WE Blog

Bush wants us to pay for Fannie Mae’s bad loans. Talk about Bush being a closet socialist…nevermind, he’s always been up front about it.

Good morning JWink!

It took me a little longer than usual for my morning chores. Thanks for filling in!

I read that article before I wrapped tomatoes the other day, I don’t trust Mr. Buffet or Gates.

Gates and es wife are going through a period of liberal ‘rich guilt’ and although they are doing some good works I’m not sure they are very smart when it comes to the ills of the country.

Buffet is a lot easier to figure out. He’s building windmills.

Study links global warming to more smog

Excerpt: U.S. environmental regulators quietly published a draft study on Thursday that linked global warming to higher levels of smog that could harm human health, a report green groups said stood in contrast to the Bush Administration’s slow movement on climate change.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/AnyArticle/p.rdt?URL=http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN1041605320080710

Which is it? Global warming caused by more smog or by less smog?

Don’t laugh. It’s easy: To a Greenie, EVERYTHING is bad and causes global warming!

Good educational tool on population,

snip

http://www.overpopulation.org/

The Helpful Work of the Guttmacher Institute . April 28, 2008 Letter from Guttmacher Institute
The work of the Guttmacher Institute has helped to bring about:

*New state policies that expand access to reproductive health services for low-income women through Medicaid

*Increased funding for the federal Title X family planning program, which expands acces to services for undeserved populations

*Refusals by a growing number of states – red and blue alike – to accept federal funding for abstinence-only education

*The suspension of the harmful “abstinence-only” budget earmark from the U.S. global AIDs effort,

*Laws in the Philippines and Uganda tha increase access to modern contraceptive methods and emergency postabortion care. 023073

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Re-port 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere con-tains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby re-duces the effect of increased CO2.

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudi-ness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluat-ing which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

So we’ve all seen that John McCain’s top financial advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm, said:

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”

It was a big, slow, juicy watermelon-sized fastball, and Obama smashed it out of the park.

We don’t need another Dr. Phil! We need solutions! It’s not just a figment of your imagination. It’s not all in your head. When people are struggling to buy gas and groceries….When people are losing their homes…It’s not a figment of your imagination. And it’s not too much to ask for the government to step in and give you some relief. It’s time to have a president who doesn’t deny our problems or pretend they don’t exist. It’s time we had a president who takes responsibility.

Good one on the “Dr. Phil” line.

So the McCain camp reacted the way it always does — a bit addled and confused. First, they agreed with Gramm.

In an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm’s remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator’s economic agenda.

“Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week,” the piece quoted a “McCain official” as saying. “The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We’re laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it’s been a great success so far.”

Then they realized that, oops, this wasn’t looking so good. So then they decided to excommunicate Gramm (who will apparently be no longer be considered for Treasury). And not only did McCain attack his own top adviser for the comments, but is emailing reporters a YouTube clip of his stern response.

Poor Gramm. His good friend McCain has turned on him, and for saying the very same things that McCain himself had said!

On January 2008:

As far as putting additional money in taxpayers pocket, that’s fine, because a lot of it is psychological. Because I agree the fundamentals of our economy is still strong.”

Back in April 2008:

I’m very concerned about it, Neil. And obviously the way it’s been going up is just terrible. But I think psychologically — and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological — the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. This might give them a little psychological boost. Let’s have some straight talk, it’s not a huge amount of money.

Or June 2008:

So I don’t see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist — and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts — is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.

At one of the Republican debates:

On the issues of rebates, fine, part of this is psychological. Part of the problem we have of course in any recession is psychological.

Heck, he’s said it again and again!

When you use that word this much, it’s not a gaffe.

It’s a talking point.

All Phil Gramm did wrong was follow the lead set by John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term).

Gasoline doesn’t cost $4-a-gallon.

It’s all in your head.

Good morning cosmos!

“1) What percentage of an adult human is a tiny bit of deadly Ebola virus?”

That’s it? That’s all you got? Pathetic!

It is a completely irrelevant question to the AGW hoax. It’s even an irrelevant question to anybody suffering from the Ebola virus.

“2) Are you going to send lots of money to John Casey?”

No.

Are you going to buy carbon credits from Al Gore?

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

‘The global cooling mole’ (as in the game, Whack-a-mole)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole
“During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy.
But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.”

Guess I might as well join ‘em (can’t beat ‘em!).

‘Alarming’ plight of coral reefs

A third of the world’s reef-building coral species are facing extinction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7498502.stm

I’m taking my stack of newspapers to the collection point in the nearby Dillons parking lot this morning on my way out. I know it can’t hurt to do my part, and it doesn’t matter to me whether the climate is or isn’t changing, how fast, or whether it can or can’t be affected by what I do.

outlander.

Hank incorrectly believes that CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is insignificant because it is a small percentage.

The Ebola virus analogy is only that percentage does not equal the amount of effect.

If you want to nitpick about it “doesn’t occur naturally”, then apply the analogy to high GWP gases like SF3 and NF3.

