On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:18:13 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
<roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:


> Who decides what is profane, and what is not?

Certainly not you Junior. I can't define profanity, but I certainly know it
when I see it.

--
Bob

 

Eric G. wrote:
> Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on Global
> Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.


No offense intended Eric G., but I can save everyone some time. I can
sum this show up in 10 seconds.

Humans are destroying the Earth. Capitalist America is the worst
offender. Our gasses are melting the polar ice caps. We're cutting
down too many trees. We're either going to burn up or drown.

Sorry, but the long-term scientific evidence just isn't there to prove
this. You can't measure for 50 years and extrapolate it over 500,000
years.

Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Hastings, Nebraska) Residents of parts of "Tornado Alley" are
experiencing yet another consequence of global warming: a severe
shortage of tornadoes. -- ecoenquirer.com

 

Eric G. wrote:
> Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on Global
> Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.


No offense intended Eric G., but I can save everyone some time. I can
sum this show up in 10 seconds.

Humans are destroying the Earth. Capitalist America is the worst
offender. Our gasses are melting the polar ice caps. We're cutting
down too many trees. We're either going to burn up or drown.

Sorry, but the long-term scientific evidence just isn't there to prove
this. You can't measure for 50 years and extrapolate it over 500,000
years.

Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Hastings, Nebraska) Residents of parts of "Tornado Alley" are
experiencing yet another consequence of global warming: a severe
shortage of tornadoes. -- ecoenquirer.com

 

Eric G. wrote:
> Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on Global
> Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.


No offense intended Eric G., but I can save everyone some time. I can
sum this show up in 10 seconds.

Humans are destroying the Earth. Capitalist America is the worst
offender. Our gasses are melting the polar ice caps. We're cutting
down too many trees. We're either going to burn up or drown.

Sorry, but the long-term scientific evidence just isn't there to prove
this. You can't measure for 50 years and extrapolate it over 500,000
years.

Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Hastings, Nebraska) Residents of parts of "Tornado Alley" are
experiencing yet another consequence of global warming: a severe
shortage of tornadoes. -- ecoenquirer.com

 

over,over,over,over,over,over....OVER

 

over,over,over,over,over,over....OVER

 

over,over,over,over,over,over....OVER

 

If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it was
obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince you it was a
correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase in Caron dioxide
over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and that alone that was
leading to a increase in temperature over the past 150 years!!! Lots of
theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth as questions but were
presented few definitive answers to those questions. 'If' it continues.
Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could result' etc. At one point they even
suggest Florida and NYC 'Could' be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted
etc. 'We don't know if El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could
etc. Volcanoes, the sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned
but not one suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend.
Many thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in ant-Attica
that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet since Americans first
went there. Mention was made to recent hurricanes and the fact they were
more sever in 2005 than at any time in the past ten years. No mention of
the fact many period in the past, as recent as 1955 they were far more
severe. I tuned it off after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for
those vested in global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we
should know the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do
something.'


mike hunt


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9802A24C65598Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:OCqug.563$Pa.66906@news1.epix.net:
>
>> Eric G. wrote:
>>
>>> Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on
>>> Global Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.
>>
>> Probably will be almost as accurate as Al "I invented the internet"
>> Gore's show.
>>
>> Matt
>
> It could be. I have no idea. It may show us how much BS is being thrown
> around too. I think the more information shown the better.
>
> Eric
>

 

If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it was
obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince you it was a
correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase in Caron dioxide
over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and that alone that was
leading to a increase in temperature over the past 150 years!!! Lots of
theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth as questions but were
presented few definitive answers to those questions. 'If' it continues.
Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could result' etc. At one point they even
suggest Florida and NYC 'Could' be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted
etc. 'We don't know if El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could
etc. Volcanoes, the sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned
but not one suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend.
Many thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in ant-Attica
that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet since Americans first
went there. Mention was made to recent hurricanes and the fact they were
more sever in 2005 than at any time in the past ten years. No mention of
the fact many period in the past, as recent as 1955 they were far more
severe. I tuned it off after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for
those vested in global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we
should know the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do
something.'


mike hunt


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9802A24C65598Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:OCqug.563$Pa.66906@news1.epix.net:
>
>> Eric G. wrote:
>>
>>> Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on
>>> Global Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.
>>
>> Probably will be almost as accurate as Al "I invented the internet"
>> Gore's show.
>>
>> Matt
>
> It could be. I have no idea. It may show us how much BS is being thrown
> around too. I think the more information shown the better.
>
> Eric
>

 

If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it was
obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince you it was a
correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase in Caron dioxide
over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and that alone that was
leading to a increase in temperature over the past 150 years!!! Lots of
theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth as questions but were
presented few definitive answers to those questions. 'If' it continues.
Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could result' etc. At one point they even
suggest Florida and NYC 'Could' be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted
etc. 'We don't know if El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could
etc. Volcanoes, the sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned
but not one suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend.
Many thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in ant-Attica
that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet since Americans first
went there. Mention was made to recent hurricanes and the fact they were
more sever in 2005 than at any time in the past ten years. No mention of
the fact many period in the past, as recent as 1955 they were far more
severe. I tuned it off after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for
those vested in global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we
should know the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do
something.'


