* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
correct.

    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film
was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
rises by 800-2000 years.

    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this
has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that
it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused
by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the
case.

    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in
fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
storm.

    * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing
Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific
impossibility.

    * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

    * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are
expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no
such threat of massive migration.

    * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp

And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

In article ,
 "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
> correct.
> 
>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
> film
> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> temperature
> rises by 800-2000 years.
> 
>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
>     this
> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
> that
> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> 
>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
>     caused
> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not 
> the
> case.
> 
>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: 
> in
> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
> storm.
> 
>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
>     throwing
> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> scientific
> impossibility.
> 
>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
> 
>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels 
> are
> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is 
> no
> such threat of massive migration.
> 
>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
> claim.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> 
> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> 
> Ray

And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.

William Clark

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
 wrote:

>In article ,
> "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
>> correct.
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
>> film
>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>> temperature
>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>> 
>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
>>     this
>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
>> that
>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>> 
>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
>>     caused
>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not 
>> the
>> case.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: 
>> in
>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
>> storm.
>> 
>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
>>     throwing
>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>> scientific
>> impossibility.
>> 
>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels 
>> are
>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is 
>> no
>> such threat of massive migration.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
>> claim.
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>> 
>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>> 
>> Ray
>
>And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
>certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
>
>William Clark

Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the reference at
the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  you
shows no brain activity...  

But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the link I
provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such things as
facts and history...  But try it...  

And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
 wrote:


>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>
>Ray

Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
meantime anyway.

max.it (the orange cage)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:19 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
> wrote:
>
>
>>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>
>>Ray
>
>Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
>legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
>meantime anyway.
>
>max.it (the orange cage)

All reports I get from my comrades in my homeland would tend to agree with
you...  :)

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:47:13 -0400, "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf)
<rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:19 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>>>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>>
>>>Ray
>>
>>Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
>>legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
>>meantime anyway.
>>
>>max.it (the orange cage)
>
>All reports I get from my comrades in my homeland would tend to agree with
>you...  :)
>
>Ray

Saving sorry asses seems to be the Irish way.

max.it (the orange cage)
>
>-- 
>****************************************************************************************
>When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
>Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
>****************************************************************************************
>Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
>****************************************************************************************

"William A. T. Clark"  wrote in
news:clark.31-732F6E.13535012102007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: 

> In article ,
>  "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> 
>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
>>     evidence global 
>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is
>> not correct.
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
>>     rising CO2 
>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found
>> that the film
>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>> temperature
>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>> 
>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
>>     that this
>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to
>> accept that
>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>> 
>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
>>     was caused
>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this
>> was not the
>> case.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
>>     drowned due to 
>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
>> study: in
>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly
>> violent storm.
>> 
>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
>>     Stream throwing
>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>> scientific
>> impossibility.
>> 
>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including
>>     coral reef 
>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support
>> this claim. 
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
>> levels are
>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that
>> there is no
>> such threat of massive migration.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
>>     evacuation of 
>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a
>> false claim.
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>> 
>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has
>> no more worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>> 
>> Ray
> 
> And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> 
> William Clark

Actually what is quoted is part of the finding of a British Court.  How 
Horrigan ran across it is beyond anyone's guess.

-- 
Saint Séimí mac Liam 
Carriagemaker to the  court of Queen Maeve 
Prophet of The Great Tagger 
Canonized December '99

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:10:08 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:47:13 -0400, "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf)
><rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:19 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>>>>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>>>
>>>>Ray
>>>
>>>Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
>>>legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
>>>meantime anyway.
>>>
>>>max.it (the orange cage)
>>
>>All reports I get from my comrades in my homeland would tend to agree with
>>you...  :)
>>
>>Ray
>
>Saving sorry asses seems to be the Irish way.
>
>max.it (the orange cage)

WTF?

