See other National News Articles
Title: Local lawmakers diverge on climate change
Source:
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
URL Source: http://www.statesman.com/news/conte ... s/local/12/17/1217climate.html
Published: Dec 17, 2007
Author: Jason Embry
Post Date: 2007-12-17 10:32:21 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 1053
Comments: 74
Partisan split in congressional delegation reflects national division. Monday, December 17, 2007 WASHINGTON — A split among Austin-area members of Congress about the need for sweeping legislation to combat global warming reflects a national divide between Democrats and Republicans. And the passage last week of an energy bill in the Senate — stripped of key Democrat-backed provisions that had threatened to trigger a White House veto — served to underscore that disagreement. Among Texas' two senators and four members of the U.S. House who represent Travis, Williamson and Hays counties, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the only Democrat, is also the only one who speaks forcefully about the need for swift congressional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and other forms of climate change. "We need action yesterday," Doggett said. "It's long-overdue on all fronts." Republicans who represent the area in the House and Senate discuss global warming in less urgent terms. They objected to the earlier version of the energy package, which aimed to reduce global warming and paid for some of those efforts with higher taxes on oil and gas companies.The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate until the taxes were removed. "We all know those taxes are not going to be absorbed by oil companies but ultimately passed along to consumers," said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn's fellow senator from Texas, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, also voiced concerns about a provision requiring electric companies to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Southern electric companies in particular said they could not get enough affordable power to meet that mandate. That's not a problem in Austin, which plans to generate 30 percent of its power from renewable sources, primarily from wind farms in West Texas, by that date. "We're in great shape," said Austin Energy spokesman Ed Clark. Once Senate leaders removed the taxes on oil companies and the renewable electricity requirements, the energy bill passed the Senate 86-8 late last week. Cornyn and Hutchison voted for it. The key provision remains the requirement to increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent for cars and light trucks, including sport-utility vehicles, from an industry average of 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It would be the first such increase since 1975. The legislation is headed for the floor of the House this week, where it's likely to get a better reception. Republican Reps. Lamar Smith of San Antonio, John Carter of Round Rock and Michael McCaul of Austin all voted against the earlier version of the bill. Their staffs would not say Friday how they would vote on the stripped-down version, which the White House has signaled that President Bush would sign. Doggett hailed the earlier version of the energy package, which, unlike the current one, included a tax credit for plug-in hybrid cars and tightened the requirements that businesses must meet to receive biodiesel tax credits. "Raising vehicle fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years means this remains a worthy bill," Doggett said after the Senate vote last week. "But I am already seeking other legislative ways of getting approval for the plug-in hybrid and biodiesel provisions that Republican Senate opposition has obstructed." The divide within Austin's congressional delegation looks much like one that has surfaced in numerous national polls over the last year. A CBS News-New York Times poll in April found that Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to describe global warming as a "very serious problem" that should be one of the government's highest priorities. Global warming is caused at least in part by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Those gases — primarily carbon dioxide — come largely from human-made sources, including industry, electric power production and automobiles. Though Doggett speaks emphatically about the need for higher fuel economy standards and mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, his Republican colleagues are far more muted. Smith and McCaul co-sponsored Doggett's legislation to provide tax credits for the purchase of plug-in hybrid cars and speak of the need to develop alternative forms of energy, such as solar power. Yet the House bill they voted against included a plug-in credit and $9 billion in tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources. "We still get 95 percent of our energy from oil and gas, and it completely ignored doing anything for the oil and gas industry, which is going to hurt Texas and hurt the country," Smith said. Added McCaul: "I voted for most of the alternative energy legislation that's in this bill at the committee level. My constituents in Austin support alternative energy, as do I. The concern I had with this bill is that it really didn't do enough to bring down the price of gas at the pump." McCaul said the legislation would