Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

Robatoy wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

28 degrees here in hot sunny (not) Texas... Brrrr! I'm leaving for
Hawaii Monday morning

Pete C.

According to the Drudge Report, a House Hearing on Global Warming was
cancelled due to the ice storm.

Jack

wrote in message
According to the Drudge Report, a House Hearing on Global Warming was
cancelled due to the ice storm.


Poor Al ... if he had the courage of his convictions he's probably got rid
of all his coats by now.

Naaahhh!


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.

And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.

I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.

Robert

wrote:
All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.

I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...

The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average.
Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in
general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh
winters.

Chris

On 14 Feb 2007 14:28:03 -0800, "
wrote:

All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.

And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.

I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.

I dunno--if he got the idea that he could have a career in show biz it
might keep him out of politics. On the other hand it didn't stop
Hanoi Jane.

wrote in message
All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global
warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.

And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.


But, but, but .... OK, if I have to to get along. But the equally touted
"Look out! the Ice Age is coming" back in the 70's has got me sorta cynical
about "lies, damn lies and statistics", if you know what I mean, Vern?

I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.

Hell will freeze over first ... well, maybe just one, with a little "o",
just to keep the gullible gullible.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

wrote:

I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.

OK, I'll ask, "Why not?"

Lew

On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."


Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.

On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.

Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.
Gore did have a lot to do with the growth and funding of them thar
intarweb tubes.
There are a lot of Americans who are wondering how things would have
turned out had the popular vote actually won in 2000.
I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.

Obama/Clarke 2008. ANYbody but that douche-nozzle Clinton. I have said
too much.

Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
big mofo's in 2005?

"Robatoy" wrote in message

Obama/Clarke 2008. ANYbody but that douche-nozzle Clinton. I have said
too much.

ROTFLMAO! ... where the hell is Pat Paulson when you need him??


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.

Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.

Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

And Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
Rove spin.

The rest is out-of-context semantics.

Here is Snopes:

Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say
anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore
said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-
context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf
Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked
to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, Gore replied (in part):


"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."

Snopes continues:

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-
serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the
sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was
responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the
development the
technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was
seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet
is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close
presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the
words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.

Snopes=another Gore apologist. Event the Democrats (dip****s) realized that
Gore had not only stuck his foot in his mouth but swallowed the whole leg.
They spent a lot of time doing damage control. If you had watched the
interview, Gore's intent was clear.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is
Rove spin.

Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself
all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact
that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever
elected to Congress.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Robatoy wrote:

When asked
to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New
Jersey, Gore replied (in part):


"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important
to our country's economic growth and environmental protection,
improvements in our educational system."

Gore never used the word "invent," and the
words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings.


OK, I'll bite. In the context of going to a world without an internet
to a world with an internet, what's the difference between saying create
and saying invent?

On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Bleau wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 11:02:41 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

Call that guy who invented the internet. Ask him to dig it out for
you. If he not too busy still counting missing chads in Florida he
might help you out.

Gore never said that. Just another Rove hatchet job.

Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

In context, Wolf Blitzwer asked, "Why should Democrats, looking
at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill
Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What
do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to
this
process?

Gore replied, "During my service in the United States Congress,
I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative
in
moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to
be important to our country's economic growth and environmental
protection, improvements in our educational system."



If you want to make a joke by an overly literal out-of-context
interpretation of a comment, here's another one:

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush

--

FF

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...
Gore never said that.

Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.

In article et, "CW" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gore never said that.

Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.

Not quite -- he said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Which *also* wasn't true.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article et, "CW" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gore never said that.

Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.

Not quite -- he said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Which *also* wasn't true.


The people who DID create the internet, disagree with you.

--

FF

On Feb 14, 9:17 pm, "CW" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

ups.com...

Gore never said that.

Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.

Context....context.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
On Feb 14, 9:17 pm, "CW" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message



Gore never said that.

Tha's quite true. He actually said that he created it. Some people just
needed to change to words a bit.

Context....context.


Interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Transcript right he

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...anscript.gore/


When the Internet was "created", Gore was 21 and still in school.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...

I have not seen Gore's movie, but many people that have, liked it.

Most like sicience Fiction.



Were there ANY hurricanesin 2006? That is so weird... what, there 5
big mofo's in 2005?


Yes , I think 3 or 4 times less than 2005 and that many times less than
predicted.

In article .com, "Robatoy" wrote:
Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

I hear you, man -- my son and I just finished shoveling eleven inches of
global warming out of our driveway. Right up next to the garage, the global
warming was drifted up to mid-thigh. Overnight lows the next coupla nights are
predicted below zero, and that's Fahrenheit. I'm sure to the folks in
Minnesota, that seems kinda balmy... but it's pretty dang cold for
Indianapolis. For most of the last week or two, our daily highs have been
colder than the normal *low* for this time of year.

I think I've had about all the global warming I can take.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Robatoy wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn


It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn wrote:

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn


It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.

To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
conclusions contrary to their faith.

To the former point, I've seen other conclusions, but am too tired to go
digging for em right now. It's not worth it anyway, it will only
demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
PhD." Wouldn't matter anyway, those who have signed onto the global
warming religion aren't going to believe anything that derails that
nebulous theory. Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
increase is man-made and man-caused (what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
:aided CO2 is zero. Enough.

: To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
: warming adherents, there's not a lot of hope for papers demonstrating
: conclusions contrary to their faith.

You don't know a whole lot about refereed journals, from the sound of it.
The referees are well-trained, mainstream, reputable scientists.
Many hundreds of them. Do you think the editors of all the major
science journals in the world are members of a secret society
that has an agenda to promote the illusion of global warming? And that they
somehow have been able to identify the minority of scientists whole agree with them,
and have excluded all other scientists from the editorial review process?


