See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 5712
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-225) not displayed.
.
.
.
#226. To: randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent, hissy_fits_par excellent! (#188)
I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. Yes it is. O_I gets his data points from the John Birch Society website that has consistently maintained the benefits of increased industrialization without consideration of the effects of pollution. The John Birch Society believes in the Bilderbergs/Rothchilds/bankers///// et al.... as Original_Intent. The John Birch Society maintains that increased levels of CO2 is beneficial for mankind since trees and plants thrive in that same environment. Yet, plants and trees don't thrive in enrich CO2 environments. Plants and trees thrive in a blend of Oxygen, Nitrogen and CarbonDioxide. The more CO2, the smaller the growth of plants and certainly fruits, vegetables and all ornamental trees. With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations. It is a fact that all plants thrive in a mixture or blend blend of O,N and CO2 with appropriate controlled temperatures and water H2O. On the planet, the temperature is climbing. On the planet, the levels of CO2 is climbing. Plants don't thrive in this changing environment.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Uh, buckie? The level of confusion and misrepresentation of my position, and where I cull the data from is somewhere out beyond Pluto. Even had I gotten it from the Birch Website, which I have visited once out of curiosity in the last ten years., it would be irrelevant. Either the facts and data are as stipulated or they are not. Attacking a Strawman as you did proves absolutely nothing other than you are dishonest.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
LOL that's funny. Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis. "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile." The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions." "Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK) The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote. "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ] The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." "The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ] # # # Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007: The National Post Dec. 13, 2007 Key Quote from Scientists’ Letter to UN: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” His Excellency Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: *Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. *The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. *Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_time..._2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. Yours faithfully, The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]: Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" INTRODUCTION: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] Scientists from Around the World Dissent This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK) The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ] This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK) CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK) On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK) Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.” Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK) The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK) # # Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “ Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” # # # Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK) A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists. "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I'm the one who post JBS stuff. My chapter leader is the son of one of the former Presidents. You'd actually like him Buck.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Talk about disproving the ice core proxies. I couldn't have done a better job.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Tosh and fiddlesticks (to put it nicely). There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate. Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible? Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense. The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported. Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.* There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts. First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen. On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly. Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis. The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed. As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution. Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there? • Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research And see this: *People who continue using this stupid hockey stick graph in their presentations and arguments are, at best, charlatans and quacks.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Any sightings of the Wooden One lately? Wondering what will be the Tubster's haul when the split is finalized?
And here are their motives: Biased towards making and keeping money rather than doing what it takes to find out the truth: "While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity" "Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."
It doesn't seem to occur to the culprits that as areas move from cold to temperate, their trees get bigger, and as areas move from temperate to hot, the trees get smaller or even die off. Higher Temperatures Slow Tropical Tree GrowthClimate change may be reducing growth rates of tropical rainforest trees, a development that could have widespread impacts for biodiversity, forest productivity, and even climate change itself, according to new research published in Ecology Letters. Analyzing tree growth in 50-hectare forest plots in Panama and Malaysia, a team of researchers led by Harvard University biologist Kenneth Feeley found that tree growth rates have decreased dramatically for the majority of species in two lowland tropical forests over the past couple of decades. The results contradict the hypothesis that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would boost growth rates of trees in the tropics by speeding plant respiration. "Global change presents plants with two types of change that might have opposite effects on plant growth," explained study co-author Dr. S. Joseph Wright, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Increases in atmospheric CO2 provide more substrate for photosynthesis and might lead to increased growths. Increases in temperature increase respiration rates and might lead to decreased growth, as appears to be the case in our study."
