling and firewood.

Do you dip sticks have a problem with the word “mass”? How can you be a climate critic and not understand that word? So typical of how you think. You pick up on the expansion of the shelf, and ignore the decline in mass, and conclude there is more ice. Now I personally don’t know if the recent warming is caused by man, but there is a hell of a lot of evidence that it is. In other words, a good probability, which is all you ever get out of a theory.

Let’s see from the posted story reference:

No one’s entirely sure what’s causing the expansion of sea ice in Antarctica, but the likeliest explanation is a disturbing one. According to a 2005 NASA-funded study, warmer temperatures have caused greater snowfall around the continent’s edges, where the open oceans provide plenty of raw material for precipitation. (Warmer air absorbs moisture more readily.) The weight of that excess snow pushes sheets of sea ice down into the water, causing more water to freeze.
——————

Then beber pops in, Now I personally don’t know if the recent warming is caused by man, but there is a hell of a lot of evidence that it is.

======================================
In short, the wannabe rain makers want to put a tax on Climate and its natural variations. They don’t really know the cause, so taxes and carbon credits must be the answer right?

What a bunch of maroons.

Not misdirection SquarePeg/Chas/Das/Sugar. It’s called understanding how nature works and how science does not work.

Journalists go with their arm flailing, AGW experts state that the Arctic and Antarctica ice flows are melting because of man made global warming!

Then one reads the article, the science journals and the actual papers and they state, “We’re not really sure what the cause(s) are.”

Blithering your favorite GORACLE phrase is not going to change the basic facts of natural climate variation.

#
Chas
Posted July 6, 2008 at 7:48 am | Permalink

Is it possible to stay with the thread?? Or do we have to get off on to a bunch of mindless tangents??

How about it, Regular/Boxlock/Amway/et al, ad nauseum???
————————–
I was addressing the issues of Climate Change there Chas/Das/Sugar/SquarePeg.

What were you addressing?

Regular says:

“Blithering your favorite GORACLE phrase is not going to change the basic facts of natural climate variation.”

Ummmm…. Nobody on this thread has mentioned Gore, except for Regular…. Hmmmm… Thats called “mis-direction”

That there is climate changes going on is pretty hard to dispute. How it will effect the planet is, but the one thing I am failing to see is how we are preparing for it. Carbon credits sure isn’t the answer, although if man wants to feel good about himself, then go ahead and do it. Using less energy and decreasing mans’ propensity for pollution sure wont hurt the planet, and might make things last a bit longer here.

For some parts of the planet, climate change will be good, for others, bad. The main problem will be for the bad parts, growing food may become either impossible, or reduced in such a manner as to make it inefficient. Which means the “good” parts are going to have to make up for the loss, if indeed there are enough “good” parts to grow it.

What will it do to the oceans, and the food crops (fish, seaweed, etc.) living in them? Will the oceans be able to adapt? How about weather patterns? Hurricanes in New York? They could shut down the financial district, and cause world-wide repercussions. Are plans in place for such events?

The fact the ice shelves are melting, as well as fire seasons coming earlier every year, and higher up in the mountains, means somethings happening. You all can bicker about who or whats causing it, but that seems rather stupid to me. The plain fact is climate change is happening, and the bickering continues. How about an intelligent discussion on what should be done to prepare for the worst . . . just in case?

OOPS: ANTARCTIC SEA ICE AT RECORD LEVELS

The Antarctic set a new record (since records began in 1979) for sea ice extent at the end of last winter. It stayed well above the normal through the summer with icemelt 40% below the normal. As a new height of irony and hype, the media made a big deal about a fracture of a small part of the Wilkins ice sheet in late February (160 square miles of the 6 million square mile Antarctic ice sheet (0.0027% of the total).