not lower gas prices because it would not increase the domestic energy supply. Democrats say the higher fuel standards will save money for consumers at the gas pump. Though Congress worked and reworked the details of the energy package in 2007, legislation that has not reached the floor of the Senate takes more direct aim at global warming. A bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., would create a so-called cap-and-trade system, in which emissions from the electric power, transportation and manufacturing sectors would be cut to 2005 levels by 2012. Then they would have to keep falling, down to 70 percent below 2005 emission levels, by 2050. Businesses would receive a certain number of allowances for a certain level of emissions and could sell them to other businesses if they did not need them all. "Environmentally, the cap is the key piece," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. "What the cap does is limit the total amount of global warming pollution that could be put into the atmosphere. That's really the fundamental driver of investment in new technology that's needed to get us on the path of steadily reducing emissions." Of lawmakers who represent the Austin area in Congress, Doggett is the only one who has called for mandatory emissions caps. He called a cap-and-trade program the "next major step that we need to take." Though many environmental groups have praised the Lieberman-Warner proposal as a good first step, some have said it does not reduce emissions aggressively enough. But Frank Maisano, a spokesman for utilities, refineries and wind developers, said the cost of complying with the reductions called for in cap-and-trade proposals could hit Texas particularly hard. "Texas is in a unique position in that they provide energy for the rest of the country," he said. "So any burdens that are added to energy and the cost of energy will be felt especially hard in Texas because Texas does the energy bidding for much of the rest of the country." jembry@statesman.com; (202) 887-8329 IF INTERESTED IN TEXAS; SEE THIS; www.statesman.com/news/co...12/17/1217climatebox.html Climate change: what they say, how they vote
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: farmfriend (#14)
And I must also note that Tim is a paid advocate (aka "shill") for the oil and gas companies. Really sad that you would be one of them too.
Well you have to really delve into the science to understand it. I can't help you there. All I can do is help you with the politics of it. I can tell you that AGW is one of the biggest frauds foisted on people. It's all about money for the Rockefellers et al. It's their charitable funds that are pushing AGW. It's a tried and true environmental racketeering system. Here are a couple of quotes from a friend who did a bunch of research on it. 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. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67
Sorry dear, that dog won't hunt. I'm too well known for that. I was a paid shill at one time but not for oil or anything close to that. I'm sure there are half a dozen people on this forum that could tell you who I worked for. My farmfriend handle is your first clue. I've actually lobbied for biofuels with the American Corn Growers Association though I wasn't employed by them.
So why do you shill for big oil? Are they paying you well?
The simple fact is that the earth is getting hotter. There are various reasons for it, but we don't need to add to the problem unnecessarily, and certainly not at the suggestion of oil and gas companies, who try to bamboozle people with junk science hoping to convince them that they're really our friends and are working with our best interests in mind, and that those "bad scientists" are plotting against us....
But by the same token I don't think we should go along with UN socialists who want us to buy clean air credits from Third World African cesspools and re- distribute our wealth to African thugocracies while India and China - the biggest polluters and Global Warmists by far - are exempt from UN rules. Corruption does not only exist with big oil companies, you know.
I totally agree, and buying "clean air credits" certainly does nothing to allieviate the problem. A determined effort to find alternative energy, perhaps something along the lines of Tesla type research, would be what we need.
Excellent. Another point about this is a post I did some time ago about how sustainable agriculture (no chemicals) would put tens of thousands of TONS of co2 back into the ground IF WE FARMED AS WAS DONE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. (Of course, I am not talking about using horses, as some will suggest; I am talking about farming 'practices.') In addition, this would greatly increase food production, which is sorely needed.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. Symptoms of Groupthink Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink: Whatever. Continue to post the oil companies' "science" along with their propaganda and see how much I believe whatever you say..
One thing your pretty little picture from Germany neglects to mention is the NET amount of CO2 the oceans emit, where the MAJORITY of the world's oceans ABSORB carbon dioxide rather than emit it. Have you ever tried to find what the world's oceans NET uptake of carbon dioxide is, are do you just rely on oil company propaganda for your data?
