ENVIRONMENTAL ELITISM: Democrats Can't Be Bothered With Free Speech

[MioMyo]

Especially when it's FREE SPEECH filled with FACTS that dispute Liberal
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of Pseudo-Science Man-Made Global Warming......

But How Typically Liberal of those claiming to be champions of OPEN & HONEST
DEBATE.

However, more the message is getting out that this Man-Made Global Warming
is just the latest scam by those wanting nothing more than to rule & control
the masses while propping themselves up as elitist who don't abide by the
same.

In fact, AL GORE is the poster boy for being an Environmental Elitist who
says, "DO & LIVE HOW I TELL YOU" not "AS I DO MYSELF".............

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor
to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to
allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high
profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his
scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on
Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to
testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday
afternoon.

"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of
the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive
interview. "They are cowards."

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says
that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was
informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would
be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in
2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff
earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity'
as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the
House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore.
Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats'
"celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims
that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused
to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to
appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple
levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused,"
according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was
called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats,
according to the Congressional source.]

"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the
US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's
sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House
minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday
evening.

"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman
knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's
mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon
scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton
explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in
March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told
climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a
debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global
Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )



LINKS DOCUMENTING AL GORE'S ENVIRONMENTAL HYPOCRISY:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

[Garrison St.]

Post by MioMyo
Especially when it's FREE SPEECH filled with FACTS that dispute Liberal
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of Pseudo-Science Man-Made Global Warming......
But How Typically Liberal of those claiming to be champions of OPEN &
HONEST DEBATE.
However, more the message is getting out that this Man-Made Global Warming
is just the latest scam by those wanting nothing more than to rule &
control the masses while propping themselves up as elitist who don't abide
by the same.
In fact, AL GORE is the poster boy for being an Environmental Elitist who
says, "DO & LIVE HOW I TELL YOU" not "AS I DO MYSELF".............
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor
to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused
to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high
profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his
scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on
Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to
testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday
afternoon.
"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door
of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive
interview. "They are cowards."
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says
that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was
informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there
would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to
the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be
held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff
earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed
'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing
examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned
out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the
Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But
Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness
would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to
appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple
levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused,"
according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was
called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee
Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]
"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under
the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al
Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by
the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport
Thursday evening.
"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman
knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's
mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the
Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'"
Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House
Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US
Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly
challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV
Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

So you all of a sudden have a problem with business in America? Or is the
problem called, "Jealousy"?
If Al Gore can make money off of turning America GREEN, he's doing alot
better than Bush's Wall Street.
Al Gore hasn't recieved a blank check for any bail-outs.

[MioMyo]

Post by Garrison St.

Post by MioMyo
Especially when it's FREE SPEECH filled with FACTS that dispute Liberal
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of Pseudo-Science Man-Made Global Warming......
But How Typically Liberal of those claiming to be champions of OPEN &
HONEST DEBATE.
However, more the message is getting out that this Man-Made Global
Warming is just the latest scam by those wanting nothing more than to
rule & control the masses while propping themselves up as elitist who
don't abide by the same.
In fact, AL GORE is the poster boy for being an Environmental Elitist who
says, "DO & LIVE HOW I TELL YOU" not "AS I DO MYSELF".............
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have
refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at
a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his
scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on
Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to
testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday
afternoon.
"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door
of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive
interview. "They are cowards."
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says
that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was
informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there
would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to
the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings
on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will
be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee
staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed
'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing
examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned
out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the
Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But
Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness
would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to
appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple
levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused,"
according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was
called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee
Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]
"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under
the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al
Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by
the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport
Thursday evening.
"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling.
Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned
Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the
Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific
view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the
House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do
nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also
publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to
International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19,
2007 )
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

So you all of a sudden have a problem with business in America?

You sound like you're unable to process simplle logic.

Post by Garrison St.
Or is the problem called, "Jealousy"?

What's there to be jealous of, tard? Republicans are hardly jealous liberals
unreasoned illogic like democrats are with gores convenient lies? Only
intellectually inferior cowards silence opposing arguments by running from
debating the merits of their own. The problem for libs is their man-made
global warm scam has no merit.

Post by Garrison St.
If Al Gore can make money off of turning America GREEN, he's doing alot
better than Bush's Wall Street.
Al Gore hasn't recieved a blank check for any bail-outs.

Hey, if Gore can suck money out of you poor dumb bastards, more power to
him. In fact I'd say he deserves your money and you don't. But he needs to
be made to prove his arguments including his purported solutions that they
are credible and hold up under peer review and opposing arguments should he
want to suck the teat of the American public.

Obviously he is unprepared for any peer review challenge whatsoever just
like his conclusion and solutions cannot stand up under scientific scrutiny.

[Garrison St.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Garrison St.

Post by MioMyo
Especially when it's FREE SPEECH filled with FACTS that dispute Liberal
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of Pseudo-Science Man-Made Global Warming......
But How Typically Liberal of those claiming to be champions of OPEN &
HONEST DEBATE.
However, more the message is getting out that this Man-Made Global
Warming is just the latest scam by those wanting nothing more than to
rule & control the masses while propping themselves up as elitist who
don't abide by the same.
In fact, AL GORE is the poster boy for being an Environmental Elitist
who says, "DO & LIVE HOW I TELL YOU" not "AS I DO MYSELF".............
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats
have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al
Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009
at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats
rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and
Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would
not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from
England Thursday afternoon.
"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the
door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an
exclusive interview. "They are cowards."
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with
Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now
says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday,
he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and
there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on
Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of
hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The
hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee
staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed
'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate
hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness
turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond
to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own.
But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP
witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to
appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at
multiple levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats
"refused," according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt
Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the
committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]
"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under
the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al
Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by
the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport
Thursday evening.
"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling.
Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned
Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the
Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific
view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the
House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do
nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has
also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to
International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19,
2007 )
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

So you all of a sudden have a problem with business in America?

You sound like you're unable to process simplle logic.

Post by Garrison St.
Or is the problem called, "Jealousy"?

What's there to be jealous of, tard? Republicans are hardly jealous
liberals unreasoned illogic like democrats are with gores convenient lies?
Only intellectually inferior cowards silence opposing arguments by running
from debating the merits of their own. The problem for libs is their
man-made global warm scam has no merit.

Post by Garrison St.
If Al Gore can make money off of turning America GREEN, he's doing alot
better than Bush's Wall Street.
Al Gore hasn't recieved a blank check for any bail-outs.

Hey, if Gore can suck money out of you poor dumb bastards, more power to
him. In fact I'd say he deserves your money and you don't. But he needs to
be made to prove his arguments including his purported solutions that they
are credible and hold up under peer review and opposing arguments should
he want to suck the teat of the American public.
Obviously he is unprepared for any peer review challenge whatsoever just
like his conclusion and solutions cannot stand up under scientific scrutiny.

Looks like you know very little about Gore.

[MioMyo]

Post by Garrison St.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Garrison St.

Post by MioMyo
Especially when it's FREE SPEECH filled with FACTS that dispute Liberal
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of Pseudo-Science Man-Made Global Warming......
But How Typically Liberal of those claiming to be champions of OPEN &
HONEST DEBATE.
However, more the message is getting out that this Man-Made Global
Warming is just the latest scam by those wanting nothing more than to
rule & control the masses while propping themselves up as elitist who
don't abide by the same.
In fact, AL GORE is the poster boy for being an Environmental Elitist
who says, "DO & LIVE HOW I TELL YOU" not "AS I DO MYSELF".............
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats
have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al
Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009
at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats
rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and
Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would
not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from
England Thursday afternoon.
"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the
door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an
exclusive interview. "They are cowards."
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with
Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton
now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on
Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened
out" and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to
testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's
fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee
staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed
'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate
hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity"
witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would
respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of
their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who
the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify
alongside Gore.
[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton
to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at
multiple levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats
"refused," according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt
Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the
committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]
"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under
the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose
Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent
scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from
the airport Thursday evening.
"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling.
Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who
condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially
inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on
any scientific view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously
testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the
courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real )
Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore
Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord
Monckton - March 19, 2007 )
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

So you all of a sudden have a problem with business in America?

You sound like you're unable to process simplle logic.

Post by Garrison St.
Or is the problem called, "Jealousy"?

What's there to be jealous of, tard? Republicans are hardly jealous
liberals unreasoned illogic like democrats are with gores convenient
lies? Only intellectually inferior cowards silence opposing arguments by
running from debating the merits of their own. The problem for libs is
their man-made global warm scam has no merit.

Post by Garrison St.
If Al Gore can make money off of turning America GREEN, he's doing alot
better than Bush's Wall Street.
Al Gore hasn't recieved a blank check for any bail-outs.

Hey, if Gore can suck money out of you poor dumb bastards, more power to
him. In fact I'd say he deserves your money and you don't. But he needs
to be made to prove his arguments including his purported solutions that
they are credible and hold up under peer review and opposing arguments
should he want to suck the teat of the American public.
Obviously he is unprepared for any peer review challenge whatsoever just
like his conclusion and solutions cannot stand up under scientific scrutiny.

Looks like you know very little about Gore.

I know he's a smug elitist-minded hypocrite, so there's no need to know much
more than that................

[Frank Pittel]

This is clearly a case of "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts"
by the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems.

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:
: Especially when it's FREE SPEECH filled with FACTS that dispute Liberal
: PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of Pseudo-Science Man-Made Global Warming......

: But How Typically Liberal of those claiming to be champions of OPEN & HONEST
: DEBATE.

: However, more the message is getting out that this Man-Made Global Warming
: is just the latest scam by those wanting nothing more than to rule & control
: the masses while propping themselves up as elitist who don't abide by the
: same.

: In fact, AL GORE is the poster boy for being an Environmental Elitist who
: says, "DO & LIVE HOW I TELL YOU" not "AS I DO MYSELF".............

: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

: Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor
: to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to
: allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high
: profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
: Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his
: scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on
: Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to
: testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday
: afternoon.

: "The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of
: the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive
: interview. "They are cowards."

: According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
: Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
: and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says
: that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was
: informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would
: be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the
: Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the
: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in
: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

: According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff
: earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity'
: as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the
: House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore.
: Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats'
: "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims
: that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused
: to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

: [ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
: Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to
: appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple
: levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused,"
: according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was
: called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats,
: according to the Congressional source.]

: "The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the
: US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's
: sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House
: minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday
: evening.

: "Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
: Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman
: knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's
: mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon
: scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton
: explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in
: March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told
: climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a
: debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global
: Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )



: LINKS DOCUMENTING AL GORE'S ENVIRONMENTAL HYPOCRISY:

: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
: http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659
:

[Edward]

Post by MioMyo
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Aside from Newsbusters which is a right-wing organization, have you read
any of these other links that mention where he gets electricity from?

[MioMyo]

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Aside from Newsbusters which is a right-wing organization, have you read
any of these other links that mention where he gets electricity from?

Did you read them and see his consumption & lame excuse for elitist
extravagance? Usage of 10-20 times the normal house hold energy consumption
is supposedly justified because he & tipper use this mansion for work. Gosh,
I guess a few computers really are burning up those Kilowatts- or could it
be an Olympian size pool and many other amenities?

Beside getting energy from green sources, essentially albies paying for the
privilege to consume excess doesn't cut the mustard except to brain-dead
libtards.

[Edward]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Aside from Newsbusters which is a right-wing organization, have you
read any of these other links that mention where he gets electricity
from?

Did you read them and see his consumption & lame excuse for elitist
extravagance? Usage of 10-20 times the normal house hold energy
consumption is supposedly justified because he & tipper use this mansion
for work. Gosh, I guess a few computers really are burning up those
Kilowatts- or could it be an Olympian size pool and many other amenities?
Beside getting energy from green sources, essentially albies paying for
the privilege to consume excess doesn't cut the mustard except to
brain-dead libtards.

