Puppeteer

Author Topic: Global Warming  (Read 41205 times)

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #75 on: January 18, 2009, 11:57:53 PM »
You're absolutely right Bob & Dave et. al.   The Pine Beetle has been been around forever, just not in the numbers they are now!  I remember hunting in the '70s and seeing beetle killed trees here and there, maybe 2 or 3 in a day.  Now, however they have multiplied beyond belief and are killing the forest industry in BC.  It has up until now been the single most important industry in the West.  Not anymore.  To kill the beetles, it needs to be -40 for a few days in the fall, or -40 for a couple of weeks later in the year.  Not going to happen with global warming.  It'd take many years of "colder than normal "  climate to reverse any changes that have been building up steam for the last 20 or 30 years (remember global warming has been happening on an exponential curve.  :o

It's not the guy's name I can't spell, it's "entemologist"  or whatever it is.  ::)

And Yes, I'd take the word of a guy who has nothing to gain either way, and that I can look in his eyes when he's saying it over some guy from a college in the states that may or may not be funded by Exxon who is sitting in an ice fishing hut in the arctic drilling holes and finding that the ice is thicker than it has been since 1979 or whatever.

btw.....Whatever happened to that bunch of scientists that have allegedly turned their opinion on global warming around and were going to write a big report on how bogus it really is, last Thursday?  I've been searching around and can't find anything about it on the net.  Now maybe I've missed it, or could it be that maybe our "Slanty" award winning friend (Mark Maranus??) was just blowing smoke again?  ::)
Stan

rpg52

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #76 on: January 19, 2009, 12:21:04 AM »
Interesting discussion, so, here’s my $0.02.  Several clarifying points - weather is not climate, weather is what you experience, climate is an abstract, a derived average of a number of years of weather.  You may be freezing or sweating, it is irrelevant to whether the climate is actually changing.   

What seems (IMHO) to be irrefutable is that human activity has changed the proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere.  The years of measurement up on the top of Mona Loa (the highest volcano in Hawaii) establishes the current proportions.  Global CO2 is apparently very hard to measure, though the methods are easy.  A team of horses passing by would alter the measurements, throwing off all measurements made prior to ~1960 or so.  Mona Loa sticks up into the trade winds, with thousands of miles of atmospheric mixing across the Pacific Ocean to occur before the measurements are made.  The upward trends cannot be argued with.  The lower limits (pre- Industrial Revolution) are derived from air entrained in ice from deep cores extracted from Greenland.  Again, one can argue with them but they seem based on pretty good science.  Yeah, I’ve repeatedly heard the story about a volcano spewing more than all humanity, haven’t seen a compelling argument supporting it though. 

Then there is the question about whether the change in CO2 is actually causing the change in climate.  Lots of argument on all sides, seems like the consensus is that it is changing - melting glaciers, plants and animals moving up in elevation.  Not conclusive, but lots of evidence.  In my opinion (worth a lot to me, maybe not so much to others), we likely should start doing something to reduce our use of hydrocarbons, especially those derived from plants more than a million years old. 

Like many in this thread have already said - population is the real problem.  (Is there anyone out there that denies that human population growth is out of hand?)  It is coal and oil that has allowed our population to go crazy - without it, even with all the miracle sanitation and medicine advances, our population wouldn’t exceed 3-4 billion - likely less.  Unless we are unlike every other animal population, if we don’t curb it, something will cause it to crash - with unfortunate consequences for those going through the crunch.  (Pick your consequence, war, famine or pestilence, none seem like much fun to me.)  So, can we rely on rational actions to curb our consumption?  If everyone thought like Mobile Bob, we might all be able to reason with them.  Unfortunately, most humans tend to do the cheapest and easiest thing, meaning we may need some kind of regulation.  Those living in a democracy can all demand that the regulation be transparent, and based on some kind of logic so that everyone can see where the $ goes, and how.  It would set a good example, but, as always, is subject to politics, meaning someone is going to get screwed.  So, should we not try? Don’t have the answer, just asking the question.
Ray   ;)
PS Listeroid 6/1, 5 kW ST, Detroit Diesel 3-71, Belsaw sawmill, 12 kW ST head, '71 GMC 3/4 T, '79 GMC 1T, '59 IH T-340

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2009, 01:52:25 AM »
There is, in progressive circles, a certain fascination with those apocalyptic prophecies that seem to hold so many religious conservatives in thrall. From the sensation over the megaselling Left Behind book series to more recent media flare-ups around figures such as John Hagee (the television pastor of countdown-to-Armageddon fame), the end times seem to be looming at all times.