: demonstrate another theorem, "for every PhD, there's an equal but opposite
: PhD."

And that contradicts your point above.

-- Andy Barss

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn wrote:

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.

To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents,

Because they have evidence.
You imply that GW is some kind of liberal plot. Prove this.

On Feb 14, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

...

To your latter point, given that the referrees for papers are all global
warming adherents,

I'm very interested in the data on which you base that conclusion.

...
Even more so those who are convinced that all of that CO2
increase is man-made and man-caused

I'm pretty sure that estimates of man-made CO2 are based on
estimates of fossil fuel use, cement production, forest burning
and so on. There are pretty solid numbers for that, don't you
agree?

(what they usually mean is western
civilization man-made and caused. CO2 from China and other developing
industrial nations apparently has no effect).

Again, I'd like to know what data you used to reach that conclusion.

--

FF

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:


Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn



CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.

The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
around comes around.

Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
falling, Chicken Little.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:21:17 -0700, Steve wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:33:29 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:


Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million
years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn



CO2, atmospheric levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm).
Paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300
ppm there has been an ice age. Every time, without exception.

The same records show that there have been a series of ice ages over
the past 5 million years, naturally occurring every 100,000 years,
with about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. I am more inclined to
believe what has happened in the past without exception, than the
incredibly unreliable speculation about what will happen into the
future 100 to 1000 years from now. Are planet is cyclical, what goes
around comes around.

Does this mean we will be heading into an ice age anytime soon,
certainly not. One thing I do know for sure is that the sky is not
falling, Chicken Little.

What is interesting is that according to those same ice cores, instead
of peak and precipitate drop in temperature, there had been a peak
and hold this time. And that hold goes back far more than the few
hundred years that the advocates of the industrial-emission theory are
claiming. So it seems likely that _something_ has changed that has
nothing to do with human activity, or if the something is human
activity it's not industrial CO2 emissions.

Whatever we're doing, if humans _are_ doing it we bloody well better
keep it up until we figure out the consequences of _stopping_.

That's the big problem I have with the "we must fix this
******NOW******" argument--we don't have any reason other than a bunch
of opinions to believe that we won't be jumping out of the frying pan
into the fire.

At some point, the world is going to warm, whether humans do it or
not. The natural state over tens of millions of years has been warm
enough that there were no ice caps. The only reason that humans think
that the current state is "normal" is that we've never experienced in
our few tens of thousands of years of existence anything _different_.
If we see it as a bad thing then at some point we're going to have to
interfere with natural processes in order to _stop_ it.

The big question, that nobody seems to want to address, is "is what we
are seeing the natural end of the ice ages".

jo4hn wrote:
Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp
wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better
weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps
and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna
get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn


It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million

Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever".

years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn

Now all you have to do is:

a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).

At this point you will earn a Ph.D.

b) Demonstrate that human action is causal for the increased CO2 levels (not done to date).

At this point you will get tenure.

c) Demonstrate that global warming's effects are severe and harm the environment
(entirely speculative to date).

At this point you will get unlimited funding.

d) Demonstrate that mankind can actually substantially do something about
it by changing behavior (wild speculation to date).

At this point you might be electable to public office.

Gore and the Earth Worshiping Pantheists wanna skip a-c and go right to d.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:02 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

jo4hn wrote:
Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:

OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp
wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better
weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps
and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna
get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn


It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind
that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon
dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million

Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever".

I'm curious--do you have a source for that information? The analysis
that I've seen of ice cores suggest that it is indeed the highest it
has been during the period of time covered by the ice cores. My
research in this area however has been quite limited and I may well be
looking in all the wrong places.

years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man
aided CO2 is zero. Enough.
or you might try prayer,
jo4hn

Now all you have to do is:

a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).

At this point you will earn a Ph.D.

b) Demonstrate that human action is causal for the increased CO2 levels (not done to date).

At this point you will get tenure.

c) Demonstrate that global warming's effects are severe and harm the environment
(entirely speculative to date).

At this point you will get unlimited funding.

d) Demonstrate that mankind can actually substantially do something about
it by changing behavior (wild speculation to date).

At this point you might be electable to public office.

Gore and the Earth Worshiping Pantheists wanna skip a-c and go right to d.

On Feb 16, 12:38 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
...

Now all you have to do is:

a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).


To the contrary, the contribution of CO2 to
the green house effect is well-established.
To prove that raising the concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere will not cause global warming,
would require that you disprove the established
spectroscopic properties of the common atmospheric
gases, or that you disprove conservation of energy.

Either of those, might earn you a Nobel prize.

At issue is what other factors affect global climate
change and how. The notion that it is 'unproven'
that CO2 does, is just plain asinine.

--

FF

Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe
Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
Taste like chicken.

Glen

On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen wrote:
Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe

Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
Taste like chicken.

Glen

Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
though,
Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.

On 15 Feb 2007 05:50:38 -0800, "Robatoy" wrote:

On Feb 15, 6:15 am, Glen wrote:
Joe Bleau wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn
wrote:
OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever
you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but
the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers
melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better.
Drive hybrid, save a polar bear.
luck to all,
jo4hn

It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years
before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling.

Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping
with spotted owls.

Joe

Hey, man, we don't want those spotted owls to go extinct. I love 'em.
Taste like chicken.

Glen

Easy to shoot too, with a night scope. Not a lot of meat on them
though,
Tastes more like a blend of Condor and Blue Heron to me.

I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-)


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+