OT I told you so

I figured I'd bump this post -- something I posted back in June.

What were you saying again tegger?

Some folks need to set their stupid pride aside and do a reality check.

TeGGeR® wrote:[color=blue]
> "Learning Richard" <learningrich...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1118744548.493593.294090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > TeGGeR® wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> No. Are you referring to that laugable "hockey stick" graph again?
> >> That's been rather thoroughly discredited.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Where? By whom? Please to offer proof,[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Well, by Bjorn Lomborg and MacIntyre/McKittrick for three.
> http://www.climate2003.com/>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Meanwhile, New Orleans is sinking into the ocean, and the Chesapeake
> > Bay is turning into a big toilet.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Richard, I understand your sentiments and concerns, but sentiments and
> concerns will not make something real that is not.[/color]

Patronization aside... my argument really has little to do with global
warming anyway. I read your discussion, and I agree (and I even said)
that the science of Global Warming is far from definitive. On this
point, I think we agree.

HOWEVER... you cannot deny the fact that the Chesapeake Bay is quickly
becoming a dead zone due to farm runoff. The Susquehana river is a
cesspool.

Also, the continuous re-engineering of the Mississippi river has
contributed to the almost complete devastation of wetlands that form a
natural barrier between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico... one good
direct hit from a Category III hurricane, and most of New Orleans will
be under six feet of water.

What are we doing about this? What is the current administration doing
about the huge dead zones (depletion of oxygen and light) in the Gulf
of Mexico itself?

Instead of working to save our planet (or at least the Chesapeake Bay),
George W. Bush is wagering that by plundering ANWAR we can squeeze a
few million extra barrels of oil from the ground. Bad karma, dude.

Frankly, I believe that Global Warming is already having a huge impact
on our climate. Measurements of the Ice Caps in the North Pole prove
this -- changing migration patterns of Arctic species proves this --
and the huge El Ninio-La Ninia swings prove this. But that is only one
of a host of problems we've caused with our planet.

We need to change the baseline of what we will accept as a solution,
before we can even propose a solution. And this, my friend, will not
happen by 2008 -- not with Bush in office -- that I can guarantee you.

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125540247.038125.16200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I figured I'd bump this post -- something I posted back in June.

What were you saying again tegger?

Some folks need to set their stupid pride aside and do a reality check.

TeGGeR® wrote:[color=blue]
> "Learning Richard" <learningrich...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1118744548.493593.294090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > TeGGeR® wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> No. Are you referring to that laugable "hockey stick" graph again?
> >> That's been rather thoroughly discredited.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Where? By whom? Please to offer proof,[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Well, by Bjorn Lomborg and MacIntyre/McKittrick for three.
> http://www.climate2003.com/>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Meanwhile, New Orleans is sinking into the ocean, and the Chesapeake
> > Bay is turning into a big toilet.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Richard, I understand your sentiments and concerns, but sentiments and
> concerns will not make something real that is not.[/color]

Patronization aside... my argument really has little to do with global
warming anyway. I read your discussion, and I agree (and I even said)
that the science of Global Warming is far from definitive. On this
point, I think we agree.

HOWEVER... you cannot deny the fact that the Chesapeake Bay is quickly
becoming a dead zone due to farm runoff. The Susquehana river is a
cesspool.

Also, the continuous re-engineering of the Mississippi river has
contributed to the almost complete devastation of wetlands that form a
natural barrier between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico... one good
direct hit from a Category III hurricane, and most of New Orleans will
be under six feet of water.

What are we doing about this? What is the current administration doing
about the huge dead zones (depletion of oxygen and light) in the Gulf
of Mexico itself?

Instead of working to save our planet (or at least the Chesapeake Bay),
George W. Bush is wagering that by plundering ANWAR we can squeeze a
few million extra barrels of oil from the ground. Bad karma, dude.

Frankly, I believe that Global Warming is already having a huge impact
on our climate. Measurements of the Ice Caps in the North Pole prove
this -- changing migration patterns of Arctic species proves this --
and the huge El Ninio-La Ninia swings prove this. But that is only one
of a host of problems we've caused with our planet.

We need to change the baseline of what we will accept as a solution,
before we can even propose a solution. And this, my friend, will not
happen by 2008 -- not with Bush in office -- that I can guarantee you.

\End quote

If Hillary gets elected, this country is FINISHED, because nutcase phonies
like you will take over again like they did in 1992 and we'll get the whole
"1984" scenario over again, with Clintonesque Doublespeak and all. . . .

Unfortunately for you, the American public has figured out that you liberals
are in fact certifiable candidates for the laughing academy. Hillary is
trying to fake her way to the center but idiots like you remind us that the
Democrats are in fact the Communist Party with a different label these days
.. . .

Charles of Kankakee

Charles @ Kankakee wrote:[color=blue]
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125540247.038125.16200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I figured I'd bump this post -- something I posted back in June.
>
> What were you saying again tegger?
>
> Some folks need to set their stupid pride aside and do a reality check.
>
> TeGGeR® wrote:[color=green]
> > "Learning Richard" <learningrich...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:1118744548.493593.294090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > TeGGeR® wrote:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >> No. Are you referring to that laugable "hockey stick" graph again?
> > >> That's been rather thoroughly discredited.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Where? By whom? Please to offer proof,[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Well, by Bjorn Lomborg and MacIntyre/McKittrick for three.
> > http://www.climate2003.com/>[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Meanwhile, New Orleans is sinking into the ocean, and the Chesapeake
> > > Bay is turning into a big toilet.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Richard, I understand your sentiments and concerns, but sentiments and
> > concerns will not make something real that is not.[/color]
>
> Patronization aside... my argument really has little to do with global
> warming anyway. I read your discussion, and I agree (and I even said)
> that the science of Global Warming is far from definitive. On this
> point, I think we agree.
>
> HOWEVER... you cannot deny the fact that the Chesapeake Bay is quickly
> becoming a dead zone due to farm runoff. The Susquehana river is a
> cesspool.
>
> Also, the continuous re-engineering of the Mississippi river has
> contributed to the almost complete devastation of wetlands that form a
> natural barrier between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico... one good
> direct hit from a Category III hurricane, and most of New Orleans will
> be under six feet of water.
>
> What are we doing about this? What is the current administration doing
> about the huge dead zones (depletion of oxygen and light) in the Gulf
> of Mexico itself?
>
> Instead of working to save our planet (or at least the Chesapeake Bay),
> George W. Bush is wagering that by plundering ANWAR we can squeeze a
> few million extra barrels of oil from the ground. Bad karma, dude.
>
> Frankly, I believe that Global Warming is already having a huge impact
> on our climate. Measurements of the Ice Caps in the North Pole prove
> this -- changing migration patterns of Arctic species proves this --
> and the huge El Ninio-La Ninia swings prove this. But that is only one
> of a host of problems we've caused with our planet.
>
> We need to change the baseline of what we will accept as a solution,
> before we can even propose a solution. And this, my friend, will not
> happen by 2008 -- not with Bush in office -- that I can guarantee you.
>
> \End quote
>
> If Hillary gets elected, this country is FINISHED, because nutcase phonies
> like you will take over again like they did in 1992 and we'll get the whole
> "1984" scenario over again, with Clintonesque Doublespeak and all. . . .
>
> Unfortunately for you, the American public has figured out that you liberals
> are in fact certifiable candidates for the laughing academy. Hillary is
> trying to fake her way to the center but idiots like you remind us that the
> Democrats are in fact the Communist Party with a different label these days
> . . .
>
> Charles of Kankakee[/color]

sounds like someone is seriously overdue for getting laid. Gotten any
lately, Kanker Sore?