Al Gore's 14 bedroom home certainly uses more energy than the average.
There are also 19 people working there, not including Secret Service
detail. The figure stating that there has been a 10% increase in energy
usage is from Perez Hilton who also stated that his home uses as much
energy as 232 homes. The actual amount is somewhere between 12 and 20
depending on how it is figured. If his staff did not move in and use most
of his home as an office, then the electrical and gas usage would have
dropped by 40%. With all of that energy coming from solar and other
renewable resources, it is as close to carbon neutral as possible.

[MioMyo]

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Aside from Newsbusters which is a right-wing organization, have you
read any of these other links that mention where he gets electricity
from?

Did you read them and see his consumption & lame excuse for elitist
extravagance? Usage of 10-20 times the normal house hold energy
consumption is supposedly justified because he & tipper use this mansion
for work. Gosh, I guess a few computers really are burning up those
Kilowatts- or could it be an Olympian size pool and many other amenities?
Beside getting energy from green sources, essentially albies paying for
the privilege to consume excess doesn't cut the mustard except to
brain-dead libtards.

Al Gore's 14 bedroom home certainly uses more energy than the average.
There are also 19 people working there, not including Secret Service
detail. The figure stating that there has been a 10% increase in energy
usage is from Perez Hilton who also stated that his home uses as much
energy as 232 homes. The actual amount is somewhere between 12 and 20
depending on how it is figured. If his staff did not move in and use most
of his home as an office, then the electrical and gas usage would have
dropped by 40%. With all of that energy coming from solar and other
renewable resources, it is as close to carbon neutral as possible.

So this is your sorry-ass excuse for gore being an energy-hog and a
hypocrite.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt, libtard. However to give you the benefit of
the doubt, I'm sure in your world when someone pisses on your leg and they
explain that it's really rain you're feeling, you believe them!

[Edward]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:43:52 -0400, MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Aside from Newsbusters which is a right-wing organization, have you
read any of these other links that mention where he gets electricity
from?

Did you read them and see his consumption & lame excuse for elitist
extravagance? Usage of 10-20 times the normal house hold energy
consumption is supposedly justified because he & tipper use this
mansion for work. Gosh, I guess a few computers really are burning up
those Kilowatts- or could it be an Olympian size pool and many other
amenities?
Beside getting energy from green sources, essentially albies paying
for the privilege to consume excess doesn't cut the mustard except to
brain-dead libtards.

Al Gore's 14 bedroom home certainly uses more energy than the average.
There are also 19 people working there, not including Secret Service
detail. The figure stating that there has been a 10% increase in
energy usage is from Perez Hilton who also stated that his home uses as
much energy as 232 homes. The actual amount is somewhere between 12
and 20 depending on how it is figured. If his staff did not move in
and use most of his home as an office, then the electrical and gas
usage would have dropped by 40%. With all of that energy coming from
solar and other renewable resources, it is as close to carbon neutral
as possible.

So this is your sorry-ass excuse for gore being an energy-hog and a
hypocrite.
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt, libtard. However to give you the benefit
of the doubt, I'm sure in your world when someone pisses on your leg and
they explain that it's really rain you're feeling, you believe them!

Obviously when presented with facts and logic that contradict your
argument, you prefer using childish name calling instead of dealing with
reality.

[MioMyo]

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo

Post by Edward

Post by MioMyo

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:43:52 -0400, MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Aside from Newsbusters which is a right-wing organization, have you
read any of these other links that mention where he gets electricity
from?

Did you read them and see his consumption & lame excuse for elitist
extravagance? Usage of 10-20 times the normal house hold energy
consumption is supposedly justified because he & tipper use this
mansion for work. Gosh, I guess a few computers really are burning up
those Kilowatts- or could it be an Olympian size pool and many other
amenities?
Beside getting energy from green sources, essentially albies paying
for the privilege to consume excess doesn't cut the mustard except to
brain-dead libtards.

Al Gore's 14 bedroom home certainly uses more energy than the average.
There are also 19 people working there, not including Secret Service
detail. The figure stating that there has been a 10% increase in
energy usage is from Perez Hilton who also stated that his home uses as
much energy as 232 homes. The actual amount is somewhere between 12
and 20 depending on how it is figured. If his staff did not move in
and use most of his home as an office, then the electrical and gas
usage would have dropped by 40%. With all of that energy coming from
solar and other renewable resources, it is as close to carbon neutral
as possible.

So this is your sorry-ass excuse for gore being an energy-hog and a
hypocrite.
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt, libtard. However to give you the benefit
of the doubt, I'm sure in your world when someone pisses on your leg and
they explain that it's really rain you're feeling, you believe them!

Obviously when presented with facts and logic that contradict your
argument, you prefer using childish name calling instead of dealing with
reality.

Yet that hasn't happened and not one librard has yet provided one sound
reason for congressional dems abusing their power by disallowing the
republicans a speaker with a different point of view than albie gore.

So now dems are champions of one-party rule while suppressing any voice of
opposition......

How typically liberal of you, libtard.............

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo
So now dems are champions of one-party rule while suppressing any voice of
opposition......

really. then you will have no trouble finding an example of a
prominent Democrat calling for one-party rule.

You really are retarded aren't you Coward?

Pay attention to how dems wield power and this is but another example where
they will not allow republicans an opportunity to have a guest present a
view which disputes gore's man-made global warming scare-mongering.

[sid9]

On Apr 26, 3:51 pm, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
So now dems are champions of one-party rule
while suppressing any voice of
opposition......

really. then you will have no trouble finding an
example of a
prominent Democrat calling for one-party rule.

You really are retarded aren't you Coward?
Pay attention to how dems wield power and this
is but another example where they will not allow
republicans an opportunity to have a guest
present a view which disputes gore's man-made
global warming scare-mongering.

Pay attention to how the arrogant bush,jr/ Cheney
administration did it.

Now you hypocrites complain.

The people voted in the current administration and
support it overwhelmingly.

Republican nihilism is not welcome.

There's work to be done and Boehner and
McConnell's obstructionism is not welcome.

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
So now dems are champions of one-party rule while suppressing any voice of
opposition......

really. then you will have no trouble finding an example of a
prominent Democrat calling for one-party rule.

You really are retarded aren't you Coward?
Pay attention to how dems wield power and this is but another example
where they will not allow republicans an opportunity to have a guest
present a view which disputes gore's man-made global warming
scare-mongering.

Pay attention to how the arrogant bush,jr/ Cheney administration did it.

You should pay attention, tard, cause Bush & Cheney were Pres & VP. They
didn't run congress, but if you can find an example when Republicans refused
a guest speaker by the dems, do cite it here----->

Now you hypocrites complain.
The people voted in the current administration and support it
overwhelmingly.

How many republicans won in the last election, tard?

Also, how many republican votes were cast?

Republican nihilism is not welcome.

That would be true if you had your Fascist Utopia, but sorry cause the US
COnstitution rules, libtard.....

There's work to be done and Boehner and McConnell's obstructionism is not
welcome.

They weren't elected?

Also, you have revised the Constitution? When?

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo

really. then you will have no trouble finding an example of a
prominent Democrat calling for one-party rule.

You really are retarded aren't you Coward?
Pay attention to how dems wield power and this is but another example where
they will not allow republicans an opportunity to have a guest present a
view which disputes gore's man-made global warming scare-mongering.

If that's what you want to call it. But still, the fact remains you
can't find any prominent Dems calling for one party rule. Like most
of your "life" it's a lie.

More liberal retarded nonsense since no politician would be stupid enough to
say so. They just politick in this manner. What do you think the
implications of "WE WON" means, moron?

yawn

Not being able to keep up can be boring libtard.

groups trimmed, spammers suck shit

Restored, plus you need to learn the definition of spam. Gawd you're dumb,
cowardly...........

[MioMyo]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor
to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to
allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high
profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his
scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on
Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to
testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday
afternoon.

"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of
the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive
interview. "They are cowards."

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says
that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was
informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would
be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in
2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff
earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity'
as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the
House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore.
Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats'
"celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims
that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused
to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the
Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to
appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple
levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused,"
according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was
called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats,
according to the Congressional source.]

"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the
US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's
sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House
minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday
evening.

"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman
knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's
mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon
scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton
explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in
March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told
climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a
debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global
Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )


"Tim Crowley" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e0a5388d-1841-4e24-a4f5-***@x29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 25, 6:43 am, "MeeeeeeohhhhhhMyyyyyyo"

Post by MioMyo
"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of
the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive
interview. "They are cowards."

Buahahahaha, and he wonders why was not invited to testify.

No one wonders, tard. It's because liberal fascists can't afford to allow
anything except what they want heard. That way they can deny ever being
exposed the the facts. Then again some could & would just lie like the
imperial princess pelosi did regarding enhanced interrogations.

hint: he has nothing to add, he's a foaming at the mouth looney.

Then it couldn't hurt to allow him to testify. Why not allow Al Gore the
platform in which to eviscerate his testimony?

No that's not it though. It's because liberals are shaking with desperation
that the drum beat of evidence regarding their little man-made global
warming scam is materializing before their very eyes, and Monckton's expert
testimony will advance that knowledge all the more into the American psyche.

Now they can't allow that to happen, can they, coward?


LINKS DOCUMENTING AL GORE'S ENVIRONMENTAL HYPOCRISY:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats
have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al
Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009
at 10am in Washington.

ROTFLMAO. This is not a free speach issue (See the Subject
line). Lord Monckton, a member of the British nobility, would
obviously be allowed to visit the U.S. and say anything the wants.
the U.S. House of Representatives, however, is under no obligation to
have him testify at a hearing, least of all in a time slot of Lord
Monckton's choosing. If Lord Monckton could demand that, every
American citizen would be able to demand that as well. To give each
of 300,000,000 Americans 6 minutes to spout off, it would take more
than 14 thousand years at 6 minutes per person for 8 hours a day of
hearings, 5 days per week.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats
have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al
Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009
at 10am in Washington.

ROTFLMAO. This is not a free speach issue (See the Subject
line). Lord Monckton, a member of the British nobility, would
obviously be allowed to visit the U.S. and say anything the wants.
the U.S. House of Representatives, however, is under no obligation to
have him testify at a hearing, least of all in a time slot of Lord
Monckton's choosing. If Lord Monckton could demand that, every
American citizen would be able to demand that as well. To give each
of 300,000,000 Americans 6 minutes to spout off, it would take more
than 14 thousand years at 6 minutes per person for 8 hours a day of
hearings, 5 days per week.

You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside expert
sources to testify on their behalf.

I would argue that dems have no more birth-right claim for albie gore to
testify than someone brought in by the opposition minority party, except
that the imperial princess pelosi and loud-more reid think they are an
anointed elitist ruling class.

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats
have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al
Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009
at 10am in Washington.

ROTFLMAO. This is not a free speach issue (See the Subject
line). Lord Monckton, a member of the British nobility, would
obviously be allowed to visit the U.S. and say anything the wants.
the U.S. House of Representatives, however, is under no obligation to
have him testify at a hearing, least of all in a time slot of Lord
Monckton's choosing. If Lord Monckton could demand that, every
American citizen would be able to demand that as well. To give each
of 300,000,000 Americans 6 minutes to spout off, it would take more
than 14 thousand years at 6 minutes per person for 8 hours a day of
hearings, 5 days per week.

You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside
expert sources to testify on their behalf.

You mean you are trying to change the subject - the claim about free
speach was obviously bogus.

Post by MioMyo
I would argue that dems have no more birth-right claim for albie gore
to testify than someone brought in by the opposition minority party,
except that the imperial princess pelosi and loud-more reid think they
are an anointed elitist ruling class.

Bet you wouldn't make the same argument if Republicans were in the
majority.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science
advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats
have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al
Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009
at 10am in Washington.