Media headlines blared: Bye-bye, Antarctica? and Massive ice shelf collapsing off Antarctica. But as you can see from this chart,

//icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22ANTARCTIC.jpg,

the extent never dropped to less than 1 million square km ABOVE NORMAL during or after the brief event. Currently Antarctic ice extent is running nearly 1 million square kilometers higher than last year at this time. Peak comes at the end of the southern winter (September).

This chart,

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

also from Cryosphere, shows the Global Sea Ice Area from 1979 to present. It begs the question, where’s the melt?

More here:

adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels.html

“If Conservatives would expend as much energy trying to help the situation as they do trying to find clever ways to deny what’s happening, we’d all be a lot better off.”

Nano, what the hell are you doing but flapping your gums, I’ll tell you what…..NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL, THAT’S WHAT.
Regular and the rest of us are doing ABSOLUTELY NO LESS than you or your ‘Chicken Little’ friends, we just aren’t puffing all up about it ACTING like we are important.
Typical of the DemLibs, all talk no action.

Good morning, KansasNative!

Me thinks you mis characterize my efforts! I merely demonstrate that the ‘debate’ isn’t over. I do it by linking to the other side of the debate.

If you were to characterize the entries on the BLOG concerning the debate, especially in this thread, you will notice that us ‘climate change deniers’ (what ever the hell Randy means by that incredibly biased characterization) generally bring facts, links and polite debate to the issue.

On the other hand, the AGW alarmists (your 8:40 post is a good example) bring little more than personal attacks and strident denial of the facts. The desperate denial is on your side!

Sorry, we win!

Soon, cosmos will channel the party line from realclimate.org and we can all go back to our regular programming.

Hank, while the Antarctic is picking up ice, the Arctic is losing it, so something is happening. There is a shift in weather patterns that could lead to the way food is grown and where. I doubt man is the cause, and it’s probably solar in nature, but that doesn’t mean we should be sitting around calling each other names, as some do, but discussing intelligently adverse effects, and what to do about them, should they happen.

As the boy scouts say, be prepared. The little ice age was caused by a lack of solar activity. If the sun is starting to go through that phase again, how will we prepare for that? We only have one planet, and it is subject to change at any given time, regardless of the cause.

Lock your doors at night? Got can goods in the pantry? Prepared for things like tornadoes? To me that’s not much different than discussing what to do in case of global emergencies, just this is on a more massive scale. But that takes intelligence to do that, and what I read mostly here is the I’m right/you’re wrong syndrome, which accomplishes nothing.

Your posts, while informative, fail to see the changes that are taking place, like more ice in the south, less in the north, which is a clear indicator, to me at least, something is happening. Or the fact California is burning at an earlier seasonal time every year.

IF we are in for a global change in weather patterns, what would you do to prepare, and how would you go about it, whether it be warming or cooling, on a planetary scale?

JM Walker,

Any changes in climate through natural variation will be gradual.

It’s not going to happen 10 years from now, more like 1000 years from now for a much different climate. What can we do it? Probably nothing we can do about the climate change.

I’m pretty sure man can adapt to climate change and it will be gradual adaptation just like the climate.

“Regular” assumes the ostrich position with –

“I’m pretty sure man can adapt to climate change and it will be gradual adaptation….”

That’s it!

Evolution will be the answer!

Hey george….amen!

“Me thinks you mis characterize my efforts! I merely demonstrate that the ‘debate’ isn’t over. I do it by linking to the other side of the debate.”

Mr. Price I believe your side is split also:

http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/dskeel/archives/2008/05/more_on_evangelicals_and_clima.html

1) Perhaps the biggest point of disagreement among evangelicals, which shows up in spades in the comments, can be traced to differing perceptions of the implications of accepting scientists’ warnings about climate change. For skeptics, the science is a Trojan horse paving the way for massive governmental intervention. Most envangelical environmentalists seem less worried that socialism is right around the corner. Mike Vandenbergh, a leading environmental law scholar and co-organizer of the Vanderbilt conference mentioned in the earlier post, pointed out to me that the divide among evangelicals echoes a fault-line among Americans generally: work by Dan Kahan at Yale suggests that people’s perception of the importance of climate change is closely tied to whether they think the societal response will be more governmental regulation. Those who believe that accepting the science is likely to mean lots more regulation are much less likely to credit the science.