Ooops, change SF3 to SF6. (Multi-tasking)

CO2 keeps me warm at night….mmmmmm…zzzzzz…zzzzz.

Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru May remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun’s face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding theDalton Minimum 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof of warming outside of natural variation. When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way.

http://www.climatecooling.org/

SolDevVB posted July 11, 2008 at 9:32 am

“Investor’s Business Daily is reporting something. . .”
———————-

SolDevVB, you seem to be very gullible.

‘Don’t trust anything you read in the Investors Business Daily’
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/dont_trust_anything_you_read_i.php
“Well, as you know, the Investor’s Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page so when I read that, I naturally wondered what Tapping really said. Fortunately, tgirsch was on the case, and contacted Tapping to see if the IBD report was accurate. Tapping replied:

Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.“

HLP posted July 11, 2008 at 9:46 am

Dear cosmos,

You have no idea what I ‘believe’.
—————-

HLP posted July 10, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Two questions for you my delusional little buddy:

What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is as a result of man?

If you can answer those two questions honestly people will realize what an incredible hoax AGW is!
—————-

bth posted July 10, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

“What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is as a result of man?”

Just under 400ppm of which a bit over 1/4 is anthropogenic.
—————-

You GW bloggers really make me laugh —- here you are in the middle of no where kansas — the closest thing you have to a weather station is a wet finger and an old gas station thermomemter and you want everyone to believe you are some sort of experts because you read a book / took a class / clipped an article — get a grip Kansans you have much bigger fish to fry …..

“Are you a scientist, cosmo?”

Irrelevant.

And Sol…

Newsbusters from the Media Research Center.

Please.

The facts of the matter are and remain.

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Hypothesis: Human generated CO2 may cause a change in climate on a global scale. This change would be expected to be an average increase in temperature.

State of the research:

Average temperature is increasing.

CO2 concentrations have been increasing.

Correlation between increases in average temperature and CO2 concentrations has been strong.

Correlations between increaes in average temperature and CO2 concentrations ad and human CO2 generating activity are high.

This is coming from scientists from around the world, who come from various cultural and political traditions.

Meanwhile, those who oppose the idea of human caused global warming tend to come from political traditions or economic perspectives where such opposition is predictable.

Coalition conservative: Opposition comes from the perception that global warming and environmentalism are “liberal causes” and are therefore to be automatically opposed.

Libertarian or other “free market” ecomonic traditions. People like, for example, Sol.

Companies strongly invested in the status quo (including oil companies, some far more than others, such as Exxon Mobile).

Countries that do not want to put themselves at a perceived economic disadvantage. This has been an issue on international cooperation. More to the point (note the recent G-8 non-action), this gives lie to the claim that the “money” is in “promoting” global warming.

However, climate scientists and the strongly supported global warming hypothesis are not dependant upon political viewpoints (despite some of the almost hysteronic claims of some of the right oriented posters here to the contrary). Evidence is evidence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037209?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17370024?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RR&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

And you still only attack one post. Hmm, there are several here cosmo. Ready? GO !!!!

“If you can’t sue the Lord for libel, what are your options? A Michigan man is about to find out. Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, has filed lawsuits in a Michigan federal court against Zondervan Publishing and Thomas Nelson Publishing, claiming some editions of the Bibles those companies put out call homosexuality sinful, which has led him to suffer discrimination, emotional pain and mental instability.
“Defendant willfully caused me to endure acts of hate, discrimination, and loss of sleep, appetite, by structuring their New King James Bible to reflect God’s distaste of homosexuals,” Fowler wrote in his complaint against Thomas Nelson filed this week.”
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2008/07/can-you-sue-the.html

I hope God has a good lawyer.

I just LOVE when this happens… It shows how desperate some folks are to make THEIR point, to the extent that they do the Crime of Omission(intentionally) to further their own view points…

“Tapping replied:

Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.“

“Cosmo attacks the source. And only one source at that. Then cosmo posts a blog to back up his claim. Atta boy cosmo. Gotta love those peer reviewed blogs.”

Like the childish corruption of cosmo’s name (c’mon Sol, you seem to be better than that).

Two points:

1) Not all blogs are equal. Some blogs and discussion boards are professional in nature and have higher, much higher, posting standards than this one. For example, there are blogs and boards for professional issues that I subscribe to, and the opinions on some controversial but professionally relevant issues on those forums are, even for opposing opinions, more authoritative than what one would find from some poltical article or editorial, because the people posting these opinions have some professional standing. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the blog cosmos linked to, but the posts I read were exhaustive and substantial.

2) The American Conservative Union is hardly a sceintific source, and there are clear political motives for how they report on scientific matters issues.

“Just under 400ppm”

Are you sure you don’t mean 398 parts per MILLION?

SolDevVB, I’m busy. Read,

‘Climate MYTHS: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming’
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

“It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already.”

Chas when you see something that starts with a lie you would do well to discount it. This was just a blogger like you and we know that doesn’t make his statement true.