ROTFLMAO. This is not a free speach issue (See the Subject
line). Lord Monckton, a member of the British nobility, would
obviously be allowed to visit the U.S. and say anything the wants.
the U.S. House of Representatives, however, is under no obligation to
have him testify at a hearing, least of all in a time slot of Lord
Monckton's choosing. If Lord Monckton could demand that, every
American citizen would be able to demand that as well. To give each
of 300,000,000 Americans 6 minutes to spout off, it would take more
than 14 thousand years at 6 minutes per person for 8 hours a day of
hearings, 5 days per week.

You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside
expert sources to testify on their behalf.

You mean you are trying to change the subject - the claim about free
speach was obviously bogus.

You really ar this stupid, aren't you libtard?

Just what the hell are your fascist in congress stopining by disallowing
expert testimony disputing liberal man-made global-warming scare.

Furthermore, just what is albie & dems afraid of if Gore has the higher
ground, aka holds the superior argument?

YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
I would argue that dems have no more birth-right claim for albie gore
to testify than someone brought in by the opposition minority party,
except that the imperial princess pelosi and loud-more reid think they
are an anointed elitist ruling class.

Bet you wouldn't make the same argument if Republicans were in the
majority.

Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not politically
ideological policy makers.

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

You have no idea what the term means. You do NOT have the right to
testify to Congress.

Neither do you, but you nor I were asked to provide expert testimony like
Gore & Christopher Monckton were asked by party representatives.

Why do you hate our system so much, yet you
have never taken the time to study it?

How do you come to that conclusion, bitch, other than because you can't
refute my arguments without resorting to childish nonsense?

Maybe if you learn a bit,

Pullllllllllllllllease bitch. You have no place to talk here since you
haven't articulated anything substantive or credible.

What you need to do is learn same basis logic, a concept which you have
never displayed yet whatsoever......

you can get rid of some of the hate and the lies?

Look who's talking kunt. You're the hater, plus you hate me because I kick
your silly ass around every time I respond to your post. You should, in fact
pay me to even mentor your dumb ass like I do. But no, from the goodness of
my heart, I have provided you profound reason & logic.

Good luck. As you are
not, you're uneducated and totally worthless.

And you graduated from where, Leavenworth school of knee-pad kunts?

ROFLMFAO..............

Oh yeah, don't forget to
hide.

Never have bitch. Tell us, when have you ever criticized a liberal for using
a pseudonym, hypocrite?

Oh, that's right, you merely RUN AWAY from such question that expose you for
the dumb bastard you truly are!

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
ROTFLMAO. This is not a free speach issue (See the Subject
line). Lord Monckton, a member of the British nobility, would
obviously be allowed to visit the U.S. and say anything the wants.
the U.S. House of Representatives, however, is under no obligation to
have him testify at a hearing, least of all in a time slot of Lord
Monckton's choosing. If Lord Monckton could demand that, every
American citizen would be able to demand that as well. To give each
of 300,000,000 Americans 6 minutes to spout off, it would take more
than 14 thousand years at 6 minutes per person for 8 hours a day of
hearings, 5 days per week.

You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside
expert sources to testify on their behalf.

You mean you are trying to change the subject - the claim about free
speach was obviously bogus.

You really ar this stupid, aren't you libtard?
Just what the hell are your fascist in congress stopining by
disallowing expert testimony disputing liberal man-made global-warming
scare.

Thus showing that you are a right-wing, hypocritical loon. It may
surprise you, but who gets to testify before Congress is determined
by Congress. It could easily be the case that whatever Lord Monckton
might be able to contribute was covered by various experts.

Anyone who claims that "global warming" (somewhat of a misnomer) is
not real is not an expert. The only thing in question is exactly what
will happen as a result of the chemical changes to the atmosphere.

If you want to understand why, I suggest reading up on blackbody
radiation.

Post by MioMyo
Furthermore, just what is albie & dems afraid of if Gore has the
higher ground, aka holds the superior argument?
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something. All you are doing is looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to listen.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things, where ideology counted
far more than facts.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
ROTFLMAO. This is not a free speach issue (See the Subject
line). Lord Monckton, a member of the British nobility, would
obviously be allowed to visit the U.S. and say anything the wants.
the U.S. House of Representatives, however, is under no obligation to
have him testify at a hearing, least of all in a time slot of Lord
Monckton's choosing. If Lord Monckton could demand that, every
American citizen would be able to demand that as well. To give each
of 300,000,000 Americans 6 minutes to spout off, it would take more
than 14 thousand years at 6 minutes per person for 8 hours a day of
hearings, 5 days per week.

You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside
expert sources to testify on their behalf.

You mean you are trying to change the subject - the claim about free
speach was obviously bogus.

You really ar this stupid, aren't you libtard?
Just what the hell are your fascist in congress stopining by
disallowing expert testimony disputing liberal man-made global-warming
scare.

Thus showing that you are a right-wing, hypocritical loon. It may
surprise you, but who gets to testify before Congress is determined
by Congress. It could easily be the case that whatever Lord Monckton
might be able to contribute was covered by various experts.
Anyone who claims that "global warming" (somewhat of a misnomer) is
not real is not an expert. The only thing in question is exactly what
will happen as a result of the chemical changes to the atmosphere.
If you want to understand why, I suggest reading up on blackbody
radiation.

Post by MioMyo
Furthermore, just what is albie & dems afraid of if Gore has the
higher ground, aka holds the superior argument?
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something. All you are doing is looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to listen.

Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity, naivity or
dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore stated has been
stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things, where ideology counted
far more than facts.

Wrong libtard, that's what your side said which pretty much guarantees the
politicking and lying came from the dems..............

[M***@silent.com]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:55:25 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity, naivity or
dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore stated has been
stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Someone with shit-stains from having his nose pressed
against a rightwing ass all the time doesn't have any
credibility, ShitOMyO

[Clairbear]

Post by M***@silent.com
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:55:25 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity,
naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore
stated has been stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Someone with shit-stains from having his nose pressed
against a rightwing ass all the time doesn't have any
credibility, ShitOMyO

So tell me how much credibility does some who rants with vile insults have?
I,d say you have less than the person you are ranting at.

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something. All you are doing is looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to listen.

Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity,
naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore
stated has been stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Rather, *your* statement exposes *your* statement poses your "ignorance,
stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as you put it. Everything I wrote
was germane to the discussion and completely true. The right to free
speach is not a right to an audience - nobody is compelled to listen.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things, where ideology counted
far more than facts.

Wrong libtard, that's what your side said which pretty much guarantees
the politicking and lying came from the dems..............

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

[Billy Bob Brubeck]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something. All you are doing is looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to listen.

Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity,
naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore
stated has been stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Rather, *your* statement exposes *your* statement poses your "ignorance,
was germane to the discussion and completely true. The right to free
speach is not a right to an audience - nobody is compelled to listen.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things, where ideology counted
far more than facts.

Wrong libtard, that's what your side said which pretty much guarantees
the politicking and lying came from the dems..............

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying how anyone in this day and age,
with all the information posted to these newsgroups clearly showing who
is lying and who is not, can be so stubbornly on the wrong side of reality.
I understand my 80 year old cousin who was an AF lifer having some old
prejudices, but for young people to buy the bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
is beyond belief.

[MioMyo]

Post by Billy Bob Brubeck

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something. All you are doing is looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to listen.

Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity,
naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore
stated has been stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Rather, *your* statement exposes *your* statement poses your "ignorance,
was germane to the discussion and completely true. The right to free
speach is not a right to an audience - nobody is compelled to listen.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things, where ideology counted
far more than facts.

Wrong libtard, that's what your side said which pretty much guarantees
the politicking and lying came from the dems..............

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying how anyone in this day and age,
with all the information posted to these newsgroups clearly showing who
is lying and who is not, can be so stubbornly on the wrong side of reality.
I understand my 80 year old cousin who was an AF lifer having some old
prejudices, but for young people to buy the bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
is beyond belief.

And still not one post from libtards on this thread have articulated why
dems should SILENCE an invited guest by republicans to this hearing on
man-made global warming, other than:

1- Dems have the power to do so.

2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative views.

3. The hearing is supposed to be science based.

Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?

[sid9]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Billy Bob Brubeck

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping,
tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not
enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something.
All you are doing is looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing
gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling
a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to
listen.

Your above statement actually exposes your
ignorance, stupidity,
naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose
which since what albie gore
stated has been stated ad nauseum over &
over, time and again tard!

Rather, *your* statement exposes *your*
statement poses your "ignorance,
stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as you put
was germane to the discussion and completely
true. The right to free
speach is not a right to an audience - nobody
is compelled to listen.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in
honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody
murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things,
where ideology counted
far more than facts.

Wrong libtard, that's what your side said
which pretty much guarantees
the politicking and lying came from the
dems..............

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying how
anyone in this day and age,
with all the information posted to these
newsgroups clearly showing who
is lying and who is not, can be so stubbornly
on the wrong side of reality.
I understand my 80 year old cousin who was an
AF lifer having some old
prejudices, but for young people to buy the
bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
is beyond belief.

And still not one post from libtards on this
thread have articulated why dems should SILENCE
an invited guest by republicans to this hearing
1- Dems have the power to do so.
2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative
views.
3. The hearing is supposed to be science based.
Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?

The anti-science administration is gone.
Pseudo-science and superstition have been removed.
"Alternatives" have to have a basis in science.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9 <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

: "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com> wrote in
: message
: news:IYhJl.12924$***@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
: >
: > "Billy Bob Brubeck" <***@aol.com> wrote
: > in message
: > news:***@earthlink.com...
: >>
: >> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
: >> message
: >> news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: >>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com> writes:
: >>>
: >>>> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
: >>>> in message
: >>>> news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: >>>>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com> writes:
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
: >>>>>> in message
: >>>>>> news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: >>>>>>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com>
: >>>>>>> writes:
: >>>>>>>
: >>>>>>>>>
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping,
: >>>>>> tard!
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not
: >>>>> enough time to accommodate
: >>>>> everyone who might want to say something.
: >>>>> All you are doing is looking
: >>>>> for an excuse to drag things out so nothing
: >>>>> gets done. Nobody, after
: >>>>> all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling
: >>>>> a press conference and
: >>>>> talking to whoever decides to show up to
: >>>>> listen.
: >>>>
: >>>> Your above statement actually exposes your
: >>>> ignorance, stupidity,
: >>>> naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose
: >>>> which since what albie gore
: >>>> stated has been stated ad nauseum over &
: >>>> over, time and again tard!
: >>>
: >>> Rather, *your* statement exposes *your*
: >>> statement poses your "ignorance,
: >>> stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as you put
: >>> it. Everything I wrote
: >>> was germane to the discussion and completely
: >>> true. The right to free
: >>> speach is not a right to an audience - nobody
: >>> is compelled to listen.
: >>>
: >>>>>> Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in
: >>>>>> honest government not
: >>>>>> politically ideological policy makers.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Then you should have been screaming bloody
: >>>>> murder when Bush and
: >>>>> the other Republicans were running things,
: >>>>> where ideology counted
: >>>>> far more than facts.
: >>>>
: >>>> Wrong libtard, that's what your side said
: >>>> which pretty much guarantees
: >>>> the politicking and lying came from the
: >>>> dems..............
: >>>
: >>> Are you really that out of touch with reality?
: >>
: >> Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying how
: >> anyone in this day and age,
: >> with all the information posted to these
: >> newsgroups clearly showing who
: >> is lying and who is not, can be so stubbornly
: >> on the wrong side of reality.
: >> I understand my 80 year old cousin who was an
: >> AF lifer having some old
: >> prejudices, but for young people to buy the
: >> bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
: >> is beyond belief.
: >
: >
: > And still not one post from libtards on this
: > thread have articulated why dems should SILENCE
: > an invited guest by republicans to this hearing
: > on man-made global warming, other than:
: >
: > 1- Dems have the power to do so.
: >
: > 2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative
: > views.
: >
: > 3. The hearing is supposed to be science based.
: >
: > Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?

: The anti-science administration is gone.
: Pseudo-science and superstition have been removed.
: "Alternatives" have to have a basis in science.

Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

[sid9]

Post by Frank Pittel
In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: message
: >
: > in message
: >>
in
: >> message
: >>>
: >>>> in message
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> in message
: >>>>>>>
: >>>>>>>>>
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are
stopping,
: >>>>>> tard!
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply
not
: >>>>> enough time to accommodate
: >>>>> everyone who might want to say
something.
: >>>>> All you are doing is looking
: >>>>> for an excuse to drag things out so
nothing
: >>>>> gets done. Nobody, after
: >>>>> all, is stopping Lord Monckton from
calling
: >>>>> a press conference and
: >>>>> talking to whoever decides to show up to
: >>>>> listen.
: >>>>
: >>>> Your above statement actually exposes
your
: >>>> ignorance, stupidity,
: >>>> naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you
choose
: >>>> which since what albie gore
: >>>> stated has been stated ad nauseum over &
: >>>> over, time and again tard!
: >>>
: >>> Rather, *your* statement exposes *your*
: >>> statement poses your "ignorance,
: >>> stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as you
put
: >>> was germane to the discussion and
completely
: >>> true. The right to free
: >>> speach is not a right to an audience -
nobody
: >>> is compelled to listen.
: >>>
: >>>>>> Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH
in
: >>>>>> honest government not
: >>>>>> politically ideological policy makers.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Then you should have been screaming
bloody
: >>>>> murder when Bush and
: >>>>> the other Republicans were running
things,
: >>>>> where ideology counted
: >>>>> far more than facts.
: >>>>
: >>>> Wrong libtard, that's what your side said
: >>>> which pretty much guarantees
: >>>> the politicking and lying came from the
: >>>> dems..............
: >>>
: >>> Are you really that out of touch with
reality?
: >>
: >> Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying
how
: >> anyone in this day and age,
: >> with all the information posted to these
: >> newsgroups clearly showing who
: >> is lying and who is not, can be so
stubbornly
: >> on the wrong side of reality.
: >> I understand my 80 year old cousin who was
an
: >> AF lifer having some old
: >> prejudices, but for young people to buy the
: >> bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
: >> is beyond belief.
: >
: >
: > And still not one post from libtards on this
: > thread have articulated why dems should
SILENCE
: > an invited guest by republicans to this
hearing
: >
: > 1- Dems have the power to do so.
: >
: > 2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative
: > views.
: >
: > 3. The hearing is supposed to be science
based.
: >
: > Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?
: The anti-science administration is gone.
: Pseudo-science and superstition have been
removed.
: "Alternatives" have to have a basis in
science.
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore
anything that
doesn't agree with your views?
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

There's science and there's RRR "science"

Labeling what Republicans called "science" does
not make it science.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9 <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote
: in message
: news:***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: > <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >
: > : "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com> wrote in
: > : message
: > :
: > news:IYhJl.12924$***@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
: > : >
: > : > "Billy Bob Brubeck" <***@aol.com>
: > wrote
: > : > in message
: > : >
: > news:***@earthlink.com...
: > : >>
: > : >> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
: > in
: > : >> message
: > : >> news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : >>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com>
: > writes:
: > : >>>
: > : >>>> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > wrote
: > : >>>> in message
: > : >>>> news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : >>>>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com>
: > writes:
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>>> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > wrote
: > : >>>>>> in message
: > : >>>>>>
: > news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : >>>>>>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com>
: > : >>>>>>> writes:
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>>> YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are
: > stopping,
: > : >>>>>> tard!
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>> Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply
: > not
: > : >>>>> enough time to accommodate
: > : >>>>> everyone who might want to say
: > something.
: > : >>>>> All you are doing is looking
: > : >>>>> for an excuse to drag things out so
: > nothing
: > : >>>>> gets done. Nobody, after
: > : >>>>> all, is stopping Lord Monckton from
: > calling
: > : >>>>> a press conference and
: > : >>>>> talking to whoever decides to show up to
: > : >>>>> listen.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> Your above statement actually exposes
: > your
: > : >>>> ignorance, stupidity,
: > : >>>> naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you
: > choose
: > : >>>> which since what albie gore
: > : >>>> stated has been stated ad nauseum over &
: > : >>>> over, time and again tard!
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Rather, *your* statement exposes *your*
: > : >>> statement poses your "ignorance,
: > : >>> stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as you
: > put
: > : >>> it. Everything I wrote
: > : >>> was germane to the discussion and
: > completely
: > : >>> true. The right to free
: > : >>> speach is not a right to an audience -
: > nobody
: > : >>> is compelled to listen.
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>>> Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH
: > in
: > : >>>>>> honest government not
: > : >>>>>> politically ideological policy makers.
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>> Then you should have been screaming
: > bloody
: > : >>>>> murder when Bush and
: > : >>>>> the other Republicans were running
: > things,
: > : >>>>> where ideology counted
: > : >>>>> far more than facts.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> Wrong libtard, that's what your side said
: > : >>>> which pretty much guarantees
: > : >>>> the politicking and lying came from the
: > : >>>> dems..............
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Are you really that out of touch with
: > reality?
: > : >>
: > : >> Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying
: > how
: > : >> anyone in this day and age,
: > : >> with all the information posted to these
: > : >> newsgroups clearly showing who
: > : >> is lying and who is not, can be so
: > stubbornly
: > : >> on the wrong side of reality.
: > : >> I understand my 80 year old cousin who was
: > an
: > : >> AF lifer having some old
: > : >> prejudices, but for young people to buy the
: > : >> bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
: > : >> is beyond belief.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > And still not one post from libtards on this
: > : > thread have articulated why dems should
: > SILENCE
: > : > an invited guest by republicans to this
: > hearing
: > : > on man-made global warming, other than:
: > : >
: > : > 1- Dems have the power to do so.
: > : >
: > : > 2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative
: > : > views.
: > : >
: > : > 3. The hearing is supposed to be science
: > based.
: > : >
: > : > Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?
: >
: > : The anti-science administration is gone.
: > : Pseudo-science and superstition have been
: > removed.
: > : "Alternatives" have to have a basis in
: > science.
: >
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore
: > anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > -------------------
: > Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

: There's science and there's RRR "science"

: Labeling what Republicans called "science" does
: not make it science.

Can't answer the question I see.

[sid9]

Post by Frank Pittel
In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: in message
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: >
in
: > : message
: > : >
: > : > in message
: > : >
: > : >>
: > in
: > : >> message
: > : >>>
: > : >>>> in message
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>>> "Bill Z."
: > : >>>>>> in message
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>> "MioMyo"
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>>> YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are
: > stopping,
: > : >>>>>> tard!
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>> Liar. As I pointed out, there is
simply
: > not
: > : >>>>> enough time to accommodate
: > : >>>>> everyone who might want to say
: > something.
: > : >>>>> All you are doing is looking
: > : >>>>> for an excuse to drag things out so
: > nothing
: > : >>>>> gets done. Nobody, after
: > : >>>>> all, is stopping Lord Monckton from
: > calling
: > : >>>>> a press conference and
: > : >>>>> talking to whoever decides to show
up to
: > : >>>>> listen.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> Your above statement actually exposes
: > your
: > : >>>> ignorance, stupidity,
: > : >>>> naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you
: > choose
: > : >>>> which since what albie gore
: > : >>>> stated has been stated ad nauseum
over &
: > : >>>> over, time and again tard!
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Rather, *your* statement exposes
*your*
: > : >>> statement poses your "ignorance,
: > : >>> stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as
you
: > put
: > : >>> was germane to the discussion and
: > completely
: > : >>> true. The right to free
: > : >>> speach is not a right to an audience -
: > nobody
: > : >>> is compelled to listen.
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>>> Bet I would since I want FACTS &
TRUTH
: > in
: > : >>>>>> honest government not
: > : >>>>>> politically ideological policy
makers.
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>> Then you should have been screaming
: > bloody
: > : >>>>> murder when Bush and
: > : >>>>> the other Republicans were running
: > things,
: > : >>>>> where ideology counted
: > : >>>>> far more than facts.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> Wrong libtard, that's what your side
said
: > : >>>> which pretty much guarantees
: > : >>>> the politicking and lying came from
the
: > : >>>> dems..............
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Are you really that out of touch with
: > reality?
: > : >>
: > : >> Yes, he is, and it is completely
mystifying
: > how
: > : >> anyone in this day and age,
: > : >> with all the information posted to
these
: > : >> newsgroups clearly showing who
: > : >> is lying and who is not, can be so
: > stubbornly
: > : >> on the wrong side of reality.
: > : >> I understand my 80 year old cousin who
was
: > an
: > : >> AF lifer having some old
: > : >> prejudices, but for young people to buy
the
: > : >> bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
: > : >> is beyond belief.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > And still not one post from libtards on
this
: > : > thread have articulated why dems should
: > SILENCE
: > : > an invited guest by republicans to this
: > hearing
: > : >
: > : > 1- Dems have the power to do so.
: > : >
: > : > 2. Dems don't want to hear any
alternative
: > : > views.
: > : >
: > : > 3. The hearing is supposed to be science
: > based.
: > : >
: > : > Did I miss any other lame reasons,
libtards?
: >
: > : The anti-science administration is gone.
: > : Pseudo-science and superstition have been
: > removed.
: > : "Alternatives" have to have a basis in
: > science.
: >
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore
: > anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > -------------------
: > Keep working millions on welfare depend on
you
: There's science and there's RRR "science"
: Labeling what Republicans called "science"
does
: not make it science.
Can't answer the question I see.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Yeah, like "Creation Science" or bush,jr's EPA
administrators...Whitman, Leavitt, and Johnson.

