Re: OT: More proof that "global warming" is commie bullshit

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns98E853FDB3A25FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=blue]
> In message news:1172874439.485786.153020@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, ToMh
> sprach forth the following:
>[color=green]
>> And there are far more scientists that say man made green house gases
>> are greatly speeding up global warming.[/color]
>
> Based on what? Where is the link? It has NOT been established. At all.
> One bit.
>
> Why do you believe that the sun - the earth's SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT - is not
> responsible for fluctuations in heat? It takes a pretty stupid person to
> believe that, don't you think?[/color]

Now you're calling the President of the United States "stupid:"
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html[/url]

In message news:QEeGh.376$3i.126@trnddc01, Jeff sprach forth the
following:
[color=blue]
>
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E853FDB3A25FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=green]
>> In message news:1172874439.485786.153020@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
>> ToMh sprach forth the following:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> And there are far more scientists that say man made green house gases
>>> are greatly speeding up global warming.[/color]
>>
>> Based on what? Where is the link? It has NOT been established. At
>> all. One bit.
>>
>> Why do you believe that the sun - the earth's SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT - is
>> not responsible for fluctuations in heat? It takes a pretty stupid
>> person to believe that, don't you think?[/color]
>
> Now you're calling the President of the United States "stupid:"[/color]

The President of the United States IS stupid.

And you still haven't shown me the link between man and climate. And you
won't.

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns98E87144B97B6FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=blue]
> In message news:QEeGh.376$3i.126@trnddc01, Jeff sprach forth the
> following:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E853FDB3A25FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=darkred]
>>> In message news:1172874439.485786.153020@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
>>> ToMh sprach forth the following:
>>>
>>>> And there are far more scientists that say man made green house gases
>>>> are greatly speeding up global warming.
>>>
>>> Based on what? Where is the link? It has NOT been established. At
>>> all. One bit.
>>>
>>> Why do you believe that the sun - the earth's SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT - is
>>> not responsible for fluctuations in heat? It takes a pretty stupid
>>> person to believe that, don't you think?[/color]
>>
>> Now you're calling the President of the United States "stupid:"[/color]
>
> The President of the United States IS stupid.
>
> And you still haven't shown me the link between man and climate. And you
> won't.[/color]


Are you suggesting that our activities have absolutely NO effect on global
warming? I'm just curious.

In message news:OghGh.195$Ih.131@trnddc02, Jeff sprach forth the
following:
[color=blue]
>
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E87144B97B6FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=green]
>> In message news:QEeGh.376$3i.126@trnddc01, Jeff sprach forth the
>> following:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns98E853FDB3A25FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
>>>> In message
>>>> news:1172874439.485786.153020@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, ToMh
>>>> sprach forth the following:
>>>>
>>>>> And there are far more scientists that say man made green house
>>>>> gases are greatly speeding up global warming.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what? Where is the link? It has NOT been established. At
>>>> all. One bit.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you believe that the sun - the earth's SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT -
>>>> is not responsible for fluctuations in heat? It takes a pretty
>>>> stupid person to believe that, don't you think?
>>>
>>> Now you're calling the President of the United States "stupid:"[/color]
>>
>> The President of the United States IS stupid.
>>
>> And you still haven't shown me the link between man and climate. And
>> you won't.[/color]
>
> There are plenty of web sites that discuss global warming.[/color]

Cite one showing a proven link between man and climate.
[color=blue]
> The experts who made the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have reviewed all the data,
> and came to the conclusion that they are some% (I think the number of
> 85%) sure that man was causing climate change.[/color]

Yeah, their report uses the word "likely" SIXTY SIX times.
[color=blue]
> You have the ability to go and learn about this on your own.[/color]

No I don't. I learn the truth. "Learning" lies is not "learning" at all.
[color=blue]
> Your correct: I won't show you the link between man and climate.[/color]

Because there isn't any. BTW, it's "you're", Einstein.

In message news:RjhGh.4023$B25.714@news01.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach
forth the following:
[color=blue]
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E87144B97B6FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=green]
>> In message news:QEeGh.376$3i.126@trnddc01, Jeff sprach forth the
>> following:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns98E853FDB3A25FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
>>>> In message
>>>> news:1172874439.485786.153020@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, ToMh
>>>> sprach forth the following:
>>>>
>>>>> And there are far more scientists that say man made green house
>>>>> gases are greatly speeding up global warming.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what? Where is the link? It has NOT been established. At
>>>> all. One bit.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you believe that the sun - the earth's SOLE SOURCE OF HEAT -
>>>> is not responsible for fluctuations in heat? It takes a pretty
>>>> stupid person to believe that, don't you think?
>>>
>>> Now you're calling the President of the United States "stupid:"[/color]
>>
>> The President of the United States IS stupid.
>>
>> And you still haven't shown me the link between man and climate. And
>> you won't.[/color]
>
>
> Are you suggesting that our activities have absolutely NO effect on
> global warming? I'm just curious.[/color]

Demonstrate a link between man and climate. That's all I'm asking.