There is no consensus in the scientific community. There are detractors and believers. If you believe as this person does that it is too late to do anything about it why waste time worrying.

‘be happy, don’t worry’

Sol, books are generally NOT peer reviewed (except in some academically affiliated publishers). Those are usually studies in referred journals. And the source (making the claim that the book is peer reviewed), once again, is suspect (they have an inherently political bias for posting what they do).

Agnatha,

IIRC, the book written by meteorologist David Dilley was “peer-reviewed” by a couple of other meteorologists — not climate scientists.

Ah, another day, another AGW debate.

cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 11:19 am | Permalink
okobserver posted July 11, 2008 at 10:53 am

Chas when you see something that starts with a lie you would do well to discount it. This was just a blogger like you and we know that doesn’t make his statement true.”
————–

No. . . that was a quote of an email from Canada scientist Dr. Kenneth Tapping

‘Scientist Busts Biz Sheet for Misrepresenting His Work’
http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

See also link at above page,
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/

——————-
As I said Cosmos if it starts with a false statement it is all suspect.

I gotta ask. “What the hell is the point in arguing this global warming/cooling junk, EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK, EVERY WEEK OF THE YEAR?” Are you just doing your part in ignoring issues that are important today? How about Israeli jets in Iraq? Forget global warming/cooling, how about global war??

Nano are you telling me that the EPA, the protector of the snail darter and the spotted owl has made a statement that might be contorversial?

Imagine that!!

“I will clean up the planet,” McCain said. “I will make global warming a priority.”
Speaking outside the statehouse, McCain was cheered by a group of sign-wielding environmentalists. McCain cheered them back: “Way to go, global warming folks!” A hoarse-sounding McCain told the crowd: “I want to assure you I will make this planet clean … we will hand to you a cleaner planet than the one you were living in before I became president of the United States, I promise you that.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/mccain_vows_to.html

(BUSH)… Acknowledging that his refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol once created consternation in Europe, he said that there was now a recognition that that richer countries needed to “transfer out of the hydrocarbon economy”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4107327.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

OKOB WHINES >>>>

“Chas when you see something that starts with a lie you would do well to discount it. This was just a blogger like you and we know that doesn’t make his statement true.”

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council.

Have a nice day, OKOB… $^%&*

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. — Sol V

Wrong: It means man’s contribution to global warming is unknown, even if you assertion is true, which is dubious

Sol says >>>>

“SolDevVB
Posted July 11, 2008 at 11:44 am | Permalink
‘Climate MYTHS: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming’”

Sol, I think I said yesterday, I am not nearly as convinced as some about the effects of CO2….

I see you made a comment eariler about going for Wind and Solar alternatives!! Hoooray!!! Yipppeeee!!!

Now… I wonder if YOU will be as severely castigated for advocating Wind and Solar as I was not too long ago… hmmm???

New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years

(Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology – Published online: 30 January 2008)

Excerpt: “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.” “The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years.” Paper available here: & Full Paper (pdf) available here: (LINK)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9

Report: Too Much Ice = Polar Bears Starving? (Scientist Philip Stott’s Global Warming Politics – February 15, 2008)

Excerpt: Apparently, according to a report, Svend Erik Hendriksen, a certified weather observer in the Kangerlussuaq Greenland MET Office, who is responsible for all the weather observations at Kangerlussuaq Airport (near to Sisimiut), says that the cause is too much sea ice: “Several polar bears located (at least 6) close to Sisimiut town on the West coast …Too much sea ice, so they are very hungry…Error number 36 in the movie An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says the polar bear need more ice to survive… Now we have a lot of ice, but the polar bear is starving and find their food at the garbage dumps in towns. It’s also influence the local community, polar bear alerts, keep kids away from the schools and so on…. The first one was shot at February 1st.” Sadly, that “first one” is the poor female hung out in the newspaper photograp.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9

Greenland climate not varying from ‘natural climate variability’ (Greenie Watch – Dec. 2007)

Excerpt: RECENT PAPER ON THE HISTORY OF GREENLAND ICE MASS Showing that, although the Greenland melt has increased during the 1992-2006 period, the melt was even higher in 1900s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. So there is no indication that the current melt is above natural climate variability. Of course people who look just on the 1990 to 2007 period “see” great melting acceleration and influence of carbon dioxide and anthropogenic climate change.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9

Of course, this is the only time earth that there has been climate change.

Except for large parts of the world carved out by glaciers.

Or perhaps, that the arid Southwest United States, once filled with dense, green foliage and swamp was inhabited by plant eating dinosaurs and others of that ilk.

Where do the climate alarmist think coal came from? You know all that decomposed,crushed plant life consisting of tropical ferns, massive amounts of extinct species of plants.

How about, the entire state of Kansas was once under an ocean? Ever been to a limestone quarry and see the tiny creatures embedded in fossilized rock? Do you think the climate was bit different back then?