2) The second point follows directly from the first. Evangelical environmentalists, like environmentalists generally, are likely to be most persuasive to other evangelicals if they frame the issue in terms of individual responsibility rather than governmental intervention. It is no coincidence, I suspect, that the most widely read books by evangelical environmentalists, such as Matthew Sleeth’s “Serve God, Save the Earth,” are short on regulatory proposals and long on lifestyle advice.

3) Many people– including the Wall Street Journal in an editorial last week– have suggested that soaring energy prices will dampen Americans’ concern about environmental issues, since people equate environmentalism with governmental measures that will increase prices. Perhaps counterintuitively, the historical evidence seems to me to suggest that high oil prices could have precisely the opposite effect, at least for evangelicals. I’ve been researching the coverage of environmental issues in Christianity Today, the flagship evangelical magazine, over the past forty years. What I’m finding is the Christianity Today ran numerous articles about environmentalism, nearly all making a Biblical case for environmentalism, during the first energy crisis in the 1970s. After the 1970s, the number of articles declined significantly, I suspect due to the passing of the energy crisis and to a perception that scientists had wildly exaggerated the environmental risk. As our current energy crisis deepens, I suspect we may see a reprise of the 1970s experience. If this is correct, and if advocates of responding to climate change wish to have evangelicals on board, they would do well to beg Al Gore to stay quiet and to focus on making a quieter case for individual lifestyle change

Thank you Boxlick…us ad hominem guys just do what YOUR worst president ever Bush does…attack everyone and anyone and for no reason.

Dance for Bush poodleboy…maybe he’ll give you a bone!

annie

The dancing poodles like Reguliar, HLP, Nathan, Boxlicker etc are the 26% that blindly follow Bush no matter what he says or does.

They aren’t even among mainstream Christians in being concerned about the environment.

Their god is Bush not Christ.

#
Regular
Posted July 6, 2008 at 9:21 am | Permalink

JM Walker,

Any changes in climate through natural variation will be gradual.

It’s not going to happen 10 years from now, more like 1000 years from now for a much different climate. What can we do it? Probably nothing we can do about the climate change.

I’m pretty sure man can adapt to climate change and it will be gradual adaptation just like the climate.
=================================================
Actually, the little ice age caught the world unaware, and caused hardship for most of the world, especially Europe. Western Europe experienced a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850. That affected everybody in food production, living conditions, weather patterns, you name it. They weren’t prepared. We should be. We can be, but that will take intelligence, which I’ve seen little of here.

Basically less than 300 years, reg, for Europe to be slammed back to the dark ages. Want to risk that, or be prepared? Intelligent discussions is all I’m asking. But is that even possible here? Somehow, I doubt it.

Southern Spain is going through a major drought cycle right now. Wheat production is down over 70%. If it continues, there will be no food production in Southern Spain, and they feed a great deal of the world. Who’s going to make up the difference, should it continue? That’s what I mean by planning and actually thinking for a change, instead of calling each other liars, et al.

#
Boxlock
Posted July 6, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink

When I see some action, some effect, I’ll pay attention, but until then your talk is just cheap.
Also, the ‘cure’ can’t be worse than the problem, and about any ‘cure’ would take us back to the stone age….no thanks.

Problem is, there’s no taking YOU back to the stone age…you’re already there.

Moron

#
beber
Posted July 6, 2008 at 10:29 am | Permalink

I’ll bet Kansas produced 100 million tons of mulberries this year.

Isn’t it amazing how many of that 100 million tons ends up on your car.

Just saying….

