Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

Lying right wing crap.

marcodbeast wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

Lying right wing crap.

Hmm. I read the article and didn't see anything that looked like it was a
lie - it was mostly opinion. Unless you think the author is lying about his
opinion?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...0NTQ=&w= MQ==

Did you have some particular statement in mind?

On Apr 23, 9:46*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

* Lying right wing crap.


All my environmental choices are generally made on the basis of 2 cost/
benefit calculations:

1) Will I live long enough and will the new equipment live long enough
to recoup the cost and then some (in energy savings) of my purchase?
If there is no big payoff, or risk too high, then I'll keep my
existing equipment or buy standard equipment.

2) Will the new equipment make my life drastically more comfortable
making the expense worth it even if the recoup time doesnt work out as
well? If not, then I'll keep my existing equipment.

So far a hybrid car over a good-mileage 4 cylinder has not passed the
above test, neither has solar panels on my house, another 8 inches of
insulation, etc. But weatherstripping my doors had a good cost to
payoff to comfort ratio. These hollywood stars are on a different
planet alltogether, as is Al Gore who has made around 100 million so
far selling the global warming lie.

On Apr 23, 3:08*pm, RickH wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:46*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

* Lying right wing crap.

All my environmental choices are generally made on the basis of 2 cost/
benefit calculations:

1) Will I live long enough and will the new equipment live long enough
to recoup the cost and then some (in energy savings) of my purchase?
If there is no big payoff, or risk too high, then I'll keep my
existing equipment or buy standard equipment.

2) Will the new equipment make my life drastically more comfortable
making the expense worth it even if the recoup time doesnt work out as
well? *If not, then I'll keep my existing equipment.

So far a hybrid car over a good-mileage 4 cylinder has not passed the
above test, neither has solar panels on my house, another 8 inches of
insulation, etc. *But weatherstripping my doors had a good cost to
payoff to comfort ratio. *These hollywood stars are on a different
planet alltogether, as is Al Gore who has made around 100 million so
far selling the global warming lie.

The state of Tennesse last year said that algore increased his draw on
the public grid by 10%. He has the money and the time to refurbish his
house and show us that it is possible to reduce the need for carbon
fuels.

There is no point in simply making electricity more expensive if one
is unalble to reduce their needs. Most Americans use very little more
than their essential needs which they cannot cut back.

If the carbon tax does not reduce the use of carbon fuels by
strangulation, it has absolutely no effect upon actual CO2 released.
The governments of Europe and the Obama administration and democrats,
have no interest in the science of AGW, or the facts on CO2 emissions
and atmospheric concentrations, since they relish the money they can
raise from the unjustified tax.

In the meantime, they can give absolutely no outlay of how much
suffering and indirect genocide of old people, working class and
middle class they must have for how much warming they plan to stop by
their program.

According to the Antartica CO2 graphs, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is
linear, (very little change in yearly increases which is probably
primarily caused by the burning of the tropical jungles), while human
output has doubled since about 1970. This means that reductions of
world output by 1/2 cannot be considered to have any effect upon
actual atmospheric concentrations. This means that the complete
elimination of CO2 from the US cannot be considered to have any
effect.

With the steadly increasing output of CO2 from China, India and
developing nations, complete elimination of CO2 from the US would only
delay the actual quantities put into the air by several months.

So the fact should be admitted. There is no possiblity of reducing
world emissions, even if the scaremongering were valid. If there is to
be a climate catastrophe, which is predicted by the evangelist,
algore, elimination of ALL US CO2 can only delay the event by several
months. Certainly not worth the REAL IMPACT on people's lives wished
for by the insane and invalid AGW fanatics.

Yet the AGW fanatics stilll wish to subject Americans to draconian
measures which can only hurt anyone not directly in line to profit. It
is simply a lie that they can bolster the economy by the needless
programs and taxes they envision.

It can be determined that without factual basis for their program to
in any way have merit to affect CO2 levels, the programs are fraud and
a criminal attack against the US.

The consistent omission of pertinent facts can be construed as
criminal intent to commit fraud.

And in the meantime, EPA has no direct science whatsoever to support
their theoretical science of the detrimental effects of CO2 and the
other gases.

KD

RickH wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:46 am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

Lying right wing crap.


All my environmental choices are generally made on the basis of 2
cost/ benefit calculations:

1) Will I live long enough and will the new equipment live long enough
to recoup the cost and then some (in energy savings) of my purchase?
If there is no big payoff, or risk too high, then I'll keep my
existing equipment or buy standard equipment.

2) Will the new equipment make my life drastically more comfortable
making the expense worth it even if the recoup time doesnt work out as
well? If not, then I'll keep my existing equipment.

So far a hybrid car over a good-mileage 4 cylinder has not passed the
above test, neither has solar panels on my house, another 8 inches of
insulation, etc. But weatherstripping my doors had a good cost to
payoff to comfort ratio.

Sounds very reasonable.

These hollywood stars are on a different
planet alltogether,

Can't argue with that. lol

as is Al Gore who has made around 100 million so
far selling the global warming lie.