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:24:32 -0500, "Séimí mac Liam"
 wrote:

>"William A. T. Clark"  wrote in
>news:clark.31-732F6E.13535012102007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: 
>
>> In article ,
>>  "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>> 
>>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
>>>     evidence global 
>>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is
>>> not correct.
>>> 
>>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
>>>     rising CO2 
>>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found
>>> that the film
>>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>>> temperature
>>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>>> 
>>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
>>>     that this
>>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to
>>> accept that
>>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>>> 
>>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
>>>     was caused
>>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this
>>> was not the
>>> case.
>>> 
>>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
>>>     drowned due to 
>>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
>>> study: in
>>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly
>>> violent storm.
>>> 
>>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
>>>     Stream throwing
>>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>>> scientific
>>> impossibility.
>>> 
>>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including
>>>     coral reef 
>>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support
>>> this claim. 
>>> 
>>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
>>> levels are
>>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that
>>> there is no
>>> such threat of massive migration.
>>> 
>>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
>>>     evacuation of 
>>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a
>>> false claim.
>>> 
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>>> 
>>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has
>>> no more worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>> 
>>> Ray
>> 
>> And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
>> certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
>> 
>> William Clark
>
>Actually what is quoted is part of the finding of a British Court.  How 
>Horrigan ran across it is beyond anyone's guess.

Research my dear fellow!  You should try it some time!  You might educate
yourself!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message 
news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...

> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
> more
> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims 
made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He 
identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well 
supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and 
accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That 
climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon 
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global 
temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate 
change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely 
possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
news:ljmvg3hugvf9phfidao06q1c0520a6no4s@4ax.com:

> You might educate
> yourself!
> 

This is irony, right?

-- 
Saint Séimí mac Liam 
Carriagemaker to the  court of Queen Maeve 
Prophet of The Great Tagger 
Canonized December '99

On Oct 12, 8:17 am, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>" 
wrote:
>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
> correct.
>

They are melting. Why remains unproven but global warming seems like a
very plausible explanation.


>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film
> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
> rises by 800-2000 years.

I don't know enough about this - but I can say when one event
consistently precedes another in a proportional fashion, it is not
unreasonable to suggest a relationship of some sort

>
>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this
> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that
> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

Again not proven. Different from no relationship.



>
>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused
> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the
> case.

I don't think so. Multiple factors are at work, INCLUDING global
warming.

>
>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in
> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
> storm.

Again what happened to 4 bears does not invalidate the whole argument.
Polar bears drown every year because they cannot get to ice in time.
Actually some of them starve when they cannot find pack ice.

An added wrinkle that has just been found is that grizzly bears are
now at risk of falling through the ice because global warming has
enabled them to extend their range into the Arctic.

Some polar bear populations are increasing and some are declining but
the long term outcome is not in doubt - if the Arctic continues to
warm, polar bears will gradually disappear unless they can rapidly
change their behaviour.



>
>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing
> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific
> impossibility.

Not true.


>
>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

Again I think there IS evidence of this. Reefs are under threat all
over the world.


>
>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are
> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no
> such threat of massive migration.

This is hard to model for.

>
>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
>

I don't know. This may be the strongest claim you have made, if true.

It is refreshing to see neo-cons embracing the judicial findings of a
foreign court. I hope this continues.

In article ,
 "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:24:32 -0500, "Séimí mac Liam"
>  wrote:
> 
> >"William A. T. Clark"  wrote in
> >news:clark.31-732F6E.13535012102007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: 
> >
> >> In article ,
> >>  "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >> 
> >>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
> >>>     evidence global 
> >>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is
> >>> not correct.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
> >>>     rising CO2 
> >>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found
> >>> that the film
> >>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> >>> temperature
> >>> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
> >>>     that this
> >>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to
> >>> accept that
> >>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
> >>>     was caused
> >>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this
> >>> was not the
> >>> case.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
> >>>     drowned due to 
> >>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
> >>> study: in
> >>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly
> >>> violent storm.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
> >>>     Stream throwing
> >>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> >>> scientific
> >>> impossibility.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including
> >>>     coral reef 
> >>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support
> >>> this claim. 
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> >>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
> >>> levels are
> >>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that
> >>> there is no
> >>> such threat of massive migration.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
> >>>     evacuation of 
> >>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> >>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a
> >>> false claim.
> >>> 
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> >>> 
> >>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has
> >>> no more worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> >>> 
> >>> Ray
> >> 
> >> And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> >> certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> >> 
> >> William Clark
> >
> >Actually what is quoted is part of the finding of a British Court.  How 
> >Horrigan ran across it is beyond anyone's guess.
> 
> Research my dear fellow!  You should try it some time!  You might educate
> yourself!
> 
> Ray

Quoting a BRITISH court? Oh, my, goodness, whatever happened to our 
crown-hating plastic paddy Republican, that he now has to rely on a 
BRITISH court for his opinions?

And the joke os that no one would go to a court for opinions on global 
warming, anyway.