Here’s an interesting commentary for those that think we must ‘do something now’:

THE POINTLESS RUSH FOR A CARBON EMISSIONS PLAN

Assuming - however briefly - that Canada must impose carbon taxes, when would be the best time to do it? Stephane Dion says now. Right now. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says, well, slow down, friend. We have time. Let’s do this thing properly.

Dr. Nordhaus takes global warming seriously, anticipating that it may well “cast a shadow over the globe for decades, perhaps centuries, to come.” When he says centuries, he means centuries. In his highly sophisticated computer analysis of global warming strategies, he includes the option of doing nothing at all for 250 years - and found that it delivered the same result (measured in global emissions of carbon dioxide one century hence) as the Kyoto Protocol with or without the United States.

He includes, as well, a 50-year delay and got an intriguing assessment. Implement the right climate change strategy in 2055 and you still get - by 2105 - precisely the same reduction in CO2 that you get with the computer-designed “optimal strategy,” a go-slow, go-frugal approach that begins modestly in the next decade and expands incrementally through the rest of the century.

In a brilliant analysis of carbon strategies - The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy, published last year - Dr. Nordhaus observes that the complexity of global warming rules out absolute certainty of any kind, whether academic or ideological. “Whatever goal we set will probably be incorrect.” Given this caution, it is essential to adopt a strategy that can be quickly adapted to changing circumstances and changing technologies, he says.

Dr. Nordhaus notes that a single technological advance in 2050, or in 2100, could render redundant trillions of prematurely invested dollars. This is one of the reasons why the most aggressive climate change strategies - the celebrated Stern Review proposals, the controversial dictums espoused by Al Gore - badly flunk the Nordhaus computer analysis test.

More here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080702.RREYNOLDS02/TPStory/Business

All well and good, Hank, but even the good doctor seems to agree climate change is happening. While I do agree carbon sequestering is not the, or even a answer, what planning is going on for the changes that are and will happen? Do we plan for the future, or do the lemming thing and follow the food?

I ask, because there will be national, as well as, global boundaries at stake. Shifts of power are inevitable. This country may go from a supplier of food to the world to one that has to import everything edible, except for micro-climates. That’s one scenario. If this countries climate drys up, energy production could fall big time.

These aren’t out of the question scenarios, nor are they fatalistic ones, but they are food for thought that may have to be answered in detail at some future date. As I said earlier, be prepared; it could happen. Then again, maybe nothing happens, and we all go home satisfied. But you know as well as I do, nothings sacred, let alone the future of this planet, or the future, if any, of man.

JM Walker,

Changes of climate happen in dramatic terms over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. It was very much colder in temperature and large snowfall accumulations during the Revolutionary times compared to modern day winters in the same area.

However, I doubt Washington and others of that time ever conceived of a place called Kansas and for that place to be one of the largest producers of wheat in the world.

The hydro-gardens in Israel, that cause fruits and vegetables to spring forth from a desert environment, wasn’t put into practical use until the 1960s.

Civil defense plans of the 1950s and 1960s had thousands of ideas put into booklets and pamphlets that were never utilized.

What exactly do you want to plan for Walker? Which areas of the U.S. are you concerned about that will be transformed into a sheet of ice or a desert?

When will that happen? You do know that there are hot house fruits and vegetables now don’t you?

Farm animals can be housed, fed and cared in buildings.

Where do you want to place the next few dozen biospheres to help prevent this tragedy? How many more of these will we need? Who will pay for them?

You want discussion, yet you haven’t put out one idea on what kind of climate or circumstance that might take place?

And, how exactly do you know what kind of climate we will have in fifty years? Where will these extreme climate changes take place?

How can anyone come up with any answers without knowing the scenario parameters?

You want answers Walker, come up with your fortune teller scenario and let us know.

“”If a period of high volcanic activity coincides with a series of cold Arctic winters, then a springtime Arctic ozone hole may reappear for a number of consecutive years, resembling the pattern seen in the Antarctic every spring since the 1980s,” Tabazadeh said.