BTW, rather than posting unsourced pictures, why don't you try posting a REAL scientific reference to what you claim to be the oceanic net uptake. In fact, I'd like to see verifiable data for ALL of the figures you claim, as they are just numbers out of the air at this point.
Doggett is such a pos puke, I cannot tell you.
Now we know why the elites and those that shill for them claim there is no such thing as global warming.
What do you have against him? From what I've found about him on Wikipedia, he does appear to be a major puke in regards to gun control and abortion, but he voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot Act at least.
Thanks, I did not know that. He's just another careerist who's been on the ballot here in CenTex for the last thirty years.
The source for the figures used in the picture was NASA and INQUA. Sorry you think those are not scientific enough. I never made any such claims. I said the oceans were the largest source of CO2. They are. I have given scientific references for that. Now you want me to give a source for the NET? Moving the goal post doesn't make you right. This argument is pointless. I validated the claims I made in response to the article. Nothing more is needed.
Since when is NASA and the NOAA an oil company?
Neither one of them states what you do. I already admitted that I was wrong and that TROPICAL areas of the ocean do emit CO2. When are YOU going to admit that YOU were wrong and that oceans MOSTLY absorb CO2? When are YOU going to provide the data on oceanic NET uptake? Do you even know what the term means? Are you going to post reputable data from verifiable sources to backup the figures that you posted concerning emissions?
Wrong, you posted numbers that your "friend" Tim supplied you, and you posted an image from Germany that has no source data. Neither the NASA data nor the NOAA data confirms your assertions concering the numerical value of CO2 emissions, so try again. BTW, I see nothing from INQUA.
Incidently, you already HAVE, and you know so little about the topic you pretend to know a lot about, you didn't know (or didn't want to admit) what it means. Oceanic net CO2 uptake is the NET amount of CO2 that the oceans of the world ABSORB. That is, the TOTAL amount of CO2 ABSORBED MINUS any amount the oceans emit. Your own post refering to a NOAA press release states the following; And you are WRONG. Only the equatorial oceans EMIT CO2. The REST of the world's oceans ABSORB it, so the NET effect is that the world's oceans ABSORB CO2. So overall, the oceans aren't a SOURCE, they are a SINK.
Wrong! The picture is clearly sourced. I stated that the oceans are the largest source for CO2. I posted a NASA & NOAA source that backs that up. The nice little graphic lists NASA and INQUA figures as it's source. So far I have done nothing but back up my statements while you throw out ad hominem attacks and unsourced statements. You want me to reply in kind? I can do that. You are nothing but a UN supporting, carbon tax promoting globalist! That's who you are siding with. That's whose propaganda you are believing in and pushing. How can you vote for Ron Paul then turn around and support this crap?
So overall, the oceans aren't a SOURCE, they are a SINK. I'm not wrong. I never, NEVER said they didn't act as a sink. Nor did I EVER claim you were wrong on that point. The article made the claim that: I countered that stating that the oceans were the largest source of CO2: You challenged that saying: and again here: and again here: I was right, the oceans are the largest source of CO2. For the record, man's contribution to over all CO2 is 3%. There is still raging debate about whether all of the measured increase is anthropogenic or natural. The data is unclear. Now you can move the goal post all you want, claim anything you want but you can not change the fact that my simple statement was correct. The oceans are the largest source of CO2.
Now we know why the elites and those that shill for them claim there is no such thing as global warming. I know this may come as a shock to you, but companies do not pay taxes; taxes are a cost of doing business, and ARE ALWAYS PASSED ON to the comsumer, which, in case you have forgotten, is you and everyone other little guy in America. The taxes that are mentioned in this piece would result in increased costs to those most unable to cope with such; the poor, the elderly, and young couples. And, taxes are a sham. If you doubt this, you need to check out CAFR and learn what the states and the federal government have been hiding form us all of these years.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
LOL!! I have no doubt! BUT, with rare, VERY rare, exceptions, aren't they all?!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Very well said. Right on point. Exactly correct. Congrats! I have yet to see anything that you have posted, farmy, that is incorrect and/or not sourced. VERY, VERY good work. Thank you.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
No because none of that has anything to do with my original statement that you challenged me on nor was it part of your original challenge. You only started talking NET after I proved your original challenge was wrong. You moved the goal post. That's cheating!