And, you know that evil oil. What is oil made of?
- tiny plants and animals, called plankton. This plankton would form oil in about 150 million years time if the sea bed is not disturbed. You mean places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran were underwater (oceans) that were home to trillions and trillions of plankton?

Why are there different climate regions? Arctics, deserts, lush tropical forests, great savannas, etc. Could it be that location on the planet earth, along with with natural geographic formations and cyclical weather events over a long period of time formed these climate regions?

The four seasons. Remember that? Think about that for awhile and how it affects climate.

Of course, the alarmists state the sun has no bearing on modern day climate change. Yet the same people will acknowledge as a fact if there was a nuclear war and the sky was covered with debris and dust there would be a nuclear winter because the sun is blocked out. Makes you go hmmm.

The topper is the alarmist selling point of a world wide average temperature. Say what? Don’t you acknowledge the different climate regions? (arctic, deserts, lush tropical forests, savannas)?

So the temperature in the antarctic has to do exactly what with the temperature of the Gobi desert?

Or how about those nice sunny beaches, where the albedo effect of sand makes for a toasty environment in which to catch some rays? Oceans pulverizing rock and geological formations, washing it up on shore to make sand. Caused by the ebb and flow of tides, wind, gravitational effects of the moon. Remember learning about that in school?

Averaging temperatures around the globe is like averaging numbers in a phone book. It is entirely meaningless as each part of the globe is susceptible to it’s own region’s influence, oscillations, wind and global position in relation to the sun.

The scientist (so-called) claim that man-made global warming is real and indisputable. So, this is why they spend so many resources on studying natural climate events eh? Computer climate models are inaccurate, even the scientists admit this. Yet they use these same computer climate models to predict the future of climate? What the hell?

I’ll could do this all freakin day. You have been debunked cosmo. Why have temperatures not risen since 1998?

Why was this one of the coldest winters on record?

Global Warming is a huge politically driven money grab.

Well grab away cosmo, because by the solar trends, we are headed for cooler weather. NATURALLY.

Minion, your masters will soon leave you behind.

I’m done for the day on this. cosmo, you’ve had all day and have done extremely little to disprove the NATURAL cycles of the sun that CORRESPOND to NATURAL climate change.

So, as I have quit for the day, drive on through and try to discredit links, scientists, and me. You still can’t disprove the natural cycles of the sun, historical climate change, and the fact that you have been so drawn up in the shrill you can’t see facts.

“The topper is the alarmist selling point of a world wide average temperature. Say what? Don’t you acknowledge the different climate regions? (arctic, deserts, lush tropical forests, savannas)?” [Regular]

Ummmm…. I do believe that is why it is called an “AVERAGE” ??? You take ALL of those regions, and add them all together, and then you divide by the appropriate number, and — wait for it — You come up with an AVERAGE…. A MEAN…. not a MEDIAN…. a MEAN….

So… What, pray tell, is wrong with an Average World Wide Temperature???

cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
“Marc Morano is communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano

Point proven. Much ablidged cosmo.

Good post, Regular.

We aint seen nothing yet as far as climate change is concerned. The evidence shows that there have been catastrophic changes in climate which came without any contribution from the industrial revolution.

Fossils of organisms that can only exist in tropical regions today that have been found in the polar regions.

“Dinosaurs Walked Canada’s Great North”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041018084253.htm

The fossil fuels that are mined today for energy obtained their innate carbon from the process of photosynthesis during their “former” life as plant matter on the surface of the earth. Such massive amounts of fossil fuel reserves indicates that in the past there were massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

#
Chas
Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

“The topper is the alarmist selling point of a world wide average temperature. Say what? Don’t you acknowledge the different climate regions? (arctic, deserts, lush tropical forests, savannas)?” [Regular]

Ummmm…. I do believe that is why it is called an “AVERAGE” ??? You take ALL of those regions, and add them all together, and then you divide by the appropriate number, and — wait for it — You come up with an AVERAGE…. A MEAN…. not a MEDIAN…. a MEAN….

So… What, pray tell, is wrong with an Average World Wide Temperature???
—————————-
Put some thermometers in your refrigerator. One in the freezer compartment and one in the chilled compartment. Now average the two together.

What does the average tell you about the function of your refrigerator? That, on average it’s cold?

All things being equal, your freezer is going to freeze and your chill box is going to chill. An average temperature does little to define the individual compartments of your refrigerator or their function.

Even more ridiculous, average the temperature of a burner on your stove with your refrigerator. What meaning can you get out of that for utilitarian use?

Is it cooler under a shade tree? How about a shade tree near water? How about a shade tree near a stream in the mountains? How about a palm shade tree in the desert?

How is the temperature average of shade underneath a palm tree in the desert going to have an effect on a shade tree by a stream in the mountains? What is the relevance? Averaging them will do exactly what? That one can average numbers for the sake of averaging?

There are too many conditions such as geology, location and natural climate events such as oscillations that affect temperature for average temperatures to have a meaning.