What a buffoon.

William Clark

In article ,
 "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article ,
> > "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >
> >>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence 
> >>     global
> >> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
> >> correct.
> >> 
> >>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising 
> >>     CO2
> >> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
> >> film
> >> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> >> temperature
> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >> 
> >>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
> >>     this
> >> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
> >> that
> >> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> >> 
> >>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
> >>     caused
> >> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was 
> >> not 
> >> the
> >> case.
> >> 
> >>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due 
> >>     to
> >> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the 
> >> study: 
> >> in
> >> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly 
> >> violent
> >> storm.
> >> 
> >>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
> >>     throwing
> >> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> >> scientific
> >> impossibility.
> >> 
> >>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral 
> >>     reef
> >> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this 
> >> claim.
> >> 
> >>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> >> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea 
> >> levels 
> >> are
> >> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there 
> >> is 
> >> no
> >> such threat of massive migration.
> >> 
> >>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
> >> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> >> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
> >> claim.
> >> 
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> >> 
> >> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
> >> more
> >> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> >> 
> >> Ray
> >
> >And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> >certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> >
> >William Clark
> 
> Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the reference 
> at
> the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  you
> shows no brain activity...  
> 
> But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the 
> link I
> provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such things 
> as
> facts and history...  But try it...  
> 
> And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?
> 
> Ray

I don't have either the time or interest to follow up on the neocon 
drivel you post, but a BRITISH court? Tut, tut, you'll get drummed out 
of the Republican Brownies for that.

William Clark

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:35:18 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
 wrote:

>In article ,
> "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> > "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>> >
>> >>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence 
>> >>     global
>> >> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
>> >> correct.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising 
>> >>     CO2
>> >> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
>> >> film
>> >> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>> >> temperature
>> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
>> >>     this
>> >> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
>> >> that
>> >> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
>> >>     caused
>> >> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was 
>> >> not 
>> >> the
>> >> case.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due 
>> >>     to
>> >> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the 
>> >> study: 
>> >> in
>> >> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly 
>> >> violent
>> >> storm.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
>> >>     throwing
>> >> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>> >> scientific
>> >> impossibility.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral 
>> >>     reef
>> >> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this 
>> >> claim.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>> >> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea 
>> >> levels 
>> >> are
>> >> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there 
>> >> is 
>> >> no
>> >> such threat of massive migration.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
>> >> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>> >> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
>> >> claim.
>> >> 
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>> >> 
>> >> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
>> >> more
>> >> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>> >> 
>> >> Ray
>> >
>> >And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
>> >certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
>> >
>> >William Clark
>> 
>> Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the reference 
>> at
>> the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  you
>> shows no brain activity...  
>> 
>> But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the 
>> link I
>> provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such things 
>> as
>> facts and history...  But try it...  
>> 
>> And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?
>> 
>> Ray
>
>I don't have either the time or interest to follow up on the neocon 
>drivel you post, but a BRITISH court? Tut, tut, you'll get drummed out 
>of the Republican Brownies for that.
>
>William Clark

Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a fact...

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:16:09 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:

>
>"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message 
>news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...
>
>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
>> more
>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>
>Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims 
>made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He 
>identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well 
>supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and 
>accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
>
>In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That 
>climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon 
>dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
>
>The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global 
>temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate 
>change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely 
>possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.


The nine points prove that the Gore fantasy is just that... nonsense
propaganda...  