mike hunt


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9802A24C65598Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:OCqug.563$Pa.66906@news1.epix.net:
>
>> Eric G. wrote:
>>
>>> Just an FYI: Tonight at 8:00PM on Discovery channel is a special on
>>> Global Warming. Tom Brokaw is hosting it.
>>
>> Probably will be almost as accurate as Al "I invented the internet"
>> Gore's show.
>>
>> Matt
>
> It could be. I have no idea. It may show us how much BS is being thrown
> around too. I think the more information shown the better.
>
> Eric
>

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:0ZGcnVq1c5TVaybZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it
> was obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince
> you it was a correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase
> in Caron dioxide over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and
> that alone that was leading to a increase in temperature over the past
> 150 years!!! Lots of theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth
> as questions but were presented few definitive answers to those
> questions. 'If' it continues. Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could
> result' etc. At one point they even suggest Florida and NYC 'Could'
> be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted etc. 'We don't know if
> El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could etc. Volcanoes, the
> sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned but not one
> suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend. Many
> thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
> oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in
> ant-Attica that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet
> since Americans first went there. Mention was made to recent
> hurricanes and the fact they were more sever in 2005 than at any time
> in the past ten years. No mention of the fact many period in the
> past, as recent as 1955 they were far more severe. I tuned it off
> after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for those vested in
> global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know
> the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
>
>
> mike hunt

I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.

They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
only slightly.

What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
detrimental effect to life as we know it.

However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
years, and it doesn't look good.

Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
true.

I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
Pacific will be under water.

Eric

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:0ZGcnVq1c5TVaybZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it
> was obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince
> you it was a correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase
> in Caron dioxide over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and
> that alone that was leading to a increase in temperature over the past
> 150 years!!! Lots of theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth
> as questions but were presented few definitive answers to those
> questions. 'If' it continues. Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could
> result' etc. At one point they even suggest Florida and NYC 'Could'
> be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted etc. 'We don't know if
> El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could etc. Volcanoes, the
> sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned but not one
> suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend. Many
> thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
> oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in
> ant-Attica that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet
> since Americans first went there. Mention was made to recent
> hurricanes and the fact they were more sever in 2005 than at any time
> in the past ten years. No mention of the fact many period in the
> past, as recent as 1955 they were far more severe. I tuned it off
> after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for those vested in
> global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know
> the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
>
>
> mike hunt

I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.

They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
only slightly.

What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
detrimental effect to life as we know it.

However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
years, and it doesn't look good.

Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
true.

I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
Pacific will be under water.

Eric

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:0ZGcnVq1c5TVaybZUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it
> was obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince
> you it was a correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase
> in Caron dioxide over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and
> that alone that was leading to a increase in temperature over the past
> 150 years!!! Lots of theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth
> as questions but were presented few definitive answers to those
> questions. 'If' it continues. Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could
> result' etc. At one point they even suggest Florida and NYC 'Could'
> be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted etc. 'We don't know if
> El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could etc. Volcanoes, the
> sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned but not one
> suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend. Many
> thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
> oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in
> ant-Attica that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet
> since Americans first went there. Mention was made to recent
> hurricanes and the fact they were more sever in 2005 than at any time
> in the past ten years. No mention of the fact many period in the
> past, as recent as 1955 they were far more severe. I tuned it off
> after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for those vested in
> global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know
> the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
>
>
> mike hunt

I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.

They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
only slightly.

What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
detrimental effect to life as we know it.

However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
years, and it doesn't look good.

Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
true.

I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
Pacific will be under water.

Eric

 

You are kidding, right? Do you actually believe '20% chance of widely
scattered showers in the evening.' equates to 3.8 inches of rain in five
hours in the morning and the afternoon? 20% chance of widely scattered
showers in the evening mean there is a 20% change there will be scattered
showers in the evening. LOL


mike hunt



"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9802A2A3EA43AXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:CYWdnRbAT83hyyfZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Are these the same folks that yesterday failed to predict the rain
>> storms in our area that dropped 3.8 inches of rain in five hours?
>> '7/15/06 Hot humid with a 20% chance of widely scattered showers in
>> the evening.'
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> A 20% chance is a 20% chance. Was 80% of the forecast area dry? If so, I
> say it was dead on. If it said a 0% chance then I would agree with you.
>
> Eric
>

 

You are kidding, right? Do you actually believe '20% chance of widely
scattered showers in the evening.' equates to 3.8 inches of rain in five
hours in the morning and the afternoon? 20% chance of widely scattered
showers in the evening mean there is a 20% change there will be scattered
showers in the evening. LOL


mike hunt



"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns9802A2A3EA43AXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:CYWdnRbAT83hyyfZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Are these the same folks that yesterday failed to predict the rain
>> storms in our area that dropped 3.8 inches of rain in five hours?
>> '7/15/06 Hot humid with a 20% chance of widely scattered showers in
>> the evening.'
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> A 20% chance is a 20% chance. Was 80% of the forecast area dry? If so, I
> say it was dead on. If it said a 0% chance then I would agree with you.
>
> Eric
>