Here, I'll start it for you:

When man __________________, temperatures rise because _________________

________________________________________________________________________.

Fill in the blanks with documented citations. Easy. Right?

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns98E878774BD85FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
<...>
[color=blue]
> Yeah, their report uses the word "likely" SIXTY SIX times.[/color]

It's "sixty-six," Einstein.

And the comma goes inside the quotation marks.

<...>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Your correct: I won't show you the link between man and climate.[/color]
>
> Because there isn't any. BTW, it's "you're", Einstein.[/color]

dbu, wrote:
[color=blue]
>We all have seen the results of cleaner air.[/color]

One result is more global warming than if air pollution laws had never
been enacted.

"Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote in message
news:jq-dnerTg-wO3XfYnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=blue]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:DGqGh.4055$B25.3422@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>> news:mhdku2l18rk6lbu9ic3hh4vb0bm9uhq57b@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:33:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:devju2da4no823vjn98idafo6tqanj4hil@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:31:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I haven't made any claims one way or the other about global warming. I
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>just curious if you'd brainwashed yourself into thinking that one of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>most basic tenets of physics was all wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us about one of the most basic tenets of physics.......
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would I waste my time trying to educate someone like you, who gave
>>>>up
>>>>learning 50 years ago?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps because you don't know and can't teach?
>>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>>
>>
>> You think I should try and compress 10 months of a basic physics course
>> into four words, just for you? Why didn't you take the course in high
>> school?[/color]
>
> As an aside: I didn't take Physics because I had a lousy HS science
> teacher. It was a small school (500 kids K-12), & granted, he had to teach
> all 4 HS sciences, but still... the guy was a crummy teacher. He didn't
> use prior knowledge when teaching new concepts, for example. I barely
> made it through Chemistry, & wasn't about to subject myself to another
> year of his inept teaching in a subject which I was quite sure wouldn't be
> one of my fortes, anyway. I had 3 sciences, would have 4 Maths & 4 years
> of language, so along w/ English & Soc. St. would have the credits needed
> for the diploma I wanted. Phew! My sister's several years younger than
> I; she lucked out & had that particular teacher for only 1 year before he
> retired, & much to her relief the new Science guy *could* teach. Didn't
> help me, but she lucked out.
>
> Cathy[/color]


I'm gonna guess that you don't question people's knowledge in areas where
you have none whatsoever, Cathy. Snott, on the other hand, makes a hobby out
of it. If info didn't come from a web link or a radio talk show, the
knowledge doesn't exist.

"Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:NEqGh.224$nf5.9@trnddc05...
[color=blue]
>
> One thing I don't agree with is the enviornmentalists' love of organic
> foods, either. Pesticides and artificial fertilizers decrease the amount
> of land needed to grow food.[/color]


Just one little problem with pesticides: They cannot be properly tested for
safety. Never have been, never will be. Let me know if you need the correct
definition of "properly tested". Or, think of pharmaceuticals and food
additives are tested (assuming no bribes to the FDA).

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:svAGh.4070$B25.1547@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote in message
> news:jq-dnerTg-wO3XfYnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:DGqGh.4055$B25.3422@news01.roc.ny...[color=darkred]
>>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mhdku2l18rk6lbu9ic3hh4vb0bm9uhq57b@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:33:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:devju2da4no823vjn98idafo6tqanj4hil@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:31:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I haven't made any claims one way or the other about global warming.
>>>>>>>I was
>>>>>>>just curious if you'd brainwashed yourself into thinking that one of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>most basic tenets of physics was all wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us about one of the most basic tenets of physics.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would I waste my time trying to educate someone like you, who gave
>>>>>up
>>>>>learning 50 years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because you don't know and can't teach?
>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>
>>>
>>> You think I should try and compress 10 months of a basic physics course
>>> into four words, just for you? Why didn't you take the course in high
>>> school?[/color]
>>
>> As an aside: I didn't take Physics because I had a lousy HS science
>> teacher. It was a small school (500 kids K-12), & granted, he had to
>> teach all 4 HS sciences, but still... the guy was a crummy teacher. He
>> didn't use prior knowledge when teaching new concepts, for example. I
>> barely made it through Chemistry, & wasn't about to subject myself to
>> another year of his inept teaching in a subject which I was quite sure
>> wouldn't be one of my fortes, anyway. I had 3 sciences, would have 4
>> Maths & 4 years of language, so along w/ English & Soc. St. would have
>> the credits needed for the diploma I wanted. Phew! My sister's several
>> years younger than I; she lucked out & had that particular teacher for
>> only 1 year before he retired, & much to her relief the new Science guy
>> *could* teach. Didn't help me, but she lucked out.
>>
>> Cathy[/color]
>
>
> I'm gonna guess that you don't question people's knowledge in areas where
> you have none whatsoever, Cathy.[/color]