Turn your attention to a strain of thought ascendant in secular, environmentalist America and you might be surprised to find a similar apocalypse fixation, minus the Book of Revelation and anti-Christ parts. Call it the secular theology of environmental collapse — the fearful conviction that the hopelessly corrupt world as we know it has entered its death throes, with massive destruction stalking ever nearer.

Given the huge challenges facing this country and the constant barrage of "be afraid!" messages from politics and pulpits, it's understandable that many of us have a close relationship with dread.

Yet we should remain wary of doomsday fantasizing, in either its religious or secular form. For history shows that such thinking, whether it revolves around the wrath of God or the rage of nature, has a way of embarrassing the doomsayers — and, more important, hampering much needed progress along the way.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

Climate data is not exactly a secret piece of data collected only by and for the secret society of leftist climate scientists, most countries' meteorological data can be purchased at pretty reasonable rate.

Plus there's the issue that much of the data pointing towards a global warming comes from ocean measurements, and that the overall positive temperature anomalies from satellite thermal images seems greatest in very sparsely populated areas.

Record Snowfall
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/indianheadpark/homepage/x1017440124/Record-snowfall-plunging-temperatures-hit-the-area
Wicked Cold Temp
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/brutal.cold.day.2.908889.html
Record Cold in 95 years
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/how_cold_is_it_flints_95yearol.html

now here is a good one from a real GCC change heretic
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

In summary....
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myer: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.





There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2009, 01:55:27 AM »
Psé! Forget about Global Warming with Industrial Revolution. We were doomed from the moment we stopped hunting mammoths.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217190433.htm

Quote:

"The common wisdom is that the invention of the steam engine and the advent of the coal-fueled industrial age marked the beginning of human influence on global climate.
But gathering physical evidence, backed by powerful simulations on the world's most advanced computer climate models, is reshaping that view and lending strong support to the radical idea that human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe.
What's more, according to the same computer simulations, the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age, altering a clockwork rhythm of periodic cooling of the planet that extends back more than a million years."

We have been killing Gaia for so long

There´s more.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81218094551.htm

"The power of viruses is well documented in human history. Swarms of little viral Davids have repeatedly laid low the great Goliaths of human civilization, most famously in the devastating pandemics that swept the New World during European conquest and settlement.
In recent years, there has been growing evidence for the hypothesis that the effect of the pandemics in the Americas wasn't confined to killing indigenous peoples. Global climate appears to have been altered as well.
Stanford University researchers have conducted a comprehensive analysis of data detailing the amount of charcoal contained in soils and lake sediments at the sites of both pre-Columbian population centers in the Americas and in sparsely populated surrounding regions. They concluded that reforestation of agricultural lands—abandoned as the population collapsed—pulled so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it helped trigger a period of global cooling, at its most intense from approximately 1500 to 1750, known as the Little Ice Age."

See? If we die in large numbers, Gaia gets cooler.
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2009, 02:05:00 AM »
Oh just found this this is topical :D

-----------------------------------------------------------
Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
November 25, 2008 01:22 PM EST

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.

So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma, Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.

“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”

The global cooling lobby’s challenge is enormous. Next year could be the unfriendliest yet for climate skeptics. Already, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) has lost his gavel, in part because his peers felt he was less than serious about tackling global warming.

The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions. But a small, growing number of scientists, including D’Aleo, are questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.

“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. “Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conservationists at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.”

D’Aleo’s organization, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is collaborating on the campaign with the Cooler Heads Coalition, a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition with members including Americans for Tax Reform, the National Center for Policy Analysis and Citizens for a Sound Economy.

More than 31,000 scientists across the world have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, a declaration started by a group of American scientists that states man’s impact on climate change can’t be reasonably proven.

If the project gains traction, it might give skeptical lawmakers an additional weapon to fight cap-and-trade legislation to curtail greenhouse gases — a move they worry could damage the already fragile economy. At the least, congressional aides say, it could caution additional lawmakers from rushing into a hasty piece of legislation.

Many Hill skeptics have varying opinions on whether the earth’s temperature is warming more slowly than some environmentalists predict and how much man is actually contributing to it.

Inhofe’s staff has been steadily compiling a list of global cooling findings. And aides report that they have received countless e-mails from scientists worldwide supporting the theory. While Inhofe hasn’t indicated that he will move forward with the information anytime soon, his aides continue to compile it.

Republicans aren’t the only ones who are wary of hastily passing a greenhouse gas bill. Ten Democrats wrote to Senate leaders earlier this year, citing economic concerns as a key reason why they didn’t vote for the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill.