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

In article ,
 "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:35:18 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article ,
> > "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article ,
> >> > "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence 
> >> >>     global
> >> >> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is 
> >> >> not
> >> >> correct.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising 
> >> >>     CO2
> >> >> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that 
> >> >> the 
> >> >> film
> >> >> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> >> >> temperature
> >> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests 
> >> >>     that 
> >> >>     this
> >> >> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to 
> >> >> accept 
> >> >> that
> >> >> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this 
> >> >>     was 
> >> >>     caused
> >> >> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was 
> >> >> not 
> >> >> the
> >> >> case.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned 
> >> >>     due 
> >> >>     to
> >> >> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the 
> >> >> study: 
> >> >> in
> >> >> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly 
> >> >> violent
> >> >> storm.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
> >> >>     throwing
> >> >> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> >> >> scientific
> >> >> impossibility.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral 
> >> >>     reef
> >> >> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this 
> >> >> claim.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> >> >> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea 
> >> >> levels 
> >> >> are
> >> >> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that 
> >> >> there 
> >> >> is 
> >> >> no
> >> >> such threat of massive migration.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation 
> >> >>     of
> >> >> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> >> >> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a 
> >> >> false 
> >> >> claim.
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> >> >> 
> >> >> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has 
> >> >> no 
> >> >> more
> >> >> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ray
> >> >
> >> >And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> >> >certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> >> >
> >> >William Clark
> >> 
> >> Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the 
> >> reference 
> >> at
> >> the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  
> >> you
> >> shows no brain activity...  
> >> 
> >> But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the 
> >> link I
> >> provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such 
> >> things 
> >> as
> >> facts and history...  But try it...  
> >> 
> >> And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?
> >> 
> >> Ray
> >
> >I don't have either the time or interest to follow up on the neocon 
> >drivel you post, but a BRITISH court? Tut, tut, you'll get drummed out 
> >of the Republican Brownies for that.
> >
> >William Clark
> 
> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a fact...
> 
> Ray

No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry, 
but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly 
don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on 
science.

More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.

William Clark

"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
message news:h0n7h3pja30u62ketreiu7ms3c5nruks3g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:16:09 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message
>>news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...
>>
>>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no
>>> more
>>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>
>>Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims
>>made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He
>>identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well
>>supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and
>>accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
>>
>>In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: 
>>“That
>>climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon
>>dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
>>
>>The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global
>>temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate
>>change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is 
>>entirely
>>possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
>
>
> The nine points prove that the Gore fantasy is just that... nonsense
> propaganda...

The other three *main* points accepted by the judge, and the rest?  Oh, and 
the Nobel prize too.
BIT UNCOMFORTABLE THAT.

William A. T. Clark wrote:

> In article ,
> "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
[...]
>> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
>> fact...
>>
>> Ray
>
> No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
> but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
> don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
> science.
>
> More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.

Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Sectarian attacker gets 22 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

In article <ff0qgk$cmk$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> 
> > In article ,
> > "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> [...]
> >> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
> >> fact...
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
> > but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
> > don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
> > science.
> >
> > More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
> 
> Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
> but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
> prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
> wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?

Oh, dear, now you've sent him back to the Vallium.

William Clark

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ff0qgk$cmk$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article ,
>>>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
>>>>fact...
>>>>
>>>>Ray
>>>
>>>No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
>>>but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
>>>don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
>>>science.
>>>
>>>More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
>>
>>Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
>>but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
>>prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
>>wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?
> 
> 
> Oh, dear, now you've sent him back to the Vallium.
> 
> William Clark


I still think cows farting is right up there. I suspect India of letting 
the world down. It is possibly a cover-up.

The slaughter of millons of Bison by railroad agents etc. could be put 
in a 'good light' if they were portrayed as heroic environmentalists.

On 16 Oct, 13:40, RGLKOIGWLW  wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ff0qgk$cm...@aioe.org>, "Falcon" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> >>>In article ,
> >>>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
> >>[...]
>
> >>>>Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
> >>>>fact...
>
> >>>>Ray
>
> >>>No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
> >>>but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
> >>>don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
> >>>science.
>
> >>>More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
>
> >>Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man,
> >>but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel
> >>prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I
> >>wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?
>
> > Oh, dear, now you've sent him back to the Vallium.
>
> > William Clark
>
> I still think cows farting is right up there. I suspect India of letting
> the world down. It is possibly a cover-up.
>
> The slaughter of millons of Bison by railroad agents etc. could be put
> in a 'good light' if they were portrayed as heroic environmentalists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is ludicrous, nobody has ever denied climate change is happening
however there is no evidence as far as I can see that would convince
any right thinking person of anything else. Climate change is what
planet earth does I am afraid. Its funding by the government because
they have seen an yet another ideal stealth tax. Carbon dioxide makes
up a small proportion of the atmosphere and attracts much less heat
than water vapour.

I always ask a few questions and as of yet no climate change guru has
ever really answered them.

1 What tempature should the planet be?
2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
anything other than natural causes?
4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
of global warming heaviest on the poles?
5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
week!


"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of
authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize
uninformed citizens"

freeireland wrote:

[...]
> I always ask a few questions and as of yet no climate change guru has
> ever really answered them.
>
> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> anything other than natural causes?
> 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
> of global warming heaviest on the poles?
> 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
> complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
> models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
> week!