Yeah, it can be used on a macro scale over a long period of time to look at trends. But we are talking about thousands of years, if not tens of thousands of years to look for a trend. Temperatures go up and down with too great a frequency in a small time period to be useful for trends.

Anyone need a break from puerile politics, incessant testosterone tanglings, liberal vs. conservative contretemps, post-abortive vs. lily-white borned-again,etc.? Observe this and weep:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/11/holocaust.reunion/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto

This is what life is all about, folks. Or, shall I say, it’s what family ties SHOULD be all about……

I’m curious Chas since you have reduced the earths temperature to a mean average one – what would that number be?

By the way answering your long winded rants with logic isn’t whining. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Thanks FilmFan

Nano
Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
okobserver
Posted July 11, 2008 at 11:40 am | Permalink
Nano are you telling me that the EPA, the protector of the snail darter and the spotted owl has made a statement that might be contorversial?
_________________________________________________

Of course you’re correct. You and your deluded kind go ahead and destroy the environment. Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren don’t need clean air or water and they’ll greatly appreciate what you’ve done.

Carry on
————————
Nano when I see that you have done more that post on this blog then I will let you critize my contributions to conserving the earths resources. Until then – you and your deluded kind need to not be so judgemental of others who are probably doing more for the envirnoment just not patting themselves on the back like the dims do.

A Modest Proposal: The deniers have lost the argument, but they just won’t face the fact.

What say you we just let them pretend they won, and their pride will be preserved and we can move along…..???

UK Settles Iraq Torture Case

The British government has agreed to pay just under $6 million to settle a case over the torture of ten Iraqi civilians. The money will go to the nine surviving prisoners and the family of the tenth, who died from beatings by British jailers. The slain victim, Iraqi hotel worker Baha Musa, suffered ninety-three injuries to his body. Musa was twenty-six and the father of two children. His wife had died just two months earlier of a brain tumor. British officials say the settlement was accompanied by an official apology.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/11/headlines

How much will US tax payers have to pony up?

Kucinich Introduces Single Article of Impeachment for President Bush

And on Capitol Hill, Congressmember Dennis Kucinich has introduced a single article of impeachment against President Bush. The article accuses Bush of deceiving Congress to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Kucinich says he introduced the measure in part to simplify the thirty-five articles of impeachment he introduced against Bush a month ago. This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested the House Judiciary Committee could soon take up the measure.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/11/headlines

#
DavidB
Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

A Modest Proposal: The deniers have lost the argument, but they just won’t face the fact.

What say you we just let them pretend they won, and their pride will be preserved and we can move along…..???
——————————
Really?

Since when did you and others of your ilk, become the deciders?

When science ceases to have skepticism that is the day science dies.

Are you saying that science is dead now?

okobserver posted July 11, 2008 at 12:41 pm

“Cosmos we have always had climate changes. Why do you think now is any different. Because some grant financed scientist have painted a picture for you and an unemployed politician has made millions telling the world that the sky is falling.”
——————

No.

Because of the science done by Joseph Fourier in 1824, Tyndall in 1859, Arrhenius in 1896, and many, many other scientists since then.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
————

Humans cannot cause climate changes because nature caused climate changes before humans were on Earth?

That’s like saying that since thunderstorm lightning caused forest fires before humans were on Earth, humans cannot cause forest fires now.

Cosmos I can strike a match and put it to dry timber and start a fire. This is causation that is proveable.

Science has yet to show us one single thing we do that has caused GW. They have ideas, they put forth suspected causes but they can not say unequivicably that man is causing it and can do anything to stop it.

You need to come up with a better example. That one doesn’t hold water.

“Cosmos, how do humans use lightning to cause forest fires?”
—————-

I did not say that they do that.

I’ve never said that all climate changes have been caused by only one factor.

Electiclarry we live out by the ‘Old Geezer’ a car rebuilder. He has some great cars. Saw one the other day that was on a trailer being hauled. It had wood spokes in the wheels and the steering wheel was wood. I am looking forward to seeing it restored.

Of course my favorite ‘old’ car is the 1964 Mustang. I owned one before I started my family and traded it in for a station wagon. Biggest mistake of my life. It was candy apple red and had white leather interior. Someday I will see one like it and buy it to use in my second childhood.

Thanks for the welcome Everybody…

I miss the original Mustang too, (But not the Mustang 2) 67 & 68 are my faves from Ford.

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ Posted July 11, 2008 at 1:09 pm

“Are you saying that science is dead now?”
——————-

When people like ‘Regular’ are dumb enough to believe that bogus claims from someone like E. G. Beck equals “science”, then science is basically dead — at least for them.

Pelosi Slips Impeachment Onto the Table 57 minutes ago Pelosi Slips Impeachment Onto the Table

by John Nichols

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich moved a “privileged resolution” to force House to consider the question of whether President Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surprised almost everyone by suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might indeed take up the issue.