Image 7

TOMS Satellite - Click here for animation of the TOMS satellite.
“Unlike the Antarctic where it is cold every winter, the winter in the Arctic stratosphere is highly variable,” Tabazadeh said. NASA satellite and airborne observations show that significant Arctic ozone loss occurs only following very cold winters, according to Tabazadeh.”

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020304volcano.html

According to the scientists, above, a really cold Arctic would be a BAD thing, since a cold winter combined with high volcanic activity would hurt the Ozone.
—–
Bottom line?

Man is NOT a player in the climate.

Not even a little bit!

Fossil-fuel shill econ101,

Volcanoes?

You should carefully read what four scientists say here,

‘What’s Up With Volcanoes Under Arctic Sea Ice’
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/whats-up-with-volcanoes-under-arctic-sea-ice/

Cosmos
Never said that I agreed with every word of what someone said, in a link I posted.
The point is clear, for a less biased observer to pick up:

The scientist clearly indicates that one pole has, historically, ALWAYS had more variations in temperature than the other pole.

The scientist clearly states that a COLD winter, combined with volcanic activity, would be WORSE foe the environment.

Also, How in the world can it be scientifically claimed that volcanic activity, under the polar ice, WILL NOT effect the polar ice but WILL effect the atmosphere? That seems a stretch to most reasonable people, I would think.

The purpose of the “Global Warming” religion is to force more government down our throats, and to force the United States to give up its sovereign power to world bodies.

The cure is far worse than the disease.

Fossil-fuel shill econ101,

Land warms (and cools) faster than oceans.

The Arctic is mostly surrounded by land — the Antarctic by oceans.

As shown by this global map,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
————

From your link :”An “ozone hole” could form over the North Pole after future MAJOR volcanic eruptions,…”

econ101, are the Arctic volcanic eruptions (4 kilometers UNDERWATER) ejecting large amounts of sulfates into the Earth’s stratosphere?

If not, then those eruptions are having little (or no) impact on Earth’s atmosphere.
———–

AGW science, and policies to reduce GHG’s are separate issues.

Failure to enact policies to reduce GHG’s does not refute the AGW science. All that it does is prove that you deniers have a strong influence.

PMom, I wish I could give you a hug and help in some way. It’s been a rough patch for you. I’m sorry.

I know some really ethical scientists! Don’t get down on everyone and everything. Our government isn’t in control of what they should be, let alone everything!

But I know it’s easy to get discouraged.

Are you feeling better like “they” said you would after a few days? Did they hit tht sweet spot?

Thanks for asking Linda. It’s not as effective this time as it was last time, either that or it’s just taking longer. It’s not terrible, I am getting some relief.

I know I felt the best a week after, so I’m holding my final opinion till tuesday.

Wiseman, satellite photos are showing the changes taking place in vegetative growth, and doing so in both green and brown (dead) areas. You might have to weed through the chaff, but the wheat is here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/agriculture_and_food/

If global warming is some kind of hoax, then where do insurance companies stand on it?

Seems to me that’s the key. If property firms, especially mutual property firms — and their insurers — are serious about global warming, then they’re obviously betting it’s real.

If they’re betting it’s real, then property rates (for homeowner’s, commercial, etc.) are going up.

If they’re betting global warming is a hoax, then they’re selling optional riders instead.

Anybody know?

Er, insurance companies are “key” because they on the bleeding edge, the front lines as it were.

If property insurers are wrong about global warming, then they’ll go belly up.

So they’re key in the same way a canary in a coal mine is key.

“JMWalker” observes –

“…man has yet to reach the age of reason, and the current bickering over who’s right and wrong only proves my point. And it’s our children and their children who will suffer for it.

“Stupid is the only word I can come up with to describe this nonsense.”

Yup.

We humans, as a species, aren’t all that bright.

And there’s something in the CONs’ approach to life that compels them to thing “god” or something will “save” us from our stupidity.