Which climate change gurus have you been asking?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Sectarian attacker gets 22 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

freeireland wrote:

> 1 What tempature should the planet be?

Depends who you ask.
Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.

Zero emissions needed to avert 'dangerous' warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12775

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Sectarian attacker gets 22 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:42:48 +0100, "Falcon"  wrote:

>
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>[...]
>>> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
>>> fact...
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
>> but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
>> don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
>> science.
>>
>> More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
>
>Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
>but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
>prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
>wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?

In the '70's the same sort of nuts were warning us about global freezing and the
imminent arrival of the next Ice Age...  FFS!!!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:36:03 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:

>
>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
>message news:h0n7h3pja30u62ketreiu7ms3c5nruks3g@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:16:09 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message
>>>news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no
>>>> more
>>>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>>
>>>Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims
>>>made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He
>>>identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well
>>>supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and
>>>accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
>>>
>>>In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: 
>>>“That
>>>climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon
>>>dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
>>>
>>>The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global
>>>temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate
>>>change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is 
>>>entirely
>>>possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
>>
>>
>> The nine points prove that the Gore fantasy is just that... nonsense
>> propaganda...
>
>The other three *main* points accepted by the judge, and the rest?  Oh, and 
>the Nobel prize too.
>BIT UNCOMFORTABLE THAT. 

The Nobel prize is a purely political prize appointed by liberal elites to other
liberal elites...

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On 16 Oct, 18:27, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I always ask a few questions and as of yet no climate change guru has
> > ever really answered them.
>
> > 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> > 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
> > 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> > anything other than natural causes?
> > 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
> > of global warming heaviest on the poles?
> > 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
> > complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
> > models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
> > week!
>
> Which climate change gurus have you been asking?
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Sectarian attacker gets 22 yearshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

a few even less convincing answers.

On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> Depends who you ask.
> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.

Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?

Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
than assumptions for example, "The end result will be dramatic
ecological changes, including widespread coastal flooding, reduced
food production, and widespread species extinction." or "Anything
above this target has been identified as "dangerous" by some
scientists,"

You see heres the problem I have with the idea of climate change being
man made on this type of evidence, they use the word suggests, some
and may. Not terms you use when dealing in scientific facts.

History shows that the earths climate is constantly changing.

>
> Zero emissions needed to avert 'dangerous' warminghttp://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12775

There is not one shred of evidence in this link at all and shows the
fundamental flaw in the evidence of man made climate change and that
is its based on a computer model that cannot be anywhere near complete
as the eco system and planet earth is so complex we struggle to
understand or predict it in one weeks time.

What observations made by the scientific world have been made to show
global warming is a man made event.

Lets for example look at the 1996 IPCC 's "Summary for Policy Makers".
The Bush administration cited a "new" study, revisited its position on
global warming. Though it was base on and largely the same as the one
mentioned.

In general all these reports come to three basic conclusions

1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have
risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.

2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising
temperatures is man made.

3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.

The first claim -- that global temperatures have risen dramatically
since 1940 -- finds its source in the

approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather
Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The
Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly
on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite
records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or
actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.

What if we step outside the NWS box?

Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate
that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface
temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as
"The Little Ice Age." Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average
global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By
comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F.
The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global
temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First,
it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose
reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the
atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of
the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet.
Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is
everything.


Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made,
environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global
industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A
correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global
industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite
and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 -- a period of far
greater worldwide

industrialization -- would show a marked increase in average global
temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures
declining.

A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between
solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-
Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas
V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the
Sun in Climate Change) found that "global temperature variations
during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in
solar activity."

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past
carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical
tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed
significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940
and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a
decline in temperatures.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists
conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man;
where, then, is scientific consensus -- the third claim supporting the
notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn't any.

In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC
-- released a document titled, "Summary for Policy Makers," which
supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that
15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of
those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead
authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as "a
political tract, not a scientific report."

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed
the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing
scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing
or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. " . While
there are questions about large numbers who signed this petition if
you set it aside you still have 6 Nobel Laureates who signed the
petition.

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by
Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto
Accord is "based upon flawed ideas."

"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of
authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize
uninformed citizens."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong


So again I ask where are the historical obeservations compared with
today to proof climate change is man made. Because the more I read
about this the more questions I have and the less convinced I am!