Pelosi, who famously declared impeachment to be “off the table” before the 2006 election, now suggests that hearings on the president’s high crimes and misdemeanors are a distinct possibility.

“My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee,” the California Democrat told reporters Thursday.

“This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee,” Pelosi explained.

“Be careful out there, people.”

Tell me again. Who plays the fear card?

Answer: Libs

Tell me again. Who plays the fear card?

Answer: Libs

LOL! You’re such a priceless twit, Fleetie! Only you could find a political message in a fairly mundane warning about some easily-avoided malware. . .

Tell me again. Who plays the fear card?

Answer: Libs

You obviously must have slept through the past 7 years. And have never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin. . .or the incredibly hokey staged “Iranian speedboat attack.”

And by the way, I said it could happen. I didn’t say it was going to happen.

Alas, despite the best efforts of any ideologues, science is still a powerful force for understanding our world…

Science has always had fakes and frauds and paid-advocates for special interests, as well as simple contrarians. They are always cast aside in the fullness of time.

As we build new energy sources to take America into the 21st Century, feel free to cast all the stones you want…

And, um.. I have an ilk?

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 11, 2008 at 1:50 pm

“Back to your ad hominem mantra eh cosmos?

Poor lad, it’s all he’s got left.”
——————–

No, and I’ve got science.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

All that mult-nic’d ‘Regular’ has is bogus claims, like E. G. Beck’s.
—————————–
Explain to everyone why it is bogus cosmos.

Explain to everyone that these measurements were taken long before anyone had a global warming agenda like you.

Explain to everyone how many of the scientists on the list are Nobel Prize winners and were collecting samples under peer-reviewed circumstances.

Explain to others why you cannot resist from attacking other posters and scientists even though you are not a scientist cosmos.

Explain to others your agenda cosmos. It’s not for the benefit of mankind now is it?

Explain why you cannot discuss topics in a mature manner cosmos.

okobserver
Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
I’m curious Chas since you have reduced the earths temperature to a mean average one – what would that number be?

By the way answering your long winded rants with logic isn’t whining. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
=========================================

1) I made no claim to have any numbers.

2) I simply pointed out how the average temperature might be calculated… Please dont tell me that isnt the way an AVERAGE is calculated…

3) From the looks of your “whining” I would say YOU are still lacking in reading comprehension, since you insist on posting about things YOU think I said, that I simply did NOT say!!

4) Although that is one of your few favorite tricks, it doesnt work on thinking people… I will not sit here and defend to you something I didnt say, only to have you point out that I am doing the very thing you try to get me to do… Wont work anymore, OKOB… Just wont work!!

LAST —-

Regular…. There could be no Average taken between my stove top and the temperature INSIDE the freezer box, OR chill box… Dunce, the freezer box and chill box are enclosed, and can thus NOT interact with the air currents that surround the stove top temperature… Moreover, Those would be two temperatures INSIDE the house… a closed environment…

We are looking at Temperatures on a WORLD WIDE Basis, when it comes to average earth temperatures…. And it isnt for a day or week… more like months and years….

Do try to stay on the subject, ok??

Chas
Posted July 11, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

LAST —-

Regular…. There could be no Average taken between my stove top and the temperature INSIDE the freezer box, OR chill box… Dunce, the freezer box and chill box are enclosed, and can thus NOT interact with the air currents that surround the stove top temperature… Moreover, Those would be two temperatures INSIDE the house… a closed environment…

We are looking at Temperatures on a WORLD WIDE Basis, when it comes to average earth temperatures…. And it isnt for a day or week… more like months and years…
——————–
Okay, how about this.

The average temperature for some periods of the last 10,000 years have been an increase or 2.5 degrees in a 100 year period.

The average temperature for the last century according to alarmists has been 0.8 degrees in 100 years.

Now what?

BTW, SOME folks here wouldnt accept your 10,000 year claim…. :-)

Chas, what is the percentage of LOL, ROFL, !!, & ?? in your daily average post? Oh and of course a spread sheet is acceptable.

Thank You,

Donk DDS

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,

Do you disagree with any of Dr. Georg Hoffmann’s points about E. G. Beck’s CO2 claims?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future
————————
Hoffman is entitled to his opinion on a blog, which RealClimate is. It is not peer-reviewed science on realclimate.org, it’s opinion pieces.

The scientists back then had no global warming or a climate agenda when they conducted their experiments.

Hoffman has an agenda and if one takes raw, measurable data and tries to make something it isn’t, of course one will come up with different explanations.

If one is to look at the data as a collection of empirical data using scientific methods, then the data cannot be disputed for what it is.

Photosynthesis utilizes co2 as well, but one certainly couldn’t take the study and use it for proof of anything concerning photosynthesis.

The data is what it is, collected data.

Chas I leave for hours and you are still around whining, acting like you are an expert on GW, and putting down anyone who doesn’t follow your convaluted thought processes.

Thank goodness there are few on this blog that do.