Well, I _may_ question it in a vague sort of way (IOW, do they for sure know
what they're talking about?) - depending on what I know of the person in
general; but I am certainly going to give their info more credence re: the
subject at hand than I'd give myself (which would be zilch). If their info
is later reinforced by others', then it becomes more & more solid.

Cathy



Snott, on the other hand, makes a hobby out[color=blue]
> of it. If info didn't come from a web link or a radio talk show, the
> knowledge doesn't exist.
>[/color]

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sAAGh.4100$ya1.2903@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote in message
> news:1IOdnc8vL66P3HfYnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=green]
>>
>> "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NEqGh.224$nf5.9@trnddc05...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> One thing I don't agree with is the enviornmentalists' love of organic
>>> foods, either. Pesticides and artificial fertilizers decrease the amount
>>> of land needed to grow food.[/color]
>>
>> I'm going to throw this in here: what about the decline of the number of
>> honeybees? This isn't a flippant question.
>>
>> Cathy[/color]
>
>
> I doubt many here excellent article about that in the NYT recently. Scary
> stuff.[/color]

I didn't see that article; might search for it later. Unless you happen to
have the link?

Whenever I read or hear about honeybees & their decline in number, & their
wide-ranging beneficial impact on the word, it's scary. (Which explains my
reference above, re: pesticides - they're very susceptible, which I am now
assuming you likely realize.)

Cathy

[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

In message news:EtkGh.4033$B25.2402@news01.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach
forth the following:
[color=blue]
> Like Phred, do you believe that adding exhaust fumes to the atmosphere
> has ZERO effect?[/color]

Obviously the leaded fuels of the 1960's and 1970's caused the earth to
COOL.

In message news:LWkGh.4052$ya1.914@news02.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach
forth the following:
[color=blue]
> I haven't made any claims one way or the other about global warming.[/color]

Because it is impossible to do so.

In message news:feWdnelbhYJwSnTYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@giganews.com, Cathy F.
sprach forth the following:
[color=blue]
>
> "dbu," <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
> news:question-mark-1EC665.13074503032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> In article <0fjGh.4042$ya1.2697@news02.roc.ny>,
>> "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Another reasoned, well thought-out argument for polite discourse on a
>>> somewhat controversial topic.[/color]
>>
>> No more to discuss. Global warming caused by humans is a farce.[/color]
>
> Do you think there are no adverse effects on the earth & its atmosphere
> due to emissions from various & sundry man-made sources? No effects
> from factories, none from autos, etc?[/color]

Explain why the earth was COOLING during the 1960's and 1970's, with ALL
the items you mentioned being present.
[color=blue]
> Or have you painted yourself into a corner?[/color]

Show a link.

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns98E97A29A300DFredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=blue]
> In message news:5tkGh.4032$B25.2023@news01.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach
> forth the following:
>[color=green]
>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E87E4EF9507FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Nobody knows how to quantify the effect yet, **if any**. But, it is
>>>> physically **impossible** for our contribution to be ZERO, and I was
>>>> wondering if you disagreed with that.
>>>
>>> In order to justify any modification to our behavior or our economic,
>>> social or political structures, habits, customs and cultures, it is
>>> incumbent upon YOU to demonstrate such a link.
>>>
>>> Since you can't, why don't you just Kurt Cobain your face out of our
>>> existence? Really. I mean it. Die. Fucker. Die. Now.[/color]
>>
>> In other words, you never took physics or chemistry. It is not possible
>> to add chemicals to the atmosphere without SOMETHING changing. You
>> disagree with all chemists and physicists, everywhere, including
>> Stephen Hawking, who says moving a pencil across your desk has an
>> effect somewhere else.[/color]
>
> So explain how the earth was COOLING during the 1960's and 1970's.
>
> Explain that right here:[/color]


You missed the point. Our activities ****MIGHT**** contribute to global
warming. Nobody knows yet. Therefore, it is impossible to say we make a
large contribution, a small contribution, or no contribution. The only thing
it's possible to say is that everything released into the atmosphere results
in ***SOMETHING****. To say otherwise is impossible.