And here are their motive: Biased towards making and keeping money rather than doing what it takes to find out the truth: Attaboy! I knew you would find a way to try to avoid acknowledging that there were a considerable body of scientists who, on sound scientific basis, regard Glowbull warming as bunk. And your proof of your accusation is? Of course we won't talk about how a very disproportionate share of grants and funding went to the now discredited phonies advocating what they knew was a false theory, Glowbull Warming, at the CRU and their like minded bribe takers at a variety of institutions. You are right though "follow the money". Very quickly you find out that it was very profitable and advantageous to push the theory of Glowbull Warming which the elites want for other agendas - such as Carbon Taxes, and Control of individual behavior.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I know. I understand. And so as to clarify how you have acted on this thread... let me remind you of your previous posts on this same thread, lamer ... You have no position. You are a liar. You are a charlatan. You have a solid capability to misinform while your polysyllables are sponsored by BS organizations. Here, answer thes questions from WAY ABOVE in this same thread, lamer: >> So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style? And no more smart ass BS lamer, plagiarized pictures that you are famous for. Come clean. Answer the questions. Be honest for once in your life.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
LOL that's what you keyed in on? You really have no clue who is funding AGW and why do you? It is quite simply the oil companies through their tax exempt NGOs. From my friend Carry_Okies great post: So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such. It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught. by Ron Arnold ... Always follow the money.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." That explains much. You are one of those people who thinks it is a crime for anyone to live well and prosper. Much better to drag everyone down to slave state status living in the equal misery of a socialist dictatorship where everyone is equal - except that some are more equal than others. How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment? How is an ineffectual policy which diminishes the economic, and thus physical welfare of all but the hyper-wealthy, while trying to solve a non-existent problem superior to a set of policies which promote the general welfare while seeking to solve the real environmental problems? And here again we come back to your fixation on dragging the world down into a miserable poverty because you resent some being more able, thus producing more, and having more. So, at long last we arrive at the point where your real reasons for supporting a discredited theory, for which you can provide no credible support, it is not because of your desire to improve the environment but your desire to drag other people down, because you have a neurotic fixation and distaste for anyone doing well while doing good. The two are not incompatible. It is possible to have prosperity AND a clean enviroment. Can you demonstrate in any way how prosperity and the general welfare of the environment are mutually exclusive, and here I am not talking about individual polluters or abuses, but on the "Meta-scale" as a general proposition? Of course you can't and I expect, if you reply, to be treated to more socialist hogwash about how we must all live a hair shirt existence in divine misery because it is just so unfair that the able are more successful than the inable.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
From your link: "Our study may indicate that the accelerated tree growth observed at other forests is not indicative of a concerted pantropical response to global environmental changes, but rather that the changes in tropical forest dynamics and structure are driven primarily through regional climate changes such as increased temperature and/or cloudiness," Feeley told mongabay.com via email. Yet you would not only extend the study to tropics but the entire world. While this scenario is ominous, Feeley cautions that more research is needed to understand and model the effects of climate change on forests. "There remains a great deal of uncertainty in the underlying mechanisms as well as the generality of these results. These uncertainties highlight the need for additional long-term large-scale research from other tropical forests." Oh but let's take it as gospel and destroy our global economy based on a preliminary and localized study. And BTW, the greatest carbon sinks are by far the oceans. Oh yes now we are back to oceans being slightly less base than they were a century ago, maybe.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." LOL! We were on the same page coming from different angles. LOL!
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Thhhhhhhpppppppppppppp! You already have discredited yourself buckie. By lying about me and stating opinions as mine which I have not expressed you discredit yourself as a lying sack of shit. I have never put anyone on bozo before except to eliminate a spammers warping of a thread, but I am getting very very close.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Link Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. The carboniferous period started out with high CO2 which caused and abundance of plant growth (now coal) which in turn dropped the CO2 levels by the end of the period. I still fail to see how even doubling our CO2 would be harmful.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Great minds...
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." The sky would fall?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Yes! The rich would not get richer through scamming carbon credits and controlling energy markets.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Yes! The rich would not get richer through scamming carbon credits and controlling energy markets. One of the things that I've discovered, other than that they are neurotic, is leftists, and at this point it is mostly leftists who support Glowbull Warming, have a real fixation on controlling people and resenting anyone having anything beyond bare subsistence (except Limousine Liberals who are a different kind of phony). I cornered a leftist friend one day and point by point destroyed Glowbull Warming - her response? "Well we need to do it anyway because man is destroying the environment." In other words she was willing to go along with a fraud because it furthered her particular set of prejudices. I found that an interesting insight into the leftist mind. They are willing to "believe" and push a Lie in other to foist their political prejudices and neurotic desire to create "social justice" (everyone living in misery).