You GW bloggers really make me laugh —- here you are in the middle of no where kansas — the closest thing you have to a weather station is a wet finger and an old gas station thermomemter and you want everyone to believe you are some sort of experts because you read a book / took a class / clipped an article — get a grip Kansans

ya gotta have something more consttructive to discuss — 9 months at least of insults on gw —- what fools —

70 Dodge Charger White w/ red leather bucket seats – new baby fit nicely between the 2 front seats in his carrier on the console —-

So, Regular, one more time here… Tell me what the average increase in world wide temperatures is in the past FORTY(40) years??

Chas
Posted July 11, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
Now, I am quite bored with the entire Global Warming thing… This has gone on for entirely too many days this week… Time to move to something else for a while…
=========================================

NOW, Granny Okie Dope…. Please note when I posted the above comment…. And then, lets see you find somewhere that I put anybody down over global warming???

Geez! Don’t shoot me.

I’m sorry Chas I forgot to mention how frightened I was of your out of control keyboard. I am literally shaking in my boots. Please not the ‘out of control keyboard’. Is that like waterboarding?

Chas
Posted July 11, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
Spin it all you want Granny…. you still havent shown where I put anybody down over global warming… Which I have, however, said numerous times, I dont know the statistics… only what I observe…. Why dont you find THOSE posts??? Hmmmm????
——————–
Chas you haven’t shown where I said you put people down. I said you protrayed yourself as an expert and we all know that isn’t so in GW or anything else.

Chas you really need to work on yur anger problem. There is help available out there. If you can’t locate it let me know and I will find some for you. Your head could burst with this much pressure.

okobserver
Posted July 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
Chas I leave for hours and you are still around whining, acting like you are an expert on GW, and putting down anyone who doesn’t follow your convaluted thought processes.
========================================

AND WHADDYA KNOW…. THERE’S ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR LIES ABOUT ME PUTTING DOWN PEOPLE….

NOW YOU DONT JUST EXHIBIT A READING PROBLEM, YOU SEEM TO HAVE SPOUTED A MEMORY PROBLEM ON TOP OF IT…. MAYBE YOU BETTER GO SEE SOMEBODY…. I AM DOING JUST FINE, GRANNY!!

Chas
Posted July 10, 2008 at 10:50 am | Permalink
If more people understood the legislative process, and how things move through Congress, instead of listening to the news hounds, that approval rating would be significntly higher…

Chas
Posted July 10, 2008 at 11:10 am | Permalink
Sol, are you really so ignorant of the capabilities and contacts of the RR, when it comes to their obsessive interest in forcing Armageddon??

—————————
Just a couple of your putdowns from yesterday Chas. Funny that a minister would be making fun of the ‘RR’ isn’t it.

Your words speak so loud I can’t hear your keystrokes.

It’s Friday night and I have to pack. Flying to DC in the morning. Wasted too much time on you today. Be happy in your delusional world where you are all things to all people.

Just a couple of your putdowns from yesterday Chas. Funny that a minister would be making fun of the ‘RR’ isn’t it.

tHAT FIRST ONE??? NOT EVEN CLOSE… HOW IS A FACT A PUYDOWN???

SECOND ONE?? HEY MANY PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT OF THE AGENDA OF THE RR… SEEMED TO ME SOL MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE… NO PPUTDOWN THERE YOU CRAZY WENCH!! WHY DONT YOU JUST STAY IN DC….

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 11, 2008 at 4:48 pm

“The data is what it is, collected data.”
——————-

Correct.

The “data” does not consider the problems caused by nearby natural and anthropogenic CO2 sources.

That’s why in the 1930’s, Callendar analyzed the late 19th Century data, including wind direction and speed, etc, and found a CO2 level of close to 290 ppm during that time.

In 1986, Eric From and Charles Keeling reanalyzed Callendar’s work and the data, and found new evidence to support Callendar’s claim.

Perhaps you will be lucky enough to have a “stroke” as well Germ.

We can only hope!

Yeah Dog, things can change while your isolated.

Not so much anymore, but an assignment to a remote location can put you in weirdsville when one returns to the world (USA.)

Because one back in the day had no TV and usually no radio and the news was from the Stars and Stripes (military newspaper.)

When you come back, everyone appears to be in a rush, they are talking about stuff you never heard of, prices change, people actually speak English to you and fad things come out.

Then, you ease down in your recliner, pick up the remote and all is right. :)

SOMEONE needs to address the FILTHY equipment being used at Wesley. I am floored that they would allow such dirty equipment to be used.

I saw the base of an IV pole that looked like it hadn’t been cleaned in MONTHS if not years. I used to clean medical equipment and that is totally unacceptable. The base of the bed was just as bad…and this is a time when everything must be cleaned thorougly to prevent the spread of MRSA and VRE. And yeah, it DOES matter.

I’m ok, just another death. 4 in a 2 week period is too much for anyone.

Yeah, PMom, that’s hard. I’m sorry. Hard to see any silver lining when the dark clouds keep coming. Chin up! You helped! Whatever time you cared for them was better because of you.