Whitman couldn’t stand it and at least had honor
to quit....not enough honor to expose what the
Republicans were doing.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9 <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote
: in message
: news:***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: > <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >
: > : "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com>
: > wrote
: > : in message
: > :
: > news:***@giganews.com...
: > : > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: > : > <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com> wrote
: > in
: > : > : message
: > : > :
: > : >
: > news:IYhJl.12924$***@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "Billy Bob Brubeck" <***@aol.com>
: > : > wrote
: > : > : > in message
: > : > : >
: > : >
: > news:***@earthlink.com...
: > : > : >>
: > : > : >> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > wrote
: > : > in
: > : > : >> message
: > : > : >>
: > news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : > : >>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com>
: > : > writes:
: > : > : >>>
: > : > : >>>> "Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > : > wrote
: > : > : >>>> in message
: > : > : >>>>
: > news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : > : >>>>> "MioMyo" <***@Somewhere.com>
: > : > writes:
: > : > : >>>>>
: > : > : >>>>>> "Bill Z."
: > <***@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > : > wrote
: > : > : >>>>>> in message
: > : > : >>>>>>
: > : > news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : > : >>>>>>> "MioMyo"
: > <***@Somewhere.com>
: > : > : >>>>>>> writes:
: > : > : >>>>>>>
: > : > : >>>>>>>>>
: > : > : >>>>>>
: > : > : >>>>>> YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are
: > : > stopping,
: > : > : >>>>>> tard!
: > : > : >>>>>
: > : > : >>>>> Liar. As I pointed out, there is
: > simply
: > : > not
: > : > : >>>>> enough time to accommodate
: > : > : >>>>> everyone who might want to say
: > : > something.
: > : > : >>>>> All you are doing is looking
: > : > : >>>>> for an excuse to drag things out so
: > : > nothing
: > : > : >>>>> gets done. Nobody, after
: > : > : >>>>> all, is stopping Lord Monckton from
: > : > calling
: > : > : >>>>> a press conference and
: > : > : >>>>> talking to whoever decides to show
: > up to
: > : > : >>>>> listen.
: > : > : >>>>
: > : > : >>>> Your above statement actually exposes
: > : > your
: > : > : >>>> ignorance, stupidity,
: > : > : >>>> naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you
: > : > choose
: > : > : >>>> which since what albie gore
: > : > : >>>> stated has been stated ad nauseum
: > over &
: > : > : >>>> over, time and again tard!
: > : > : >>>
: > : > : >>> Rather, *your* statement exposes
: > *your*
: > : > : >>> statement poses your "ignorance,
: > : > : >>> stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as
: > you
: > : > put
: > : > : >>> it. Everything I wrote
: > : > : >>> was germane to the discussion and
: > : > completely
: > : > : >>> true. The right to free
: > : > : >>> speach is not a right to an audience -
: > : > nobody
: > : > : >>> is compelled to listen.
: > : > : >>>
: > : > : >>>>>> Bet I would since I want FACTS &
: > TRUTH
: > : > in
: > : > : >>>>>> honest government not
: > : > : >>>>>> politically ideological policy
: > makers.
: > : > : >>>>>
: > : > : >>>>> Then you should have been screaming
: > : > bloody
: > : > : >>>>> murder when Bush and
: > : > : >>>>> the other Republicans were running
: > : > things,
: > : > : >>>>> where ideology counted
: > : > : >>>>> far more than facts.
: > : > : >>>>
: > : > : >>>> Wrong libtard, that's what your side
: > said
: > : > : >>>> which pretty much guarantees
: > : > : >>>> the politicking and lying came from
: > the
: > : > : >>>> dems..............
: > : > : >>>
: > : > : >>> Are you really that out of touch with
: > : > reality?
: > : > : >>
: > : > : >> Yes, he is, and it is completely
: > mystifying
: > : > how
: > : > : >> anyone in this day and age,
: > : > : >> with all the information posted to
: > these
: > : > : >> newsgroups clearly showing who
: > : > : >> is lying and who is not, can be so
: > : > stubbornly
: > : > : >> on the wrong side of reality.
: > : > : >> I understand my 80 year old cousin who
: > was
: > : > an
: > : > : >> AF lifer having some old
: > : > : >> prejudices, but for young people to buy
: > the
: > : > : >> bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
: > : > : >> is beyond belief.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > And still not one post from libtards on
: > this
: > : > : > thread have articulated why dems should
: > : > SILENCE
: > : > : > an invited guest by republicans to this
: > : > hearing
: > : > : > on man-made global warming, other than:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > 1- Dems have the power to do so.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > 2. Dems don't want to hear any
: > alternative
: > : > : > views.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > 3. The hearing is supposed to be science
: > : > based.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Did I miss any other lame reasons,
: > libtards?
: > : >
: > : > : The anti-science administration is gone.
: > : > : Pseudo-science and superstition have been
: > : > removed.
: > : > : "Alternatives" have to have a basis in
: > : > science.
: > : >
: > : > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore
: > : > anything that
: > : > doesn't agree with your views?
: > : > --
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > -------------------
: > : > Keep working millions on welfare depend on
: > you
: >
: > : There's science and there's RRR "science"
: >
: > : Labeling what Republicans called "science"
: > does
: > : not make it science.
: >
: > Can't answer the question I see.
: >
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > -------------------
: > Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

: Yeah, like "Creation Science" or bush,jr's EPA
: administrators...Whitman, Leavitt, and Johnson.

: Whitman couldn?t stand it and at least had honor
: to quit....not enough honor to expose what the
: Republicans were doing.

Blah blah blah. Answer the question.

[MioMyo]

Post by Frank Pittel
: in message
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
: >
: > : message
: > : >
: > : > in message
: > : >
: > : >>
: > in
: > : >> message
: > : >>>
: > : >>>> in message
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>>> in message
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>>> YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are
: > stopping,
: > : >>>>>> tard!
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>> Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply
: > not
: > : >>>>> enough time to accommodate
: > : >>>>> everyone who might want to say
: > something.
: > : >>>>> All you are doing is looking
: > : >>>>> for an excuse to drag things out so
: > nothing
: > : >>>>> gets done. Nobody, after
: > : >>>>> all, is stopping Lord Monckton from
: > calling
: > : >>>>> a press conference and
: > : >>>>> talking to whoever decides to show up to
: > : >>>>> listen.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> Your above statement actually exposes
: > your
: > : >>>> ignorance, stupidity,
: > : >>>> naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you
: > choose
: > : >>>> which since what albie gore
: > : >>>> stated has been stated ad nauseum over &
: > : >>>> over, time and again tard!
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Rather, *your* statement exposes *your*
: > : >>> statement poses your "ignorance,
: > : >>> stupidity, naivity or dishonesty," as you
: > put
: > : >>> was germane to the discussion and
: > completely
: > : >>> true. The right to free
: > : >>> speach is not a right to an audience -
: > nobody
: > : >>> is compelled to listen.
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>>> Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH
: > in
: > : >>>>>> honest government not
: > : >>>>>> politically ideological policy makers.
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>>> Then you should have been screaming
: > bloody
: > : >>>>> murder when Bush and
: > : >>>>> the other Republicans were running
: > things,
: > : >>>>> where ideology counted
: > : >>>>> far more than facts.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> Wrong libtard, that's what your side said
: > : >>>> which pretty much guarantees
: > : >>>> the politicking and lying came from the
: > : >>>> dems..............
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Are you really that out of touch with
: > reality?
: > : >>
: > : >> Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying
: > how
: > : >> anyone in this day and age,
: > : >> with all the information posted to these
: > : >> newsgroups clearly showing who
: > : >> is lying and who is not, can be so
: > stubbornly
: > : >> on the wrong side of reality.
: > : >> I understand my 80 year old cousin who was
: > an
: > : >> AF lifer having some old
: > : >> prejudices, but for young people to buy the
: > : >> bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
: > : >> is beyond belief.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > And still not one post from libtards on this
: > : > thread have articulated why dems should
: > SILENCE
: > : > an invited guest by republicans to this
: > hearing
: > : >
: > : > 1- Dems have the power to do so.
: > : >
: > : > 2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative
: > : > views.
: > : >
: > : > 3. The hearing is supposed to be science
: > based.
: > : >
: > : > Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?
: >
: > : The anti-science administration is gone.
: > : Pseudo-science and superstition have been
: > removed.
: > : "Alternatives" have to have a basis in
: > science.
: >
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore
: > anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > -------------------
: > Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
: There's science and there's RRR "science"
: Labeling what Republicans called "science" does
: not make it science.
Can't answer the question I see.

To siddy, science is dependent upon which political party tells him......

[Billy Bob Brubeck]

Post by Frank Pittel
snip<
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
everyone on the planet to address global warming.

Post by Frank Pittel
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

This little piece of bullshit in your sig shows just how fucking stupid you
really are. The people at the top are stealing us blind and you are worried
about people who get the crumbs.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Frank Pittel
snip<
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Science ignores anything that is based on something other
than science.

[sid9]

"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Frank Pittel
In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9
snip<
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore
anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Science ignores anything that is based on
something other than science.

"views" are opinions.

"science" is not an opinion.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Frank Pittel
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Science ignores anything that is based on something other than
science.

It's pretty funny. Well before it became a political issue, I
learned about the "greenhouse effect" in a physics course. If
you do a naive calculation of the average temperature of the
earch, ignoring heat generated internally and treating the
earth as a black body, you'll get a temperature of about 278K.
(5 degrees Celsius). It uses the solar constant (1367 W/m^2)
and Stefan's law (blackbody radiation grows as the 4th power
of temperature), with the temperature you get being the
value for which as much energy comes in as goes out (per
unit time). Stefan's law gives the energy flux as
epsilon sigma T^4, where sigma = 5.67 x 10^(-8) Js^-1m^-2K^-4,
and epsilon is the emissitivy (value = 1.0 for a blackbody).
If epsilon is less than 1, you don't emit as much, but you
don't absorb as much either. These balance each other out.
<Loading Image...>
will give you the general idea (if the temperature was completely
uniform, you'd make out none of the objcts in the furnace).

The number is a bit low, partly from ignoring heat generated in the
earth's core by radioactive decay, but also because of the greenhouse
effect -- the emissivity is actually frequency dependent, and
"greenhouse gases" are nearly transparent to electromagnetic radiation
at the temperature of sunlight, but are far better absorbers of
electromagnetic radiation at the temperature of the earth.

The bottom line is that we can pretty easily measure the chemical
properties of the atmosphere (the mix of gases it contains) and
we can easily measure the emissivity of those gases. So we can
definitely show that global warming is real. What is much harder
to determine is exactly how the climate will change as a result.

[MioMyo]

Post by Frank Pittel
snip<
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Science ignores anything that is based on something other than science.

Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

We all know that Al Gore has proven it politically, or at least he has to
the weak-minded.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: "Lamont Cranston" <***@WhoKnowsWhat.com> wrote in message
: news:gt52ig$e3d$***@news.datemas.de...
: >
: > "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote
: >> In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9 <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>snip<
: >>
: >> Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: >> doesn't agree with your views?
: >
: > Science ignores anything that is based on something other than science.


: Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
: Warming?

When algore said so.

[M***@silent.com]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:09:31 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Science ignores anything that is based on something other than science.

Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

While you had your face between rightwing ass-cheeks,
Whineo.

[MioMyo]

Post by M***@silent.com
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:09:31 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Science ignores anything that is based on something other than science.

Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

While you had your face between rightwing ass-cheeks,
Whineo.

<So you can provide a cite?

So far, no one believing in man-made GW has.

Believing , I believe is the operative word here....

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Frank Pittel
snip<
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Science ignores anything that is based on something other than science.

Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

You can start with the work of Boltzmann, Planck and others around 1900,
followed by the development of quantum mechanics (in particular
atomic and molecular physics) in the early 20th century.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body> for how to estimate
the temperature of the earth (the greenhouse effect keeps the
temperatures higher - otherwise we would all freeze).

Then later, in the 20th century, someone noted the amount of
"greenhouse gases" being emitted by industrial activity and
that it is sufficient to raise the temperature by a noticable
amount, modified only by a climate change with hard to estimate
consequences.

The so-called "conservatives" approach to this issue is to put
their heads in the sand and do nothing unless you can show with
100% certainty what will happen - a self-serving strategy for
those who want to take the money and run.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Frank Pittel
snip<
Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
doesn't agree with your views?

Science ignores anything that is based on something other than science.

Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

You can start with the work of Boltzmann, Planck and others around 1900,
followed by the development of quantum mechanics (in particular
atomic and molecular physics) in the early 20th century.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body> for how to estimate
the temperature of the earth (the greenhouse effect keeps the
temperatures higher - otherwise we would all freeze).
Then later, in the 20th century, someone noted the amount of
"greenhouse gases" being emitted by industrial activity and
that it is sufficient to raise the temperature by a noticable
amount, modified only by a climate change with hard to estimate
consequences.
The so-called "conservatives" approach to this issue is to put
their heads in the sand and do nothing unless you can show with
100% certainty what will happen - a self-serving strategy for
those who want to take the money and run.

So you're saying there is a scientific consensus which irrefutably agrees on
Man-Made Global Warming?

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

You can start with the work of Boltzmann, Planck and others around 1900,
followed by the development of quantum mechanics (in particular
atomic and molecular physics) in the early 20th century.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body> for how to estimate
the temperature of the earth (the greenhouse effect keeps the
temperatures higher - otherwise we would all freeze).
Then later, in the 20th century, someone noted the amount of
"greenhouse gases" being emitted by industrial activity and
that it is sufficient to raise the temperature by a noticable
amount, modified only by a climate change with hard to estimate
consequences.
The so-called "conservatives" approach to this issue is to put
their heads in the sand and do nothing unless you can show with
100% certainty what will happen - a self-serving strategy for
those who want to take the money and run.

So you're saying there is a scientific consensus which irrefutably
agrees on Man-Made Global Warming?

Yep. And you can do laboratory experiments to verify the theory.
Those were done before 1950, purely to understand the behavior
of matter and electromagnetic radiation.

The unknown is precisely how the climate will change as a response,
but the physical effects of adding gases like CO2 or methane to the
atmosphere are known, and have been for quite some time.

See
<http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm>
if you want to see where the ideas about global warming per se came
from.

Also, if someone tells you "one person said A and someone else said
B" to imply that there is no concensus, look at the dates of the
papers. Our climate models are way better today than 15 years ago
because the computers we run them on are much faster and have a lot
more memory.