And despite Democrats’ pickups in the Senate this fall, several of the new Democrats are from conservative, energy-producing states and may not be supportive, either.

But congressional aides say it could be a long wait before lawmakers are comfortable pushing science that contradicts the global warming theory. And until the lobby gains traction, skeptics plan to continue pushing their ideas by arguing for protection of the economy, where they hope to meet middle ground with global warming supporters.

“Never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer nonsolutions to problems that do not exist,” said Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “We could spend weeks arguing the mounting scientific evidence refuting man-made warming fears,” he added, “but it’s the economic arguments that have the most immediate impact.”

At the Cato Institute, senior fellow Patrick Michaels, a contributing author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said most of Washington is already too deeply entrenched in the global warming mantra to turn back.

“You can’t expect the scientific community to now come to Washington and say this isn’t a problem. Once the apocalypse begins to deliver research dollars, you don’t want to reverse it,” said Michaels. “Washington works by lurching from crisis to crisis.”

Despite the growing science, the world’s leading crusader on climate change, Al Gore, is unconcerned.

“Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don’t believe we landed on the moon,” said the former vice president’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. “We don’t think this should distract us from the reality.”
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #80 on: January 19, 2009, 02:14:49 AM »
so we need to reduce population, and kill beetle's?

not being ready to cash in my chips anytime soon, how bout a show of hands of who is prepared to do so
to save planet earth?

waiting....

and about these pesky beetle's,, how do we get rid of them?

even if the carbon issue is at the root of the problem, if we stop burning oil/coal tomorrow, it will take 50 years
to see a decline, that is if (a big if) carbon is the real issue after all.

and we all know we ain't gonna stop burning oil/coal tomorrow or anytime soon.

so whats the answer?

still waiting on how we kill the beetle's

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #81 on: January 19, 2009, 03:06:32 AM »
Snipe
so whats the answer?

still waiting on how we kill the beetle's

bob g

Introduce them to Yoko Ono??
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #82 on: January 19, 2009, 03:17:49 AM »
Oh this is good,,, poor data... screws up the Hockeystick chart... interresting it was killed by a Canadian
===============================================

The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/16/do1610.xml
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #83 on: January 19, 2009, 04:17:17 AM »
Still waiting to see if Mr. Morano's blog promising a plethora of "real Scientists" will publish a report refuting global warming last thursday has come true?  Anyone seen it?

It's been well established that global warming nay-sayers aren't trying to "prove" anything.  All they want, indeed all they have to do is introduce a "sense of doubt" in the general public there by making it harder  for politicians in the democratic system to support it.  It's a well established ploy, common in elections.  Sow doubt and if enough people buy into the doubt, it'll be very hard to get elected.

Unfortunately, it's the same ploy common on supermarket magazine shelves in certain "newspapers".  BILLY BOB THORNTON GAVE BIRTH TO 2 HEADED SEMI-ALIEN  BABY IN SECRET HOSPITAL IN SWITZERLAND".   ;D

Stan



mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #84 on: January 19, 2009, 04:45:09 AM »
Stan:

i still wanna know

how you gonna kill the damned beetle's?

algore and his ilk have an agenda that is based on

"create the crisis and provide the solution"

when mechanic's do that they are sued, as are various other professions

as a mechanic if i tell a customer "hey your shocks are bad, and you need them replaced"
when there is no solid evidence of them actually being bad, is tantamount to
creating a crisis and providing a solution... in which case i seperate a worried customer from his money.

anytime the lead man is a politician folks should automatically be skeptical, in my opinion.

if algore really believes this hype he of all people should be leading by example, which btw he certainly is not
he flies all over hells half acre in an old and inefficient jet dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere with abandon
flying mainly just himself.

much like the big three ceo's flying in to testify to congress in seperate corporate jets,, congress and the rest of us
had a fit about that didn't we?

yet i am led to believe i should follow the old saw that goes

"don't do as i do, rather do as i say"

bullshit with that!

maybe you have drank the koolaid, but i ain't that thirsty yet

:)

bob g

ps. don't forget,, i still wanna know what your thoughts are on killing the beetle's
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #85 on: January 19, 2009, 05:08:34 AM »
Bob, We can't! (killl the beetles!)  Only widespread, prolonged lack of heat (since there's no such thing as cold  ::) ) can do that and short of building a many thousand square mile refrigerator, it's not possible.  Oh we could burn off the whole province, but hell, where's the profit in that?


