OT: DISGUSTING!

Bill Sornson said:

DI said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> ?Slack wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T. <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>>> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce
>>>>>> of a "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences)
>>>>>> with absolutely
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling --
>>>>>> tolerated. "Religious", indeed.
>>>>> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>>>>>
>>>>> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
>>>>> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>>>>>
>>>> I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey, the
>>>> earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the planet
>>>> who can't see beyond their relatively short-term profits will
>>>> continue to ignore the facts. Profit always trumps reality with
>>>> them. Greg
>>>
>>> You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business can
>>> do is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the penguin,
>>> the government or anything else stupid enough to get in the way.
>> Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint:
>> polar bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)
> Cite please.
>
> Or do you mean population on land is increasing because the ice is
> disappearing???
>
> "Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing
> numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this
> indicates an increased population, although the increased presence
> on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes
> in the bears' distribution patterns."
I found a bunch with a simple Google search; no doubt you'll reject
any that come from any non-liberal source, but go have a look.

Ask yourself this: why did Gore have to resort to /animation/ to
depict some of his oh-so-tragic scenarios?

Why were his film crews ARMED WITH GUNS while shooting (!) some
footage? (They were literally going to shoot any polar bears that
got aggressive!) Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+ /feet/
while even
the UN's unfinished report's summary (how does that happen, anyway?)
say 20 /inches/ at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case estimate
itself.) Why are PhD scientists (including leading climatologists and
meteorologists) being black-balled or just plain fired for daring to
put forth anti-GW articles and findings?

It ain't scientific, Greg. It's POLITICAL.

BS (really)

They're getting so desperate to prove GW, to the point of giving the
first Tropical Storm name of the season to a rainstorm off the North
Carolina coast, a storm that never formed in the Tropics.

Just for Greg and Corvis (he offered pessimistically):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=_

Bill,

You might appreciate this column:
http://www.denverpost.com/quillen
Ed Qullien is a long-time Denver Post columnist and Salida curmudgeon.

Shawn

Corvus Corvax said:

Shawn said:

http://www.denverpost.com/quillen
Ed Qullien is a long-time Denver Post columnist and Salida curmudgeon.

This is a classic canard: "Look at all those things the scientists
were wrong about! Why should we trust their word on this one?"

snip

Um, my point to posting was the last two paragraphs:

"In the meantime, the things we're supposed to do to combat global
warming - reduce emissions, use more renewable energy like wind and
solar, improve efficiency, grow more food close to home, walk more and
drive less - are all things that would make us a more prosperous, secure
and healthy society.

In other words, they're things we should do anyway, whether global
warming results from our emissions or variations in solar radiation. So
why can't we just do them?"

I agree with Ed more often than not. This time I thought his skepticism
over very good science was oddly myopic (Actually I think he is
seriously myopic. He wears real Coke Bottle bottoms, 'nuther story)

Shawn

G.T. said:

"Ride-A-Lot" <mitchell@[nospam]schnauzers.ws> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going off-topic and probably a little political, but this just made me
so angry that I had to rant.

This is what they are teaching their children. There's going to be a big
fight brewing and we are not going to be on level ground if they are
starting with the kids.

And we are liberating Irag for what reason?

So these guys can take over:

Greg

That movie is awesome.

G.T. said:

"Ride-A-Lot" <mitchell@[nospam]schnauzers.ws> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm going off-topic and probably a little political, but this just made me
so angry that I had to rant.

This is what they are teaching their children. There's going to be a big
fight brewing and we are not going to be on level ground if they are
starting with the kids.

And we are liberating Irag for what reason?

So these guys can take over:

Greg

on a somewhat related note (on the
alternative religious way of life tip),
you should check out "Devil's Playground".

cc

Shawn said:

Um, my point to posting was the last two paragraphs:

[...]

Quoted message said:

In other words, they're things we should do anyway, whether global
warming results from our emissions or variations in solar radiation. So
why can't we just do them?"

No disagreement from me there. Especially if it gets that crazy woman
in the Ford Expedition I tangled with this morning off the road ;-).
Until then, I just gave her the finger.