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I found the same thing when discussing logging with lefties. For them it had nothing to do with the environment. It was all about keeping logging companies from making a profit. I heard it time and again. One of the funniest things I ever saw was an enviro group saying it was ok to log as long as they used solar powered chain saws.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." >> So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style? I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one. I guess seventy to seven hundred billion people would be able to live on this planet if doing so properly.
This sentence open to grammatical editing.
Yes the subordinate conjunction if may indeed be followed by an adverbial gerund phrase, but it must be followed by a finite verb clause. Cheers.
One of the problems with those indoctrinated into the "Club of Rome" "Limits to Growth" crowd is that they have a neurotic fixation that population necessarily leads to environmental degradation. Of course that is provable nonsense but it is one of their articles of "Faith" in the Global Religion of Scarcity. Of course according to the Club of Rome and their "Limits To Growth" Report they were projecting food riots in about 20 years ago i.e., the late 80's. Food, is as available if not more so now. Where there are food shortages it is always traceable to the political environment. Zimbabwe was a major food exporter until Robert Mugabe was put in power by the CIA and their bosses in London. Now thanks to the destruction of the farming infrastructure, runaway hyper-inflation, and driving out farmers because they were white they now have famine and must import food. India, one of the most densely populated countries on the planet, is a net exporter of food. Time and again when something becomes scarce people develop or find alternatives. With sound management of agriculture we could easily feed 70 Billion People although with a generally high level of education and development population might actually begin to decline. The U.S. population was already declining in the 80's as the birth rate was less than the death rate. The only thing that has kept it artificially pumped up and increasing is illegal immigration. One of things that has shown up statistically, from what I've read, is that developed first world nations with a generally higher standard of living actually tend to stabilize or decline in population. A lot of reasons have been theorized but I think the simplest is that the survival threats are not as extreme and thus the urge to reproduce to further the existence of the human race declines. Fewer threats means less urgency. So the norm becomes smaller families. If you live in a degraded society where half of the children die before adulthood then the urge to survive drives the reproductive urge. So, the solution to global over population, which we are nowhere near, is to raise ALL standards of living for each and every person thus indirectly lowering the birth rate.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Here is YOUR "esteemed" so-called "objective" responses on this thread..... >Thhhhhhhpppppppppppppp! You are a phoney. You are a GODAMED liar... and you can see the same by your own comments. You are a political HACK... something out of a grab bag ... that has no basis or foundation of scientific thought. Yet you can not answer a simple question that I posted WAY UP the thread: "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
BTW, thanks guys for some really great posts on this interesting thread. Only had time today to peek in from time to time. Been outdoors working on this "honey do" Saturday. It's HOT and STICKY in Houston. (This is a "heat island," you know.) ;)
Wondering what will be the Tubster's haul when the split is finalized? Fortunately, I have not seen the windbag liar lately. And I have no idea how much he has made off gullible people. I bet it would be astounding.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Po' beebey. Shall I call a Wahhhhhhhhmbulance for you? I have given your question all the attention it deserves - none. You have consistently misrepresented my position, put words in my mouth, and been an all around wanker. G'bye BOZO.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I'll let you know if you miss anything.
Thank you.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
It might be a while.
As you say lamer FUCK YOU... BTW, you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag without a "polysyllable" you just looked upped at Dictionary.com while maintaintaining your political hack from the JBS. You are a liar. More than that, you are a thief. His your reward based ipon you own BS.... You are about as objective as a muther-fucker begging to give you an ass-WHOOPIN'..... which has been performed.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
That's fine. At this point I am so disgusted with that other person that I care not whether I read any of his blather again. I am tired of his stoopid "gotcha" games, misquotes, out of context quotes, and outright prevarication that it will be a cold day in hell before he comes off my "list".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Well, it is Saturday night you know....
He is too busy with his divorce.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Yes, I catch the drift - "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
It isn't. All the proof of that you need is to visit some third world hell hole (like Haiti for example, even before the earthquake) and look at the squalor and filth. Then compare it to any upscale neighborhood in the US or any first-world country where they take pride in their homes and communities. All the difference in the world.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Expletives, ad-homs, typos, spelling errors. It'll probably get worse as the night progresses.
Comments (266 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
#227. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#226)
#228. To: AGAviator (#225)
First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon.