We humans have developed the technology to assure the extinction of thousands of species of animals but the political dodo birds who remain still think they’ll survive.

Ol’ “Regular” dropped off this thread after it was pointed out to him that his solution to Global Climate Change was… wait for it… evolution!

Progress does not and should not depend on trying to convince the Village Idiots.

“…Cold, hot, dry, humid, ice and snow…”

As I understand the prognosis, any or all of those can be expected due to the Global Warming trends. And severe bouts of all of them, at varying points in time.

It sure as hell isnt something like putting the frog in the pan of water, and gradually increasing the heat, till he is cooked.

However, that is exactly the false premise that all of the Deny-ers are trying to paint. But that isnt what is projected. Not from what I have read so far.

And that is the point where the entire “debate” is disingenius. The ones in opposition are deliberately opposing a case scenario that is FALSE, and then trying to use climate science to show why it “aint gonna happen”.

Make the opposition people stay on the right page in the debate. Dont let them go off on some little hobby horse, where they can say, “Oh gee, it is getting so warm, and look at record snow falls in Colorado!”

All that does is set up a phony straw man, fairly easy to knock over - at least in the minds of the nay-sayers.

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted,

“Again Walker, what type of scenario should we planning for?”
—————-

Humans would not have to plan for any type of climate change, if they were not causing it to happen.

And we can plan for less climate change, if we reduce GHG’s.

And then, of course, once they have set up the false premise (which is not Global Warming), then they set about taking apart what they themselves have created, and “label” Global Warming (which is actually their own created mythology).

Same old questions, over and over. And the questions have been answered over and over. Why do we do this? This is not a political problem. It sure as hell isnt a religious problem. It is a Human problem. A global problem. Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot, instead of working together to do things that can be done, just to conserve, if for no other reason, than to save money? I dont see this issue as liberal or conservative; republican or democrat. I dont even see it as an American problem. This is a world problem, for world citizens.

I am sure many have seen that silly little movie, Independence Day - ID 4 — That was a world crisis. It crossed religious, political, religious, economic, social, racial, ethnic, and all other lines. But the World came together, and the Aliens were stopped.

And you know? Not once in that entire movie was anything said as to WHO those aliens were; or what they had against Earth; or why they were destroying the Planet. It didnt matter. They didnt seem to have a reason. It just WAS. And it all depended on people coming together around one issue, to put a stop to it.

The movie never said, but I always wondered what the aftermath of the Alien problem was? Part of me was thinking: “Yep — Aliens gone today, tomorrow, back to the status quo. Annie get your gun!” LOL Another part of me wanted to think: “Wow! World Peace, at last!”

I notice nobody has made a sequel to the flick.

Nathaniel,

First, tell me the amounts, rates, and timing of the GHG’s that will be released from thawing permafrost.

Hey Hank..Thanks so much for all your help, we couldn’t have done it without you..you and John are the best neighbors anyone could hope for.

That last post and this one were mine, (Hank) the boy was on the ‘puter in the family room and I’m too lazy to sign him out and me in.

HLP posted July 6, 2008 at 8:52 am

“Me thinks you mis characterize my efforts! I merely demonstrate that the ‘debate’ isn’t over. I do it by linking to the other side of the debate.”
————-

That’s right Hank! You prove that your side, the AGW deniers, do NOT have any credible climate science.

Hank copy/pasted quotes compiled by Marc Morano.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
“Morano was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, …”
————-

Some scientists on Morano’s list actually agree with AGW. Others, like TV weatherpeople and economists, are not qualified on the issue.

And Hank’s son, Nathaniel, posted that he believed the climate science LIES told by the agricultural ECONOMIST, Dennis Avery.

Keep up the good work, Hank and Nathaniel.

You people are proof that the peer-reviewed climate scientists, like in the IPCC reports, are correct.

Hank,

You are always “screechy”, and zero credibility on climate science issues.