CC

Shawn said:

Bill Sornson said:

DI said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> G.T. wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> ?Slack wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:31:23 -0700, G.T.
>>>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> "Corvus Corvax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>>>> On May 11, 8:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>>> School kids are being forced (required) to watch Gore's farce
>>>>>>> of a "documentary" (complete with animated fantasy sequences)
>>>>>>> with absolutely
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> opposing viewpoint presented or -- even more telling --
>>>>>>> tolerated. "Religious", indeed.
>>>>>> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To quote Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a
>>>>>> debate, if one side is a load of [censored]."
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've been reading the articles there. Solid stuff. But hey,
>>>>> the earth hating, exploitative right wing capitalists on the
>>>>> planet who can't see beyond their relatively short-term
>>>>> profits will continue to ignore the facts. Profit always
>>>>> trumps reality with them. Greg
>>>>
>>>> You should hear my Econ professor. The only evil any business
>>>> can do is not maximize profits... screw the polar bear, the
>>>> penguin, the government or anything else stupid enough to get
>>>> in the way.
>>> Yeah, so just make up [censored] to convince the stupid masses. (Hint:
>>> polar bear population is INCREASING; they ain't drowning.)
>> Cite please.
>>
>> Or do you mean population on land is increasing because the ice is
>> disappearing???
>>
>> "Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing
>> numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this
>> indicates an increased population, although the increased presence
>> on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes
>> in the bears' distribution patterns."
> I found a bunch with a simple Google search; no doubt you'll reject
> any that come from any non-liberal source, but go have a look.
>
> Ask yourself this: why did Gore have to resort to /animation/ to
> depict some of his oh-so-tragic scenarios?
>
> Why were his film crews ARMED WITH GUNS while shooting (!) some
> footage? (They were literally going to shoot any polar bears that
> got aggressive!) Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+
> /feet/ while even
> the UN's unfinished report's summary (how does that happen,
> anyway?) say 20 /inches/ at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case
> estimate
> itself.) Why are PhD scientists (including leading climatologists
> and meteorologists) being black-balled or just plain fired for
> daring to put forth anti-GW articles and findings?
>
> It ain't scientific, Greg. It's POLITICAL.
>
> BS (really)
>
They're getting so desperate to prove GW, to the point of giving the
first Tropical Storm name of the season to a rainstorm off the North
Carolina coast, a storm that never formed in the Tropics.

Just for Greg and Corvis (he offered pessimistically):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=_

Bill,

You might appreciate this column:
http://www.denverpost.com/quillen
Ed Qullien is a long-time Denver Post columnist and Salida curmudgeon.

I did, Shawn, thanks. Now, do you think Al Gore will "start doing them"
(things to reduce carbon emissions, among other good acts) instead of
self-righteously telling us to do so? He flies on private jets, has a home
that consumes literally 20 times as much energy as an average one does, AND
"purchases" "carbon offsets" from at least one company in which HE has a
large financial stake. It spells S-C-A-M, plus it's hypocritical.

Other than that, great guy...

Bill Sornson said:

"purchases" "carbon offsets" from at least one company in which HE has a
large financial stake. It spells S-C-A-M, plus it's hypocritical.

I think the idea of "carbon offsets" is awesome, and should be applied
in other areas of life as well. For example, wouldn't it be great to
be able to buy "[censored] offsets", so you can be as big a [censored] as you
want, as long as you pay somebody else to be nice? Or how about
"obesity offsets"? Or "stupidity offsets"?

CC

Corvus Corvax said:

Bill Sornson said:

"purchases" "carbon offsets" from at least one company in which HE
has a large financial stake. It spells S-C-A-M, plus it's
hypocritical.

I think the idea of "carbon offsets" is awesome, and should be applied
in other areas of life as well. For example, wouldn't it be great to
be able to buy "[censored] offsets", so you can be as big a [censored] as you
want, as long as you pay somebody else to be nice? Or how about
"obesity offsets"? Or "stupidity offsets"?

Hang out a shingle.

Bill Sornson said:

Corvus Corvax said:

Bill Sornson said:

"purchases" "carbon offsets" from at least one company in which HE
has a large financial stake. It spells S-C-A-M, plus it's
hypocritical.

I think the idea of "carbon offsets" is awesome, and should be applied
in other areas of life as well. For example, wouldn't it be great to
be able to buy "[censored] offsets", so you can be as big a [censored] as you
want, as long as you pay somebody else to be nice? Or how about
"obesity offsets"? Or "stupidity offsets"?

Hang out a shingle.

OUCH!

Bill Sornson said:

Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+ /feet/ while even the UN's
unfinished report's summary (how does that happen, anyway?) say 20 /inches/
at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case estimate itself.)

I dunnno about the hypocritical carbon mastadon print mannequin man's
lame flick, but do know what I see. The beaches I frequented as a kid
are still there.

JD

Bill Sornson said:

Why did his film claim sea level increases of 20+ /feet/ while even the UN's
unfinished report's summary (how does that happen, anyway?) say 20 /inches/
at most. (And that's a wild, worst-case estimate itself.)

Gore is such a hypocritical scumbag. What I don't like about
limousine liberals like that mastadon carbon footprinted POS is that
they try to talk the talk, but will never walk the walk. I wish
Dennis Kucinich would kick their asses.

BTW, the beaches I surfed at as a kid are still there.

JD