Did you ever get to feeling lots of relief from the epidural?

Grm,

I think they technically call the mustang you had a 64 1/2 – but they were officially called ‘65 mustangs. One way you could tell if you had a 64 1/2 was that the 289 c.i. engine had a generator rather than an alternator.

My first car was a 64 1/2 – it was a hard top and it had a four barrel carborator. It was light and very fast. Won a drag racing trophey with it.

Yes Steven you are right about the 1/2. They came out midyear. The 65 had a more rounded back light and didn’t have the sporty look – long and sleek I liked. It was fast. I was a newly wed and it was our first big purchase. I kept it until I had my second son and then my husband decided we needed a station wagon. Even my grandkids give him a hard time over getting rid of it. I still have the pics.

My husband bought a chevy pu in 65. Brand new for $1900. Standard shift and no power steering or brakes. We sold it in 1995 for $1500. It had one door scrunch, the result of our oldest and his first year to drive in 1980. It had less that 100,000 original miles.

I love my little Prius now but it just doesn’t bring out the emotions that Mustang did.

Gets a little rainy in DC this time of year… rode my Motorcycle there one year… just before July 4th… Sis lived down in Newport News, and we spent the 4th in Williamsburg… It was a trip of a lifetime… BUT…. I got rained on more on that trip than any other road trip I ever took… before that, or after!!

Chas, what is the percentage of LOL, ROFL, !!, & ?? in your daily average post? Oh and of course a spread sheet is acceptable.

Thank You,

Donk, DDS

Foolishness is anything that can be considered horseplay, goofing off, blasphemous, inappropriate, or (rather obviously) foolish.
It can also refer to unnecessary, pointless, or non-beneficial actions and comments of a group of people, as in, “Once this groups of bloggers are done with all their foolishness, they can get back to work. (Not a chance with this bunch)
There appears to be, as always, more foolishness than something of merit going on here.

Notwithstanding a slip of football teams, the name ‘Steel Curtain’ was coined in 1971 on a Pittsburgh Radio Station.

McCain was held prisoner until 1973.

McCain gave up the names when he was CAPTURED…

Regular — THINK MAN… If he is in the Hanoi Hilton until 1973… HE WOULDNT KNOW WHO WAS PLAYING FOR THE STEELERS, OR FOR THE PACKERS AT THAT POINT… McCain wouldnt have KNOWN about that Pittsburgh radio station being that he was stashed away in Hanoi!!

“”When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup — defensive line — of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron-mates!”

It’s a great story, and something that may help him pull in votes in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, but it’s almost assuredly untrue. If you’re picturing McCain naming Mean Joe Greene, Dwight White, Ernie Holmes and L.C. Greenwood, you’d be off by about six years. McCain was shot down in 1967, two years before Chuck Noll was hired, and two years before Greene was drafted. The Steel Curtain wasn’t the Steel Curtain until 1972 and Franco’s Immaculate Reception.When McCain was shot down, the Steelers were one of the worst teams in the NFL, in a stretch of six straight losing seasons. When McCain became a prisoner of war, the Steelers front four consisted of Ken Kortas, Chuck Hinton, Ben McGee and Lloyd Voss–I can only tell you that because I looked it up. Be honest, can anyone out there say they could have named those four without checking the Internet?”

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=721215

#
Chas
Posted July 11, 2008 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

Main Point — There WAS NO Steel Curtain when McCain was captured….
————————
The name for the ‘Steel Curtain’ was coined in a radio contest in Pittsburg in 1971.

John McCain was held prisoner from 1968 and finally released in 1973.

Perhaps a new prisoner told him about the “steel curtain” or maybe he was pandering to a Pittsburg audience.

Who cares, you were wrong about the ‘Steel Curtain’ date.

Must be an Obama and Obama follower thing with getting numbers wrong.

(chortles)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm is a treasure trove of data…

Thanks for sharing the link..

So sad our choices (for now) this election.

One choice is a man who was told when to eat, drink, and poop for five years all while being beaten to enforce it.

The other is a panderer who actually thinks we should consider such folk as McCain and his supporters as marginally sane and able to be worked with.

My enemies are domestic. I want a candidate to defend me against them. It aint Barack and it aint McCain.

James — go argue your point with NFL.com

Not to mention the Article I linked to above…

McCain could NOT have talked about the Steel Curtain of the Steelers when he was captured in 1967/68 — The term, according to the Article I linked, was not adopted until 1972, and the Immaculate Reception… What a catch that was!!!

James, I have no idea where you are getting your information — But it disagrees with everything thats been all over the news ALL day…

Steelers Gaffe >>>>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25646180#25646180

New poster here!

Great site.

I am just now poking around and looking at everything.

I have to say i appreciate the opportunity to share and post feedback here.

Thanks, best of luck moving forward.

CanoSpinach

Howdy everybody,

I’m new to the place and thought i’d mark in and say how great I notion of this site is!

Thankyou for having me
Frank