HLP posted July 6, 2008 at 6:23 am

“We’re all going to die!”
————-

And I’m not Hank’s “dear”. Save that for your wife Hank. . . and people that you stupidly believe that you can con.

A few informative links,

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Arctic

Looks like germie has changed her nic to wwm

Actually, there were others that invented packet switching, the backbone of the Internet, while Cerf was still in college. Gore’s infamous legislation didn’t start until the early 1990s.

By that time, I and tens of thousands of others had already been online for almost twenty years. People forget about Compuserve, Prodigy and UUNET’s underlinks.

Heck, they were downloading data from fighter aircraft onto computers in the 1970s and forwarding it by modem to other bases.

The only thing Gore’s legislation did was allow companies to charge upwards to $10.00/hour connection fee to mainframe computers. That was private users, not big companies. Yeah, it was expensive to get online back in the day.

Gore seems to hang a price tag on every thing he does, including the Internet to make thing more expensive for the average person. He’s doing the same thing with carbon credits and taxes. Gore and his love of money wants the average joe to pay out the ying yang, while Gore bathes in personal glory and misbegotten wealth.

The lying, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted,

“People forget about Compuserve, …””
————–

Compuserve died a well deserved death, after Gore’s legislation helped create Mosaic, which later became the basis for Netscape, MS IE, and other very user-friendly web browsers.

http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html

Lying, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,

Thank you for again proving that you’re a liar.

And also that you’re an irrational, 100% clueless, non-scientific, wild-arm flailing AGW denier.

‘Regular’, Hank, Nathaniel, outlander, and others are very good examples of easily conned fools.

Notice how cosmos the GORACLE worshiper calls everyone liar when the truth comes out.

For Gore, it’s all about $$$$.

And dems duh facts.

More blanks James?

Dude you look like you DIG in trash.

And that would be…ok…except how you seem to see yourself as somehow “elevated” while you live on the dole.

Remember the Christmas you tube video you posted here James?

I showed it to my son. Your intended audience?

He thinks you are well…retarded.

Lying, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,

Did Compuserve provide “free online access” while YOU were a sysop there?

If NOT. . . thank you again, lying, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ for proving that you’re a liar.

And aren’t you glad that we aren’t still using 300 bps acoustic-coupled modems, with rotary-dial phones?

Just tap the phone headset to loosen the carbon, and get a faster, more reliable “Internet” connection. . . LOL!

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 7, 2008 at 2:04 am | Permalink

Lying, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,

Did Compuserve provide “free online access” while YOU were a sysop there?

If NOT. . . thank you again, lying, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ for proving that you’re a liar.

And aren’t you glad that we aren’t still using 300 bps acoustic-coupled modems, with rotary-dial phones?

Just tap the phone headset to loosen the carbon, and get a faster, more reliable “Internet” connection. . . LOL!
—————————–
Anyone with a bit a sense could connect to a university or in my case a DOD computer to gain online access.

And yes, I got free service while being a Sysop on CServe.

There were already satellite connections back then as well. My cousin worked in crypto and well…let’s just say communications was easy.

Ever notice how mean spirited duh Libs are ALL the time?

It’s like they have permanent hemorrhoids and crotch rash along with mental constipation.

(chortles)

For a short bit, this thread had some good posts, then it degenerated into the usual name calling, namby-pamby bs it usually does, with absolutely nothing of value whatsoever. What a waste.

The climate is definitely warming. Who knows if we are to blame for it or not. Since we are not really sure, it may be prudent for us to step back and assume we are to blame and try to do somthing about it, because if we are to blame, we have only one chance to fix it. Trying to fix it, we’ll see what effect we really can have. If we have no effect, eventually we’ll have enough data to prove it. Besides, the rest of the world is upset with the USA on this matter. Let’s do our best to work through this matter. Even without global warming, reducing pollution can’t be a bad thing.

fpcxjtdaw bydcwxh fhgys girvy uvhxjp ernbt qsomlw