Enough to keep the snowmobile club happy. ;o)

Earle

"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bph46b0f85@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Hey, Earle, how much snow up there?
>
> Looks like there's more on the way for the weekend.
> "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
> news:bph2cd$1lssko$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > All that matters is that I have enough ski wax...
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
> > > documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal
> fluctuations
> > in
> > > climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will
refute
> > > anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities
> as
> > an
> > > explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

Enough to keep the snowmobile club happy. ;o)

Earle

"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bph46b0f85@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Hey, Earle, how much snow up there?
>
> Looks like there's more on the way for the weekend.
> "Earle Horton" <enfermero_diabolico@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
> news:bph2cd$1lssko$1@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > All that matters is that I have enough ski wax...
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
> > > documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal
> fluctuations
> > in
> > > climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will
refute
> > > anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities
> as
> > an
> > > explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

Brent P wrote:

> So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
> lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
> you follow them yourself.

Why? It'll still be a case of reduction to the absurd. The only suitable speed to reduce CO2
emissions is zero. Anything else is an utterly arbitrary limit that actually condones some amount
of "greenhouse pollution".

--Aardwolf.

 

Brent P wrote:

> So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
> lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
> you follow them yourself.

Why? It'll still be a case of reduction to the absurd. The only suitable speed to reduce CO2
emissions is zero. Anything else is an utterly arbitrary limit that actually condones some amount
of "greenhouse pollution".

--Aardwolf.

 

Brent P wrote:

> So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
> lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
> you follow them yourself.

Why? It'll still be a case of reduction to the absurd. The only suitable speed to reduce CO2
emissions is zero. Anything else is an utterly arbitrary limit that actually condones some amount
of "greenhouse pollution".

--Aardwolf.

 

In article <j%Mub.49901$Dw6.258034@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpg4q0$r96$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>
>>>Here's what I actually wrote:
>>>
>>>>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>->needing to perform for those funds?
>>>
>>>As can be seen, there is no lie here.
>>
>> OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?
>
>Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
>donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
>untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
>be a lie.

Show that anyone did anything for the Chinese in return for campaign
donations.

>
>>>But you knew that, your
>>>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>>>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>>>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>>>politics in the USA.
>
>> Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
>> contracts without bids.
>
>Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
>Parker, the best government money can buy.
>
>> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
>> defense info.
>
>I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
>but your projection.
>
>Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
>Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
>and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
>making money.
>
>

 

In article <j%Mub.49901$Dw6.258034@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpg4q0$r96$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>
>>>Here's what I actually wrote:
>>>
>>>>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>->needing to perform for those funds?
>>>
>>>As can be seen, there is no lie here.
>>
>> OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?
>
>Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
>donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
>untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
>be a lie.

Show that anyone did anything for the Chinese in return for campaign
donations.

>
>>>But you knew that, your
>>>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>>>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>>>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>>>politics in the USA.
>
>> Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
>> contracts without bids.
>
>Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
>Parker, the best government money can buy.
>
>> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
>> defense info.
>
>I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
>but your projection.
>
>Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
>Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
>and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
>making money.
>
>

 

In article <j%Mub.49901$Dw6.258034@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpg4q0$r96$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>
>>>Here's what I actually wrote:
>>>
>>>>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>->needing to perform for those funds?
>>>
>>>As can be seen, there is no lie here.
>>
>> OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?
>
>Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
>donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
>untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
>be a lie.

Show that anyone did anything for the Chinese in return for campaign
donations.

>
>>>But you knew that, your
>>>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>>>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>>>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>>>politics in the USA.
>
>> Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
>> contracts without bids.
>
>Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
>Parker, the best government money can buy.
>
>> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
>> defense info.
>
>I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
>but your projection.
>
>Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
>Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
>and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
>making money.
>
>

 

In article <bpg9q60hk8@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've
>seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
>no difference? <
>
>The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
>6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
>--------, as is this entire theory.
>
>

(1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores.
(2) The world of science disagrees.

 

In article <bpg9q60hk8@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've
>seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
>no difference? <
>
>The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
>6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
>--------, as is this entire theory.
>
>

(1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores.
(2) The world of science disagrees.