Wow, thanks!
To who, you? Did you fabricate it?
And you are lying. Nowhere in either the NASA or NOAA articles do they say that. YOU say it's there, then cut and paste the relevant paragraph and prove me wrong.
I could draw a picture that says the same thing. Post material from NASA and/or INQUA that SAYS what you are claiming, then perhaps I'll believe you.
The picture references its sources like anything scientific or journalistic. You want to challenge the people who put the graphic on the web, be my guest. You want to post documentation to counter their numbers, you are welcome to do that as well. Have at it.
And I'd say you are a liar. I have asked you specifically to backup your assertions, and even posted data that YOU posted to show how you didn't even understand what you were using as source material.
Provide a link to their site.
I'm done proving my case. You post information to counter it if you think you can.
I did since the graphic is there for all to see. You already made the claim that it is of European origin so obviously you know how to follow the link. Reposting the data shows I didn't understand it? And you are a corporate shill that uses people's ignorance of science to your advantage. You do nothing but take the side of GLOBALISTS and the oil companies, their views echo yours. Any sane and rational person would seek the truth concerning global warming, and agree that we need to take measures to reduce our contribution to global warming, as well as reducing our dependence on foreign oil, or ANY oil in general. You provide dubious numbers concerning CO2 emissions, declaring the oceans to be a major source of CO2, while conveniently neglecting the WELL KNOWN fact that the world's oceans are what ABSORB much of the world's atmospheric CO2. Those that believe your bullshit would think that hey, farmfriend is such a nice person, she must be telling the truth here. So out goes any concern for global warming, anyone that mentions it must be a KOOK, all premised on YOUR BIG FAT FUCKING LIE.
You're correct, of course. I don't know whether to despise him, or the numbnuts who vote him in to office more. Maybe we do get the gov that we deserve.
Comments (57 - 74) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd I must note that you have not refuted my facts at all but resorted to personal attacks on me and Tim. Sad.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#17. To: FormerLurker (#15)
There is obviously a problem here, and I can't understand why there are those that would claim that there's nothing wrong, and let's just continue business as usual..
It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades.
~snip~
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.These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax-exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#18. To: FormerLurker (#16)
(Edited)
And I must also note that Tim is a paid advocate (aka "shill") for the oil and gas companies. Really sad that you would be one of them too.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#19. To: farmfriend (#17)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#20. To: farmfriend (#17)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#21. To: FormerLurker (#20)
There are various reasons for it, but we don't need to add to the problem unnecessarily, and certainly not at the suggestion of oil and gas companies,
#22. To: scrapper2 (#21)
Corruption does not only exist with big oil companies, you know.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#23. To: richard9151 (#0)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#24. To: farmfriend (#23)
#25. To: FormerLurker (#19)
So why do you shill for big oil? Are they paying you well?
When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#26. To: farmfriend (#25)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#27. To: farmfriend (#23)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#28. To: farmfriend (#23)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#29. To: richard9151 (#0)
#30. To: richard9151 (#0)
Republicans who represent the area in the House and Senate discuss global warming in less urgent terms. They objected to the earlier version of the energy package, which aimed to reduce global warming and paid for some of those efforts with higher taxes on oil and gas companies. The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate until the taxes were removed.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#31. To: lodwick (#29)
(Edited)
Doggett is such a pos puke, I cannot tell you.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#32. To: FormerLurker (#31)
... but he voted against the Iraq war and the Patriot Act at least.