As far as having a mechanic tell me my shocks are shot and I need new ones, what percentage of the population just says "Ok, I trust you, besides it's only a hundred bucks or so and what's the downside, do it, how much?" vs the ones that say "ok I'll just carry on driving on them even though they may be dangerous to my safety and my family's safety and maybe some innocent schmuk driving down the highway when I lose controll and cross over into their lane and kill them along with my family. 

As for trusting pro and con global warming types, I look at "what's in it for them?"  Not too much for the tree huggers, or even Al, (he doesn't need the bucks he makes from speaking engagements)  but there sure is a lot in it for exxon!  ???

Stan

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #86 on: January 19, 2009, 11:28:32 AM »
not much in it for tree huggers and algore?

seriously?


algore gets a nobel peace prize? how much more is there than that? getting that along with notoriety
equate to millions of dollars in speaking engagement fee's, and i am surprised he didn't also get his face on the wheetie's box.

tree huggers?  only millions of dollars in grants to fund more research, donations and such from other well meaning but misguided souls
to start with, coupled with having something to live for, direction in their lives and power over others to spread their sickness.

Stan, your twist on the mechanic analogy proves my point,
you figure most folks will say, heck it only costs me a couple hundred bucks and that way i can drive safe, whats the down side?
the downside is no different with global warming, the GW folks package it much the same way, leaving the masses to think the very same thing.  "whats the downside, it only costs me a few bucks so i can go on driving the planet safely"

the only problem is much like the crooked mechanic, its shocks today, brakes tomorrow, tires the next, tie rods next week, oh hell new car next month,,, and the next thing is one finds himself much like the proverbial "frog in the pot of water" thinking he is swimming along just fine till one day he wakes up and he is cooked.

to think big oil is the force behind the defeat of global warming is flawed as well, in case you haven't noticed, they have bought into and in some cases bought out wind, solar, bio and other AE technologies,, they want the globab warming issue to succeed, because they get huge tax breaks, government grants and other perks from the government,, actually they win on both sides of the argument,, much like a casino
they have all sides covered and stand to make bank no matter what happens. Think about it, they have the oil and will continue to have it
so it matters little whether they sell it now, tomorrow, next week, year or decade,, its a mature revenue stream for them.
in reality they would much rather see the freakout over global warming because it pushes the masses toward other AE fuels, which they control larger percentages of each day,, which means millions/billions of dollars of profits, grants and tax breaks.

we are being played by the puppet masters, those that stand to make milllions, billions and someday trillions of dollars off of us, because
they have stacked the deck to favor them no matter what happens.

remember r12 and the ozone hole, who spent millions of dollars lobbying congress about r12 burning a hole in the ozone?
Dupont, who by some chance of fate had r134 ready to go and coincidentally the r12 patents were running out.

create the crisis, provide the solution?

bob g

otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

lowspeedlife

  • old iron for a new age
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • no i'm not no cowboy
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #87 on: January 19, 2009, 01:18:25 PM »
didn't al gore & hank paulson (US Treasury secretary) set up the company that will oversee the "carbon credit" scam basically putting them in charge of it? that seems like some benefit don't it? Obviously paulson is a genious bacause the 850 billion dollars of my money, that he gave to his friends in the banking industry sure did fix the economy didn't it?


         Scott R.
Scott R.

5.7 liter diesel k-5 blazer. converting to wvo.
omega 20/2 listeroid

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #88 on: January 19, 2009, 03:39:17 PM »
Never heard about that one!

You do bring up a great point Bob...I don't need Al Gore to tell me that my province is getting warmer.  We used to complain about cold winter temps when the -40 stuff lasted longer than a month.  Now it rarely ever gets that cold so I know he's telling the truth.  I don't need exxon to tell me it's not getting warmer.  I can look, and feel, and smell and touch stuff that tell me that it is, that's how I know they are lying to me.  Heck, I can even lick a flagpole in winter nowadays and not suffer the consequences, what more evidence do I need?  ;D
Stan

btw...Have you heard about a report from hundreds of disaffected scientists at that conference in Europe publishing a report about how bogus global warming is?  Our friend Mark Morano wrote in his blog (see earlier post this thread) that this so-called report would be published last Thursday.  I can't find any clues to it.  I guess I'm just clueless  ;D
Stan
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 04:12:31 PM by Stan »

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #89 on: January 19, 2009, 04:16:18 PM »
Stan, be reasonable.  Have you in your lifetime ever licked a flagpole in BC and got yourself stuck.  :P
 Had you done that in Ottawa last week... and it would appear this week you would be calling 911... or someone watching would ... you hope LOL
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...