The main uncertainty is how the climate will respond to the
increased absorption of infrared radiation. If it stays the same,
it is relatively straightforward to calculate the increase in
temperature. If the climate changes, the temperature increase
can be much different - you might have, for example, more cloud
cover. Sudden climate changes, however, can cause serious
economic disruptions. So, the question is really whether to
ignore the problem so you can take the money and run, or be
truly conservative and not figuratively jump up and down when
you might be standing on thin ice.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Good point, so when did science, scientifically prove Man-Made Global
Warming?

You can start with the work of Boltzmann, Planck and others around 1900,
followed by the development of quantum mechanics (in particular
atomic and molecular physics) in the early 20th century.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body> for how to estimate
the temperature of the earth (the greenhouse effect keeps the
temperatures higher - otherwise we would all freeze).
Then later, in the 20th century, someone noted the amount of
"greenhouse gases" being emitted by industrial activity and
that it is sufficient to raise the temperature by a noticable
amount, modified only by a climate change with hard to estimate
consequences.
The so-called "conservatives" approach to this issue is to put
their heads in the sand and do nothing unless you can show with
100% certainty what will happen - a self-serving strategy for
those who want to take the money and run.

So you're saying there is a scientific consensus which irrefutably
agrees on Man-Made Global Warming?

Yep. And you can do laboratory experiments to verify the theory.

In a laboratory, one can mimic all real world variables? including the sun
and its cycles? Has this been accomplished?

BTW- do you think the sun it largely responsible for the temperature on
earth?

Also, do you discredit those experts who dispute man-made global warming as
being paid shills of big oil?

Post by Bill Z.
Those were done before 1950, purely to understand the behavior
of matter and electromagnetic radiation.
The unknown is precisely how the climate will change as a response,
but the physical effects of adding gases like CO2 or methane to the
atmosphere are known, and have been for quite some time.
See
<http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm>
if you want to see where the ideas about global warming per se came
from.
Also, if someone tells you "one person said A and someone else said
B" to imply that there is no concensus, look at the dates of the
papers. Our climate models are way better today than 15 years ago
because the computers we run them on are much faster and have a lot
more memory.
The main uncertainty is how the climate will respond to the
increased absorption of infrared radiation. If it stays the same,
it is relatively straightforward to calculate the increase in
temperature. If the climate changes, the temperature increase
can be much different - you might have, for example, more cloud
cover. Sudden climate changes, however, can cause serious
economic disruptions. So, the question is really whether to
ignore the problem so you can take the money and run, or be
truly conservative and not figuratively jump up and down when
you might be standing on thin ice.

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
So you're saying there is a scientific consensus which irrefutably
agrees on Man-Made Global Warming?

Yep. And you can do laboratory experiments to verify the theory.

In a laboratory, one can mimic all real world variables? including the
sun and its cycles? Has this been accomplished?

What the laboratory experiments verified is how blackbody radiation
behaves and how electromagnetic radiation intereacts with matter.
It's been measured very carefully because it was important in the
development of quantum mechanics - testing the theory.

Post by MioMyo
BTW- do you think the sun it largely responsible for the temperature
on earth?

Well, think about it. Including the earth's albedo in the
calculation, the temperature should be just under 249 K (273 L is the
freezing point of water), ignoring heat generated internally from
radioactive decay. The greenhouse effect raises that. It is colder
than 249 K at the poles in winter.

Meanwhile, the heat loss from the (interior of the) earth is
4.2 X 10^13 watts (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat>).
Divide that by the surface area and compare it to the solar
constant.

Post by MioMyo
Also, do you discredit those experts who dispute man-made global
warming as being paid shills of big oil?

Read the text you quoted below and seemed to ignore. While some of your
"experts" are in fact no doubt paid shills, the legitimate
disagreements involve how the climate will react to the chemical
changes in the atmosphere - its difficult to model, mostly because of
the enormous computational resources you need. The political decision
boils down to whether to pump up the economy (or rather, specific
current businesses) by taking a risk that might result in a
catastrophy versus working hard on new technologies that will mitigate
global warming and that may have significant advantages.

If you want any more information, you can look it up yourself or
spend several years learning enough physics to understand what is
going on.

If you don't care about the physics, you might note that reducing our
fossil fuel dependency would make the Middle East less of a problem
than it is today: Iran, for instance, is not going to run a nuclear
weapons program (we don't really know if it is right now but we have
legitimate reasons to be suspicious) if its oil revenue drops so far
that such a program is not affordable.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Those were done before 1950, purely to understand the behavior
of matter and electromagnetic radiation.
The unknown is precisely how the climate will change as a response,
but the physical effects of adding gases like CO2 or methane to the
atmosphere are known, and have been for quite some time.
See
<http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm>
if you want to see where the ideas about global warming per se came
from.
Also, if someone tells you "one person said A and someone else said
B" to imply that there is no concensus, look at the dates of the
papers. Our climate models are way better today than 15 years ago
because the computers we run them on are much faster and have a lot
more memory.
The main uncertainty is how the climate will respond to the
increased absorption of infrared radiation. If it stays the same,
it is relatively straightforward to calculate the increase in
temperature. If the climate changes, the temperature increase
can be much different - you might have, for example, more cloud
cover. Sudden climate changes, however, can cause serious
economic disruptions. So, the question is really whether to
ignore the problem so you can take the money and run, or be
truly conservative and not figuratively jump up and down when
you might be standing on thin ice.

Did you read that? :-)

[MioMyo]

Whether or not you understand the science and math you've quoted below is
irrelevant; however, it's obvious that you've done a cut_n_paste with the
majority of the information & data. Furthermore, besides the fact that your
vernacular is inappropriate for the discussion groups at hand, you have
quite conveniently dodged pertinent questions I asked. See how below.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
So you're saying there is a scientific consensus which irrefutably
agrees on Man-Made Global Warming?

Yep. And you can do laboratory experiments to verify the theory.

In a laboratory, one can mimic all real world variables? including the
sun and its cycles? Has this been accomplished?

What the laboratory experiments verified is how blackbody radiation
behaves and how electromagnetic radiation intereacts with matter.
It's been measured very carefully because it was important in the
development of quantum mechanics - testing the theory.

In other words, a man-programmed computer model which cannot actually
account for thermo cyclyes from the sun.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
BTW- do you think the sun it largely responsible for the temperature
on earth?

Well, think about it.

Why don't you think about giving a direct answer to the question even if an
opinion.

Plus your long winded cut_n_paste totally avoids the obvious cogent point
I'm making regarding heat from the sun. If that little light bulb were to go
out, you better put your knickers on in about 8-minutes.

Post by Bill Z.
Including the earth's albedo in the
calculation, the temperature should be just under 249 K (273 L is the
freezing point of water), ignoring heat generated internally from
radioactive decay. The greenhouse effect raises that. It is colder
than 249 K at the poles in winter.
Meanwhile, the heat loss from the (interior of the) earth is
4.2 X 10^13 watts (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat>).
Divide that by the surface area and compare it to the solar
constant.

Post by MioMyo
Also, do you discredit those experts who dispute man-made global
warming as being paid shills of big oil?

Read the text you quoted below and seemed to ignore. While some of your
"experts" are in fact no doubt paid shills, the legitimate
disagreements involve how the climate will react to the chemical
changes in the atmosphere - its difficult to model, mostly because of
the enormous computational resources you need. The political decision
boils down to whether to pump up the economy (or rather, specific
current businesses) by taking a risk that might result in a
catastrophy versus working hard on new technologies that will mitigate
global warming and that may have significant advantages.

Then your solution is merely political on the basis of unfounded evidence
that indeed global warming is man made. Furthrmore, you can't even answer
the simple question regarding the thermo effect thes sun may have on earth.

Basically, you are a bloviating wind bag attempting to prop yourself up to
have more intellect than you really do.

Thanks for confirming that reality...........

Post by Bill Z.
If you want any more information, you can look it up yourself or
spend several years learning enough physics to understand what is
going on.
If you don't care about the physics, you might note that reducing our
fossil fuel dependency would make the Middle East less of a problem
than it is today: Iran, for instance, is not going to run a nuclear
weapons program (we don't really know if it is right now but we have
legitimate reasons to be suspicious) if its oil revenue drops so far
that such a program is not affordable.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Those were done before 1950, purely to understand the behavior
of matter and electromagnetic radiation.
The unknown is precisely how the climate will change as a response,
but the physical effects of adding gases like CO2 or methane to the
atmosphere are known, and have been for quite some time.
See
<http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm>
if you want to see where the ideas about global warming per se came
from.
Also, if someone tells you "one person said A and someone else said
B" to imply that there is no concensus, look at the dates of the
papers. Our climate models are way better today than 15 years ago
because the computers we run them on are much faster and have a lot
more memory.
The main uncertainty is how the climate will respond to the
increased absorption of infrared radiation. If it stays the same,
it is relatively straightforward to calculate the increase in
temperature. If the climate changes, the temperature increase
can be much different - you might have, for example, more cloud
cover. Sudden climate changes, however, can cause serious
economic disruptions. So, the question is really whether to
ignore the problem so you can take the money and run, or be
truly conservative and not figuratively jump up and down when
you might be standing on thin ice.

Did you read that? :-)

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo
Whether or not you understand the science and math you've quoted below
is irrelevant; however, it's obvious that you've done a cut_n_paste
with the majority of the information & data. Furthermore, besides the
fact that your vernacular is inappropriate for the discussion groups
at hand, you have quite conveniently dodged pertinent questions I
asked. See how below.

Look moron, I most certainly do understand it and I did not do a "cut
and paste" anything - that is simply a bald-faced lie on your part.
It may surprise you, but some of us really do know this stuff.

I gave you some references to URLs because it is a pain in the butt to
type in equations, which you can't render well using ASCII text, or
write a long explanation of textbook material - so I looked something
up on google and did a quick check for accuracy.

And I did not "dodge" pertinent questions - that is another of your lies.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
In a laboratory, one can mimic all real world variables? including the
sun and its cycles? Has this been accomplished?

What the laboratory experiments verified is how blackbody radiation
behaves and how electromagnetic radiation intereacts with matter.
It's been measured very carefully because it was important in the
development of quantum mechanics - testing the theory.

In other words, a man-programmed computer model which cannot actually
account for thermo cyclyes from the sun.

Sigh. We've been collecting data on the sun for quite some time. We
can measure its surface temperature - the distribution of light
intensity with frequency (wavelength) is known for objects at any
specific temperature, and we can fit that to observations of the sun.
We similarly can measure its diameter and we know the distance of the
earth from the sun. We can predict the solar constant accurately
given those numbers and we can measure it using satellites (to take
out any atomspheric absorption or scattering).

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
BTW- do you think the sun it largely responsible for the temperature
on earth?

Well, think about it.

Why don't you think about giving a direct answer to the question even
if an opinion.

Because I'm not your resource. If you are too damn lazy to look up
a few numbers (e.g., the solar constant, the amount of energy that
leaks out from inside the earth, the radius of the earth, etc.), that
is your problem. Don't expect me to do your homework for you after
I explained it to you.

Post by MioMyo
Plus your long winded cut_n_paste totally avoids the obvious cogent
point I'm making regarding heat from the sun. If that little light
bulb were to go out, you better put your knickers on in about
8-minutes.

Liar - that was no cut and paste job.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Including the earth's albedo in the
calculation, the temperature should be just under 249 K (273 L is the
freezing point of water), ignoring heat generated internally from
radioactive decay. The greenhouse effect raises that. It is colder
than 249 K at the poles in winter.
Meanwhile, the heat loss from the (interior of the) earth is
4.2 X 10^13 watts (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat>).
Divide that by the surface area and compare it to the solar
constant.

Post by MioMyo
Also, do you discredit those experts who dispute man-made global
warming as being paid shills of big oil?