1. There is no global warming lie, except perhaps the many different
cockamamie stories denialists come up with to explain why we should believe
oil company employees instead of our own lying satellites, and

2. Al Gore started his AGW work over a decade before his commercial
venture.

HeyBub wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

Lying right wing crap.

Hmm. I read the article and didn't see anything that looked like it
was a lie - it was mostly opinion. Unless you think the author is
lying about his opinion?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...0NTQ=&w= MQ==

Did you have some particular statement in mind?

Let's start with the first paragraph, which begins with a pathetic,
moronic lie.

"With Earth Day upon us, everyone should reaffirm their commitment to
helping the environment by sitting around on their carbon buttprints and
watching TV. If that idea sounds preposterous, you probably haven't been
paying attention to the public-service announcements you can see incessantly
on various networks (including the numerous NBC channels - whose parent
company, GE, stands to profit handsomely from our promised Brave New Green
World). And you definitely haven't been paying attention to the outer
fringes of the cable spectrum."

Complete idiocy. But, that's NRO for you.

On Apr 24, 10:59*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

*Lying right wing crap.

Hmm. I read the article and didn't see anything that looked like it
was a lie - it was mostly opinion. Unless you think the author is
lying about his opinion?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JmYzE3MTgyYTIx....

Did you have some particular statement in mind?

* Let's start with the first paragraph, which begins with a pathetic,
moronic lie.

"With Earth Day upon us, everyone should reaffirm their commitment to
helping the environment by sitting around on their carbon buttprints and
watching TV. If that idea sounds preposterous, you probably haven't been
paying attention to the public-service announcements you can see incessantly
on various networks (including the numerous NBC channels - whose parent
company, GE, stands to profit handsomely from our promised Brave New Green
World). And you definitely haven't been paying attention to the outer
fringes of the cable spectrum."

* Complete idiocy. *But, that's NRO for you.

Everybody knows that it's all proof of the big Algore conspiracy,
right up there with the faked lunar landings, Elvis working at the
Kalamazoo Burger Shack, 9/11 being an inside job, Tobacco being
harmful, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, Space Aliens and their
Anal Probes, the Holocaust being a Hoax, Obama being a Radical Muslim
Kenyan Marxist, and how Ronald Reagan defeated Communism. All of
which are true, but part of the big cover up by those guys in the
black helecopters and leftist historians. Only the right wing anti-
science kooks can save us now!

HeyBub wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:
Did you have some particular statement in mind?

Let's start with the first paragraph, which begins with a pathetic,
moronic lie.

"With Earth Day upon us, everyone should reaffirm their commitment to
helping the environment by sitting around on their carbon buttprints
and watching TV. If that idea sounds preposterous, you probably
haven't been paying attention to the public-service announcements you
can see incessantly on various networks (including the numerous NBC
channels - whose parent company, GE, stands to profit handsomely from
our promised Brave New Green World). And you definitely haven't been
paying attention to the outer fringes of the cable spectrum."

Complete idiocy. But, that's NRO for you.

I see a recommendation or two ("sitting around on their buttprints").

Yep - complete idiocy.

The only statement of facts seem to be:

* "GE, stands to profit handsomely..."
* "haven't been paying attention..."

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW Neither of which inspires me to sit on my ass.

On Apr 24, 9:59*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
RickH wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:46 am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/

Lying right wing crap.

All my environmental choices are generally made on the basis of 2
cost/ benefit calculations:

1) Will I live long enough and will the new equipment live long enough
to recoup the cost and then some (in energy savings) of my purchase?
If there is no big payoff, or risk too high, then I'll keep my
existing equipment or buy standard equipment.

2) Will the new equipment make my life drastically more comfortable
making the expense worth it even if the recoup time doesnt work out as
well? *If not, then I'll keep my existing equipment.

So far a hybrid car over a good-mileage 4 cylinder has not passed the
above test, neither has solar panels on my house, another 8 inches of
insulation, etc. *But weatherstripping my doors had a good cost to
payoff to comfort ratio.

* Sounds very reasonable.

* These hollywood stars are on a different

planet alltogether,

* Can't argue with that. *lol

*as is Al Gore who has made around 100 million so

far selling the global warming lie.

1. *There is no global warming lie, except perhaps the many different
cockamamie stories denialists come up with to explain why we should believe
oil company employees instead of our own lying satellites, and

2. *Al Gore started his AGW work over a decade before his commercial
venture

That is the nature of his crisis.
He made predictions in the 90's, according to his simplistic mind
which is entirey mathematically inept, of CO2 input into the
atmosphere, and calculated effects upon temperatures. .

He predicted dire consequences by 2015. We are quickly approaching
that time. Yet the temperatures are flat over the past ten yrs. None
of the calculated effects of CO2 increases have come true. In fact,
for US temperatures, the 1930's were warmer, before 90% of the
supposed increases in CO2.

Like the many doomsday prophets, he will be looked upon as a total
fool. And when true analysis is done of the climatology and it's lack
of scientific basis, this entire field of theoretical science will be
dispelled.

KD