#33. To: FormerLurker (#28)
BTW, rather than posting unsourced pictures, ... I'd like to see verifiable data for ALL of the figures you claim, as they are just numbers out of the air at this point.
why don't you try posting a REAL scientific reference to what you claim to be the oceanic net uptake.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#34. To: FormerLurker (#27)
are do you just rely on oil company propaganda for your data?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#35. To: farmfriend (#34)
Since when is NASA and the NOAA an oil company?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#36. To: farmfriend (#33)
The source for the figures used in the picture was NASA and INQUA. Sorry you think those are not scientific enough.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#37. To: farmfriend (#34)
FL: When are YOU going to provide the data on oceanic NET uptake? Do you even know what the term means?
"The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent, ” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle.
I believe the terms "global ocean uptake" and "net ocean uptake" mean the same thing. In any case, uptake refers to absorbtion, so this article is saying that the increase in emissions in the western equatorial Pacific has reduced the net amount ABSORBED by the world's oceans by 2.5%. So are you getting ready to admit you were wrong?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#38. To: farmfriend (#33)
I said the oceans were the largest source of CO2.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#39. To: FormerLurker (#36)
and you posted an image from Germany that has no source data.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#40. To: FormerLurker (#38)
And you are WRONG. Only the equatorial oceans EMIT CO2. The REST of the world's oceans ABSORB it, so the NET effect is that the world's oceans ABSORB CO2.
Those gases — primarily carbon dioxide — come largely from human- made sources, including industry, electric power production and automobiles.
No actually the greatest source of co2 is the ocean.
Actually, the oceans ABSORB half of ALL of the world's man-made carbon dioxide, they DO NOT emit it...
So are you going to admit that you are wrong? Your very own "evidence" contradicts your claim, where it states that "sea water" is a natural sink, whereas you stated the oceans were the biggest SOURCE of CO2..
BTW, I don't know what your friend is smoking, but oceans don't "outgas" CO2, they "outgas" O2, eg. OXYGEN.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#41. To: FormerLurker (#30)
higher taxes on oil and gas companies.
#42. To: lodwick (#29)
Doggett is such a pos puke, I cannot tell you.
#43. To: farmfriend, FormerLurker (#39)
That's who you are siding with. That's whose propaganda you are believing in and pushing. How can you vote for Ron Paul then turn around and support this crap?
#44. To: FormerLurker (#37)
I believe the terms "global ocean uptake" and "net ocean uptake" mean the same thing. In any case, uptake refers to absorbtion, so this article is saying that the increase in emissions in the western equatorial Pacific has reduced the net amount ABSORBED by the world's oceans by 2.5%. So are you getting ready to admit you were wrong?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#45. To: richard9151 (#43)
I have yet to see anything that you have posted, farmy, that is incorrect and/or not sourced. VERY, VERY good work. Thank you.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#46. To: farmfriend (#39)
Wrong! The picture is clearly sourced.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#47. To: farmfriend (#39)
I stated that the oceans are the largest source for CO2. I posted a NASA & NOAA source that backs that up.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#48. To: farmfriend (#39)
The nice little graphic lists NASA and INQUA figures as it's source.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#49. To: FormerLurker (#46)
To who, you? Did you fabricate it?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#50. To: farmfriend (#39)
So far I have done nothing but back up my statements while you throw out ad hominem attacks and unsourced statements.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#51. To: farmfriend (#49)
You want to challenge the people who put the graphic on the web, be my guest. You want to post documentation to counter their numbers, you are welcome to do that as well. Have at it.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#52. To: FormerLurker (#48)
Post material from NASA and/or INQUA that SAYS what you are claiming, then perhaps I'll believe you.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#53. To: FormerLurker (#51)
Provide a link to their site.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#54. To: FormerLurker (#50)
and even posted data that YOU posted to show how you didn't even understand what you were using as source material.
That's a stretch.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#55. To: farmfriend, richard9151, robin (#39)
(Edited)
You are nothing but a UN supporting, carbon tax promoting globalist! That's who you are siding with. That's whose propaganda you are believing in and pushing. How can you vote for Ron Paul then turn around and support this crap?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#56. To: richard9151 (#42)
LOL!! I have no doubt! BUT, with rare, VERY rare, exceptions, aren't they all?!
.
.
.