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#229. To: buckeroo, randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#226)
O_I gets his data points from the John Birch Society website that has consistently maintained the benefits of increased industrialization without consideration of the effects of pollution. The John Birch Society believes in the Bilderbergs/Rothchilds/bankers///// et al.... as Original_Intent.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#230. To: buckeroo, randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent, (#226)
With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#231. To: buckeroo (#226)
On the planet, the temperature is climbing.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#232. To: James Deffenbach (#231)
#233. To: farmfriend (#228)
(Edited)
Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis.
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
#234. To: buckeroo (#226)
With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations.
#235. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, HighLairEon, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, all (#233)
Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis.
#236. To: Original_Intent (#227)
The level of confusion and misrepresentation of my position, and where I cull the data from is somewhere out beyond Pluto.
fuck yourself.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
#237. To: AGAviator (#233)
The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations.
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.The Pew Charitable Trusts
Global Warming Power NexusThe Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts is one of the nation’s largest and most influential philanthropic foundations. The Pew Charitable Trusts are actually an interlocking set of seven trusts established by the children of turn-of-thecentury oil baron Joseph N. Pew, and stewarded by the family’s private investment bank, the Glenmede Trust Company, which is the trustee of the seven charitable trusts. Glenmede manages $14 billion of total Pew family wealth, about $4 billion of which belongs to the Pew Charitable Trusts.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#238. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, HighLairEon, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, all (#233)
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
"Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."
#239. To: AGAviator (#234)
The results differ from earlier research, based on surveys in the Amazon, which found that large fast-growing canopy trees exhibited higher growth rates possibly in response to rising carbon dioxide levels (Laurance et al. 2004, Lewis et al. 2004). The researchers say that the discrepancy between their findings, which are based on a wider range of species, and those in the Amazon, show that the effects of higher temperatures differ regionally and cannot be generalized for the tropics.
"If our hypothesis that tropical tree growth rates are decreasing in response to higher temperatures is correct, this creates the danger of positive feedbacks: higher temperatures cause reduced tree growth which in turn results in slower rates of carbon uptake and more deforestation/land conversion, which then results in accelerated increases of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, causing further reductions in growth and so on and so on," said Feeley.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#240. To: farmfriend (#237)
#241. To: buckeroo (#236)
#242. To: AGAviator (#234)
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#243. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend (#240)
LOL! We were on the same page coming from different angles. LOL!
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#244. To: farmfriend (#242)
I still fail to see how even doubling our CO2 would be harmful.
#245. To: Original_Intent (#244)
The sky would fall?
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#246. To: farmfriend (#245)
The sky would fall?
#247. To: Original_Intent (#246)
I found that an interesting insight into the leftist mind. They are willing to "believe" and push a Lie in other to foist their political prejudices and neurotic desire to create "social justice" (everyone living in misery).
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#248. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#236)
Here, answer thes questions from WAY ABOVE in this same thread, lamer:
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#249. To: All (#248)
I guess seventy to seven hundred billion people would be able to live on this planet if doing so properly.
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#250. To: wudidiz (#249)
#251. To: wudidiz (#248)
I guess seventy to seven hundred billion people would be able to live on this planet if doing so properly.
#252. To: Original_Intent (#241)
I have never put anyone on bozo before except to eliminate a spammers warping of a thread, but I am getting very very close.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, FOUR days ago.
In effect, you are a liar and a thief. You are a goddamed BSer...
#253. To: wudidiz, farmfriend, HighLairEon, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach (#249)
#254. To: Lod (#232)
Any sightings of the Wooden One lately?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#255. To: buckeroo (#252)
#256. To: Original_Intent (#255)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#257. To: wudidiz (#256)
#258. To: Original_Intent (#257)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#259. To: Original_Intent (#255)
fuck yourself.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
#260. To: wudidiz (#258)
#261. To: Original_Intent (#260)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#262. To: James Deffenbach, Lod (#254)
Fortunately, I have not seen the windbag liar lately. And I have no idea how much he has made off gullible people. I bet it would be astounding.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#263. To: wudidiz (#261)
Well, it is Saturday night you know....
#264. To: Original_Intent (#238)
How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#265. To: Original_Intent, All (#261)
Well, it is Saturday night you know....
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
.
.
.