Global Warming The debbil made me do it

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article
,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US technical
advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.

so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
anihilation

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our survival


Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who couldnt see
that seems to have proliferated, though.

everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants


bleaaahhhh

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

In article ,
Talk-n-Dog wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article
,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
Dan wrote in
:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm unilaterally.
They also insisted that it was US technical advances and weapon
fielding that was destabilizing.
so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our anihilation

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness
No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our survival

There was diplomacy on Aliens to ensure our survival and we're still
surviving.... Damn, that Diplomacy and everybody agreeing works to
save us every time.

if youre talking about the weaver movie
hey dude that was a movie - twerent real

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article
9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal mair_fh...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US technical
advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.

so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
anihilation

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to insure our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our survival


Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who couldnt
see
that seems to have proliferated, though.

everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants

True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.

i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
takes one deep breath
and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

"Dan" wrote:

You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.

More empty hand waving.

You haven't come up with a thing to show that that scientists are using
"phony-baloney cooked up numbers."

Nothing but wind.

And the Oregon Petition, of course.

So I'll be very clear, and quote no one to substantiate my claims
because:

1) no matter which "peer reviewed research" is provided you will
dismiss it

You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.


2) you can do your own leg work, but clearly you don't care to

I've done it. You obviously haven't.

Go listen to some more talk radio, why don't you? That's about your speed.


So here you go, one last time: Global Warming due to Man Made Causes
which will result in a 20 foot rise in Ocean levels is a Crock Of
Unmitigated ****.

More gas from the gas bag. You haven't backed up a thing you've said because
you can't.


I'll stick around that long and be sure to point it out to you.

What happened to your promise to go away?

About as reliable as everything else you post, evidently.

"Dan Luke" wrote in
:


"Dan" wrote:

You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little
tactics, same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity
hand- wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."),
same name- calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.

More empty hand waving.

You haven't come up with a thing to show that that scientists are
using "phony-baloney cooked up numbers."

Nothing but wind.

And the Oregon Petition, of course.

So I'll be very clear, and quote no one to substantiate my claims
because:

1) no matter which "peer reviewed research" is provided you will
dismiss it

You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.




You misunderestimate the number of major fools out there.


Bertie

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 05:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 8, 3:22 am, Roger wrote:


FACT: The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because
of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent
in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of
the various forcing agents...a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes
during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also
noted that 20 years' worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-
term trends.

That was on 01. They've changed their minds

You mean they were wrong before?
No, the consensus was based on available and up-to-date information at
the time. Since then new, better, and wider ranging information has
become available.

You have to remember too that most of these scientists have to be
careful about stepping on the toes of any particular administration in
power at the time if they wish to keep the grant money coming in. As
the present administration was quite anti global warming and has now
only grudgingly admitted the mankind's contribution those scientists
public reports were ultra conservative. Several leading
climatologists (one from NASA and a couple from the IPC- If you need
names I can replay the recording) have been on the educational
channels recently explaining just how careful they had to be and the
figures they gave the IPC were only a fraction of what their research
showed as possible.



How very interesting....


Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 9, 6:07 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
You know, your kind has been around a while. In the 80's it was the
anti-nuke crowd. Same look, same methods, same chicken little tactics,
same "concerned scientists," same power grab, same celebrity hand-
wringing ("I Hope the Russians Love their children too.."), same name-
calling, same phony-baloney cooked up numbers.

What happened to your promise to go away?



I decided to **** you off just a little bit more.

Very entertaining, that.

:-)

Dan

"Dan" wrote:

What happened to your promise to go away?



I decided to **** you off just a little bit more.

You need to keep it up a lot longer to manage that.

Very entertaining, that.

Mm-hm. You don't have to come up with any real arguments because you're just
"playing around."

It's all just for fun. Right.

The last refuge of the usenet loser.

But by all means, keep it up.

I'm patient, and I love outing bull****ters. Very entertaining.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

You don't have any; it's obvious. You're fooling no one.




You misunderestimate the number of major fools out there.


****.

Now I'm depressed.

Dan Luke wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
warming
scenario.
Really? Name two.
Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm


HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

I don't know anything about this petition, but how about this?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13541


or this?

http://www.startribune.com/local/11826671.html


Matt