Read the text you quoted below and seemed to ignore. While some of your
"experts" are in fact no doubt paid shills, the legitimate
disagreements involve how the climate will react to the chemical
changes in the atmosphere - its difficult to model, mostly because of
the enormous computational resources you need. The political decision
boils down to whether to pump up the economy (or rather, specific
current businesses) by taking a risk that might result in a
catastrophy versus working hard on new technologies that will mitigate
global warming and that may have significant advantages.

Then your solution is merely political on the basis of unfounded
evidence that indeed global warming is man made. Furthrmore, you can't
even answer the simple question regarding the thermo effect thes sun
may have on earth.

You liar - I gave you the answer, although in reality it doesn't
matter whether the surface is heated by the sun or from internal
radioactive decay. I didn't give it to you a second time because
you obviously had not read the reference material I pointed you to.

Post by MioMyo
Basically, you are a bloviating wind bag attempting to prop yourself
up to have more intellect than you really do.
Thanks for confirming that reality...........

Oh, So that's the sort of response you get when I'm nice enough to
explain the physics to you. I guess your finally realized that your
ignorance was showing and you are now acting out. How immature.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Whether or not you understand the science and math you've quoted below
is irrelevant; however, it's obvious that you've done a cut_n_paste
with the majority of the information & data. Furthermore, besides the
fact that your vernacular is inappropriate for the discussion groups
at hand, you have quite conveniently dodged pertinent questions I
asked. See how below.

Look moron, I most certainly do understand it and I did not do a "cut
and paste" anything - that is simply a bald-faced lie on your part.
It may surprise you, but some of us really do know this stuff.

Okay Eistein, than you realize that you completely avoided my simple, cogent
points. Then again maybe you're an intellectual dunce.

Post by Bill Z.
I gave you some references to URLs because it is a pain in the butt to
type in equations, which you can't render well using ASCII text, or
write a long explanation of textbook material - so I looked something
up on google and did a quick check for accuracy.
And I did not "dodge" pertinent questions - that is another of your lies.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
In a laboratory, one can mimic all real world variables? including the
sun and its cycles? Has this been accomplished?

What the laboratory experiments verified is how blackbody radiation
behaves and how electromagnetic radiation intereacts with matter.
It's been measured very carefully because it was important in the
development of quantum mechanics - testing the theory.

In other words, a man-programmed computer model which cannot actually
account for thermo cyclyes from the sun.

Sigh. We've been collecting data on the sun for quite some time. We
can measure its surface temperature - the distribution of light
intensity with frequency (wavelength) is known for objects at any
specific temperature, and we can fit that to observations of the sun.
We similarly can measure its diameter and we know the distance of the
earth from the sun. We can predict the solar constant accurately
given those numbers and we can measure it using satellites (to take
out any atomspheric absorption or scattering).

So you can predict future sun spot solar activity, frequency & duration.

Plus you know within a reasonable margin of error that you can undeniable
factor in all solar activity into your global warming models?

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
BTW- do you think the sun it largely responsible for the temperature
on earth?

Well, think about it.

Why don't you think about giving a direct answer to the question even
if an opinion.

Because I'm not your resource.

But you're the one claiming you can prove Man-Made global warming.

Whethr or not you say you can, you CANNOT factor in all solar activity. Next
you cannot be assured your computer models have factored into your man-made
global warming assertions all other varibles, that is if you actually know
all such influencing variables.

Post by Bill Z.
If you are too damn lazy to look up
a few numbers (e.g., the solar constant, the amount of energy that
leaks out from inside the earth, the radius of the earth, etc.), that
is your problem. Don't expect me to do your homework for you after
I explained it to you.

So you know the sun will go super nova? or did you know before it most
recently happened that sun spot activity would decrease significantly? a
phenonmenon that could be effecting our current coolling trend!

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Plus your long winded cut_n_paste totally avoids the obvious cogent
point I'm making regarding heat from the sun. If that little light
bulb were to go out, you better put your knickers on in about
8-minutes.

Liar - that was no cut and paste job.

Well, you couldn't prove it either way, now could you?

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Including the earth's albedo in the
calculation, the temperature should be just under 249 K (273 L is the
freezing point of water), ignoring heat generated internally from
radioactive decay. The greenhouse effect raises that. It is colder
than 249 K at the poles in winter.
Meanwhile, the heat loss from the (interior of the) earth is
4.2 X 10^13 watts (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat>).
Divide that by the surface area and compare it to the solar
constant.

Post by MioMyo
Also, do you discredit those experts who dispute man-made global
warming as being paid shills of big oil?

Read the text you quoted below and seemed to ignore. While some of your
"experts" are in fact no doubt paid shills, the legitimate
disagreements involve how the climate will react to the chemical
changes in the atmosphere - its difficult to model, mostly because of
the enormous computational resources you need. The political decision
boils down to whether to pump up the economy (or rather, specific
current businesses) by taking a risk that might result in a
catastrophy versus working hard on new technologies that will mitigate
global warming and that may have significant advantages.

Then your solution is merely political on the basis of unfounded
evidence that indeed global warming is man made. Furthrmore, you can't
even answer the simple question regarding the thermo effect thes sun
may have on earth.

You liar - I gave you the answer, although in reality it doesn't
matter whether the surface is heated by the sun or from internal
radioactive decay. I didn't give it to you a second time because
you obviously had not read the reference material I pointed you to.

But you DID NOT prove global warming is MAN MADE, now did you?

That would be a Yes or a NO........

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Basically, you are a bloviating wind bag attempting to prop yourself
up to have more intellect than you really do.
Thanks for confirming that reality...........

Oh, So that's the sort of response you get when I'm nice enough to
explain the physics to you. I guess your finally realized that your
ignorance was showing and you are now acting out. How immature.

You started the name calling. Now you can't take your own medicine. How
typical.

But more importantly, you failed to PROVE MAN-MADE global warming, that's
simple enough to see, moron......

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Whether or not you understand the science and math you've quoted below
is irrelevant; however, it's obvious that you've done a cut_n_paste
with the majority of the information & data. Furthermore, besides the
fact that your vernacular is inappropriate for the discussion groups
at hand, you have quite conveniently dodged pertinent questions I
asked. See how below.

Look moron, I most certainly do understand it and I did not do a "cut
and paste" anything - that is simply a bald-faced lie on your part.
It may surprise you, but some of us really do know this stuff.

Okay Eistein, than you realize that you completely avoided my simple,
cogent points. Then again maybe you're an intellectual dunce.

I.e., you lack the integrity to admit that you just posted a number
of lies and that you know you that you can't back them up.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Well, think about it.

Why don't you think about giving a direct answer to the question even
if an opinion.

Because I'm not your resource.

But you're the one claiming you can prove Man-Made global warming.

Actually, I was describing the physics to you. You put additional CO2 and
some other gases into the atmosphere, and those gases will do their
thing.

Post by MioMyo
Whethr or not you say you can, you CANNOT factor in all solar
activity. Next you cannot be assured your computer models have
factored into your man-made global warming assertions all other
varibles, that is if you actually know all such influencing variables.

Nonsense.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
If you are too damn lazy to look up
a few numbers (e.g., the solar constant, the amount of energy that
leaks out from inside the earth, the radius of the earth, etc.), that
is your problem. Don't expect me to do your homework for you after
I explained it to you.

So you know the sun will go super nova?

ROTFLMAO. It won't. Look up Chandrasekhar limit to see why.

Post by MioMyo
or did you know before it most
recently happened that sun spot activity would decrease significantly?
a phenonmenon that could be effecting our current coolling trend!

Irrelevant - as I explained to you, we can *measure* the amount of
energy coming from the sun. Obviously, we can use that data as inputs
into the models.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Plus your long winded cut_n_paste totally avoids the obvious cogent
point I'm making regarding heat from the sun. If that little light
bulb were to go out, you better put your knickers on in about
8-minutes.

Liar - that was no cut and paste job.

Well, you couldn't prove it either way, now could you?

You made the claim, liar, so it is your job to back it up. Do
a google search and see if you can find a verbatim copy of what I
wrote. You won't.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
You liar - I gave you the answer, although in reality it doesn't
matter whether the surface is heated by the sun or from internal
radioactive decay. I didn't give it to you a second time because
you obviously had not read the reference material I pointed you to.

But you DID NOT prove global warming is MAN MADE, now did you?
That would be a Yes or a NO........

You asked whether the sun was responsible for most of the energy
that warms the earth's surface. Do try to keep up with what the
discussion was about.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Basically, you are a bloviating wind bag attempting to prop yourself
up to have more intellect than you really do.
Thanks for confirming that reality...........

Oh, So that's the sort of response you get when I'm nice enough to
explain the physics to you. I guess your finally realized that your
ignorance was showing and you are now acting out. How immature.

You started the name calling. Now you can't take your own
medicine. How typical.

Liar - you did.

Post by MioMyo
But more importantly, you failed to PROVE MAN-MADE global warming,
that's simple enough to see, moron......

Oh come off it. I gave you plenty of citations showing that it is
real. I see no reason, however, to waste my time on long explanations
for the benefit of some dishonest twirp like you, who would ignore
it anyway.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Whether or not you understand the science and math you've quoted below
is irrelevant; however, it's obvious that you've done a cut_n_paste
with the majority of the information & data. Furthermore, besides the
fact that your vernacular is inappropriate for the discussion groups
at hand, you have quite conveniently dodged pertinent questions I
asked. See how below.

Look moron, I most certainly do understand it and I did not do a "cut
and paste" anything - that is simply a bald-faced lie on your part.
It may surprise you, but some of us really do know this stuff.

Okay Eistein, than you realize that you completely avoided my simple,
cogent points. Then again maybe you're an intellectual dunce.

I.e., you lack the integrity to admit that you just posted a number
of lies and that you know you that you can't back them up.

Lies you say. Lies you cannot prove as such no more than you can prove
man-made global warming.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Well, think about it.

Why don't you think about giving a direct answer to the question even
if an opinion.

Because I'm not your resource.

But you're the one claiming you can prove Man-Made global warming.

Actually, I was describing the physics to you.

But you are NOT proving the assertion as I stated. That is the point.

Post by Bill Z.
You put additional CO2 and
some other gases into the atmosphere, and those gases will do their
thing.

Post by MioMyo
Whethr or not you say you can, you CANNOT factor in all solar
activity. Next you cannot be assured your computer models have
factored into your man-made global warming assertions all other
varibles, that is if you actually know all such influencing variables.

Nonsense.

Obviously only you are aware of just how omnipotent you truly are.

Sorry cause I'm not impressed.......

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
If you are too damn lazy to look up
a few numbers (e.g., the solar constant, the amount of energy that
leaks out from inside the earth, the radius of the earth, etc.), that
is your problem. Don't expect me to do your homework for you after
I explained it to you.

So you know the sun will go super nova?

ROTFLMAO. It won't. Look up Chandrasekhar limit to see why.

Eventually it will. I didn't say it will tomorrow, but the point is you are
making assumptions in order to complete your predetermined & wanted computer
model results.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
or did you know before it most
recently happened that sun spot activity would decrease significantly?
a phenonmenon that could be effecting our current coolling trend!

Irrelevant - as I explained to you, we can *measure* the amount of
energy coming from the sun. Obviously, we can use that data as inputs
into the models.

But that measurement is no better than real time and also makes the constant
assumption. The mere fact that a recent decrease in sun spot activity is
subject of speculation for being the cause of a down turn in a global
temperature trend would suggest that your imput of constant solar energy is
assumptive.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Plus your long winded cut_n_paste totally avoids the obvious cogent
point I'm making regarding heat from the sun. If that little light
bulb were to go out, you better put your knickers on in about
8-minutes.

Liar - that was no cut and paste job.

Well, you couldn't prove it either way, now could you?

You made the claim, liar, so it is your job to back it up. Do
a google search and see if you can find a verbatim copy of what I
wrote. You won't.

And subtleness is obviously a complicated concept for you to digest. The
fact is your discourse is not germane to the target political group audience
here, a point I made previously which completely went over your head. It
would likewise be pointless to explain the second order differential
phenomenon of distance with respect to time to a 5-year old. However, one
could talk about moving faster & faster thereby changing speed in order to
explain the concept of acceleration or the changing of velocity with respect
to time. One the target audience would understand; the other the target
audience wouldn't.

In the end, you may may yourself feel elitist but you are really only
exposing yourself as a bloviating pompous snob whose dialog is only exceeded
by your narcissistic arrogance.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
You liar - I gave you the answer, although in reality it doesn't
matter whether the surface is heated by the sun or from internal
radioactive decay. I didn't give it to you a second time because
you obviously had not read the reference material I pointed you to.

But you DID NOT prove global warming is MAN MADE, now did you?
That would be a Yes or a NO........

You asked whether the sun was responsible for most of the energy
that warms the earth's surface. Do try to keep up with what the
discussion was about.

Do try to make sure your bloviating explanation are for more than you to
extoll your own narsicisstic vitures. The point of the discussion is man
made global warming and the fact is the sun CAN BE the single most
influencial factor which you want to assume is always a constant.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Basically, you are a bloviating wind bag attempting to prop yourself
up to have more intellect than you really do.
Thanks for confirming that reality...........

Oh, So that's the sort of response you get when I'm nice enough to
explain the physics to you. I guess your finally realized that your
ignorance was showing and you are now acting out. How immature.

You started the name calling. Now you can't take your own
medicine. How typical.

Liar - you did.

Another unsupported assertion; your problem is you just can't handle being
challenged.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
But more importantly, you failed to PROVE MAN-MADE global warming,
that's simple enough to see, moron......

Oh come off it. I gave you plenty of citations showing that it is

Your bloviating citations are NOT proof......

Post by Bill Z.
real. I see no reason, however, to waste my time on long explanations
for the benefit of some dishonest twirp like you, who would ignore
it anyway.

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.
Look moron, I most certainly do understand it and I did not do a "cut
and paste" anything - that is simply a bald-faced lie on your part.
It may surprise you, but some of us really do know this stuff.

Okay Eistein, than you realize that you completely avoided my simple,
cogent points. Then again maybe you're an intellectual dunce.

I.e., you lack the integrity to admit that you just posted a number
of lies and that you know you that you can't back them up.

Lies you say. Lies you cannot prove as such no more than you can prove
man-made global warming.

Hey slimeball, you made an accusation. Either back it up or be
branded as a liar.

You are simply another of those loons who starts throwing scurrilous
accusations around when he doesn't like the facts.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your rant - you are obviously have
no interest at all in the facts and are simply yet another usenet
lowlife.

<snip>

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Billy Bob Brubeck <***@aol.com> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9 <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

: >snip<

: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?

: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.

The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's anything
we can do about it.

[Billy Bob Brubeck]

Post by Frank Pittel
: >snip<
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.
The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's anything
we can do about it.

Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Billy Bob Brubeck <***@aol.com> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Billy Bob Brubeck <***@aol.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: > : news:***@giganews.com...
: > : > In alt.politics.usa.republican sid9 <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >
: > : >snip<
: >
: > : > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > : > doesn't agree with your views?
: >
: > : Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: > : everyone on the planet to address global warming.
: >
: > The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a delusion
: > from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence
: > at
: > all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's
: > anything
: > we can do about it.

: Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.

Algore isn't one of them.

There are also millions of people a lot smarter then algore that don't agree with him.
Of course there are rocks and trees that are smarter then algore.

[Clairbear]

Post by Frank Pittel
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Billy Bob Brubeck
: >
: >
: > : >snip<
: >
: > : > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > : > doesn't agree with your views?
: >
: > : Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas
: > : from everyone on the planet to address global warming.
: >
: > The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a
: > delusion from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There
: > is no evidence at
: > all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that
: > there's anything
: > we can do about it.
: Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.
Algore isn't one of them.
There are also millions of people a lot smarter then algore that don't
agree with him. Of course there are rocks and trees that are smarter
then algore.

Problem is Algore's lack of mental acumen has set the entire human race
back 10,000 years Not to mention how much he and other like minded people
reduced the aggregate IQs of the species

[MioMyo]

Post by Billy Bob Brubeck

Post by Frank Pittel
: >snip<
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.
The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's anything
we can do about it.

Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.

Of those thousands, you mentioned, which one(s) proved man-made global
warming?

[MioMyo]

Post by sid9

Post by MioMyo

Post by Billy Bob Brubeck

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!

Liar. As I pointed out, there is simply not enough time to accommodate
everyone who might want to say something. All you are doing is
looking
for an excuse to drag things out so nothing gets done. Nobody, after
all, is stopping Lord Monckton from calling a press conference and
talking to whoever decides to show up to listen.

Your above statement actually exposes your ignorance, stupidity,
naivity or dishonesty. I'll let you choose which since what albie gore
stated has been stated ad nauseum over & over, time and again tard!

Rather, *your* statement exposes *your* statement poses your "ignorance,
was germane to the discussion and completely true. The right to free
speach is not a right to an audience - nobody is compelled to listen.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Bet I would since I want FACTS & TRUTH in honest government not
politically ideological policy makers.

Then you should have been screaming bloody murder when Bush and
the other Republicans were running things, where ideology counted
far more than facts.

Wrong libtard, that's what your side said which pretty much guarantees
the politicking and lying came from the dems..............

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

Yes, he is, and it is completely mystifying how anyone in this day and age,
with all the information posted to these newsgroups clearly showing who
is lying and who is not, can be so stubbornly on the wrong side of reality.
I understand my 80 year old cousin who was an AF lifer having some old
prejudices, but for young people to buy the bullshit spewed by Fox and Rush
is beyond belief.

And still not one post from libtards on this thread have articulated why
dems should SILENCE an invited guest by republicans to this hearing on
1- Dems have the power to do so.
2. Dems don't want to hear any alternative views.
3. The hearing is supposed to be science based.
Did I miss any other lame reasons, libtards?

The anti-science administration is gone.
Pseudo-science and superstition have been removed.
"Alternatives" have to have a basis in science.

Fair enough.... so what are Gore credentials in any field of the sciences?

You may cite all such science credentials right here including degrees,
discoveries having passed peer review and are now accepted as fact, etc.

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo
You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside expert
sources to testify on their behalf.
I would argue t

You can argue all you want.

While you, on the other hand, are unable to argue at all, that is if you
actually understand what constitutes an argument in the first pace,
cowardly...............

ROFLMFAO....................

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
You mean libtards, when in the minority, never brought forth outside expert
sources to testify on their behalf.
I would argue t

You can argue all you want.

While you, on the other hand, are unable to argue at all, that is if you
actually understand what constitutes an argument in the first pace,
cowardly.............

Ahhh, a clip and a childish insult. You never change your MO. ANd
the facts don't change either. This is not a free speech issue. It's
a science issue.

Than you surely wouldn't have any problem citing Gore's science credentials?

Oh That's Right... HE HAS NONE!

ROFLMFAO..............

Good luck in the future.

You should talk shit you don't really mean since you are indeed a pitiful
liar... in fact you are just plain pitiful............

Maybe some schooling will help you
understand the basics.

So I should be more like you eh, and argue from a position where logic does
not apply?

Wrong, bitch that's your gig............

oh, don't forget to hide.

From you, hasn't happened yet...................

[M***@silent.com]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:17:36 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor
to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to
allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high
profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
Washington.

I suppose some committe would disallow Goebbels to
testify on behalf of nazi war criminals too.....

I don't see any thing wrong with nipping propaganda in
the bud.

[MioMyo]

Post by M***@silent.com
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:17:36 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor
to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to
allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high
profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in
Washington.

I suppose some committe would disallow Goebbels to
testify on behalf of nazi war criminals too.....

Thanks for exposing how desperate you are to justify silencing opposing
points of view.

Your "apples and oranges" analogy could only be swallowed by your brain-dead
lemming liberal crowd since Monckton has NEVER been accused of war crimes
such as your example would suggest.

Post by M***@silent.com
I don't see any thing wrong with nipping propaganda in
the bud.

If that were true and you were merely interested in facts, you would support
challenging Gore's rhetoric which could NEVER pass scrutiny of scientific
peer review............

[M***@silent.com]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:39:04 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by M***@silent.com
I suppose some committe would disallow Goebbels to
testify on behalf of nazi war criminals too.....

Thanks for exposing how desperate you are to justify silencing opposing
points of view.

Suppression of views is a rightwing, conservative
trait, you dingbat

[MioMyo]

Post by M***@silent.com
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:39:04 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by M***@silent.com
I suppose some committe would disallow Goebbels to
testify on behalf of nazi war criminals too.....

Thanks for exposing how desperate you are to justify silencing opposing
points of view.

Suppression of views is a rightwing, conservative
trait, you dingbat

Try reading up on the subject-matter of this thread, libtard. After you do
if you had a morsel of dignity, you'd quite wasting precious oxygen.

[M***@silent.com]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:39:04 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by M***@silent.com
I don't see any thing wrong with nipping propaganda in
the bud.

If that were true and you were merely interested in facts, y

"Facts"??

You wouldn't know a true "Fact" if you sat on it.

[M***@silent.com]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:17:36 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday

Perhaps you haven't heard-----Republicans are MINORITY
status----and not well thought of by a huge majority of
Americans

[MioMyo]

Post by M***@silent.com
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:17:36 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the
Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore
and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday

Perhaps you haven't heard-----Republicans are MINORITY
status----and not well thought of by a huge majority of
Americans

Perhaps you haven't heard, just because a party is in the minority, that
does not give the majority party the carte blanch right to silence the
minority's message.

In fact, both parties have argued that the job of the minority party is to
keep the majority party in check.

So your suggestion that the minority must just go away and SHUT UP won't
happen, libtard.

Get used to being challenged and next time have something intelligent as a
response other than telling your opposition they should shut up. Besides, if
your party's ideology is so favored and well reasoned, it could stand up to
the scrutiny. Obviously you know it can't.

[M***@silent.com]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:46:50 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by M***@silent.com
Perhaps you haven't heard-----Republicans are MINORITY
status----and not well thought of by a huge majority of
Americans

Perhaps you haven't heard, just because a party is in the minority, that
does not give the majority party the carte blanch right to silence the
minority's message.

True

But we're discussing the veracity and popularity (and
lack of wisdom) of a failed, whipped, beaten, and
discredited political ideology and party

Your ass-licking them follows, tho......

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo
Then it couldn't hurt to allow him to testify. Why not allow Al Gore the
platform in which to eviscerate his testimony?
He was not invited.

Yes he was tard, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't even read the
article I posted. He was invited ny the minority party whereas albie gore
was invited by the majority party.

Post by MioMyo
It has nothing to do with free speech. You have
no right to demand to testify to congress.

You have no right breathing, thereby wasting good oxygen, libtard...........

Post by MioMyo
He has full free speech
rights Why are you so ignorant of our system?
groups trimmed, fact is your a racist spammer.

Groups restored....

BTW tard, when you have evidence of racism, do attempt to redeem yourself.

Post by MioMyo
oh yeah, hide bitch.

No need to since I'm right here kicking your silly ass.

[MioMyo]

Post by MioMyo

Post by MioMyo
Then it couldn't hurt to allow him to testify. Why not allow Al Gore the
platform in which to eviscerate his testimony?
He was not invited.

Yes he was tard,
If he is invited he will testify. Since he's NOT invited, he won't.

You are the biggest dumbass on usenet cowardly.

You prove it every time you post, but the above comment takes the cake.

Read the link and there are others on google giving even more. When you do,
you will find that many sources tell you that the Republicans invited hi
which is why the democrats said he can't testify.

You stupidly act as though he promoted himself as a witness.

Post by MioMyo
important points. 1. It's not a free speech issue. 2. You have no
say in the matter.

You have yet to make an important point bitch, and yes I don't have a say
just as you don't either, but the Republicans in congress do. They INVITED
HIM, kunt!

Post by MioMyo
Buy Buy.

What are you buying bitch?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...........

And you have the audacity to promote yourself as having a morsel of
intellect!

BWHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAAHAHHA........

Post by MioMyo
It sure was fun beating up on you. Back on ignore. Good
luck in the future.