>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Sectarian attacker gets 22 yearshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
message news:al8ah3pmk2jka4qbmqr0ui0oal1v092p4o@4ax.com...
>
> The Nobel prize is a purely political prize appointed by liberal elites to 
> other
> liberal elites...

Mother Teresa?  David Trimble?  Yasser Arafat? Nelson Mandela? Sean 
MacBride? Henry fucking Kissinger?  Betty Williams or Mairead Corrigan?

Go on, see if you can find who the judges are, seeing as you think you 
already know so much about them.  You might realise then what a complete 
fucking idiot you've just made of yourself.  Again.

freeireland wrote:

> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>> Depends who you ask.
>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
[...]

I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in 
a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and 
model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>>
>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
> 
> [...]
> 
> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in 
> a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and 
> model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
> 

I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.

I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for 
reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a 
few standards must be in place.

Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United 
States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.

My shed in West Belfast, ..

the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why, 
Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.

I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.

I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and 
being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!

Grosspeckaa

On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
>
> >>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> > [...]
>
> > I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> > a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> > model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> few standards must be in place.
>
> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> Grosspeckaa

The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
others.

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
>>>a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
>>>model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>
>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>>few standards must be in place.
>>
>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>
>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>
>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>
>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>
>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>
>>Grosspeckaa
> 
> 
> The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> others.
> 


Look, Jimmy,

it is like this, that "pepole" typo was a deliberate plant to see if you 
would pick up on it. Pray, desist from using expressions such as 
"critique" in mixed company.

Neill McEwan's use of the word 'cachet' in 98 or 99 almost provoked a 
riot on SCI. KateH  :) excepted, she seemed to think Cachet was some 
girl I picked up in Detroit.

Grosspeckaa

On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
> >>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >> Depends who you ask.
> >> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> > Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> > Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> [...]
>
> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. Funny this
happens a lot when people question climate change.  I wonder if I
should be checking other newsgroups for roque posts making inaccurate
claims about me now.

freeireland wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>> Falcon wrote:
>>> freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>>> freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>> Depends who you ask.
>>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>
>> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>> few standards must be in place.
>>
>> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>
>> My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>
>> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>
>> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>
>> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>
>> Grosspeckaa
>
> The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> others.

I think you mean 'critic'.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
>>a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
>>model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>--
>>Falcon:
>>fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> 
> 
> Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. Funny this
> happens a lot when people question climate change.  I wonder if I
> should be checking other newsgroups for roque posts making inaccurate
> claims about me now.
> 


"I got given an umbrella plant today.      Group: soc.culture.irish J'ai 
été bu et j'ai mordu une agent de police. Sounds slightly more intellectual
than "I was sloshed and I bit a peeler" doesn't it? Nah. It just doesn't 
have
that intellectual cachet around here, Grieg. Even the rubbies speak French.
Pat Cachet is a word that winds me up. Neill McEwan was using it for 
example.
Aug 5 1999 by Gregory - 120 messages - 30 authors"




Go easy on the "critque" stuff.  I felt re-victimized.

Grosspeckaa

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>>
>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>>
>>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>>
>>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>>
>>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>>
>>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>>
>>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>>>few standards must be in place.
>>>
>>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>>
>>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>>
>>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>>
>>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>>
>>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>>
>>>Grosspeckaa
>>
>>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
>>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
>>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
>>others.
> 
> 
> I think you mean 'critic'.

Falcon,
> 

It is doing my head in. I am not a violent person, okay I have shot and 
bayoneted a few people, mostly foreigners, but that was the environment 
I was brought up in, public school, Cambridge, Sandhurst etc.

Grosspeckaa

freeireland wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>> freeireland wrote:
>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>> Depends who you ask.
>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. [...]

I rest my case.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>>
>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>>
>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>>
>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. [...]
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 

I am opposed to shotting messengers myself, what with the postal strike 
and NIPSA picket lines.

On 17 Oct, 09:25, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> >> Falcon wrote:
> >>> freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>> freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>> Depends who you ask.
> >>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >> few standards must be in place.
>
> >> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >> My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >> Grosspeckaa
>
> > The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> > typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> > you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> > others.
>
> I think you mean 'critic'.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Typo-pouncing of the lamest degree. Though at least you have stopped
posting snippets of my text grossly out of context, in order to
"establish" my "irrelevance."

Though their is a peom out there for people like you who have nothing
to contribute but typo pouncing

Falcon was shat into the world,
A ghastly freak sans balls and spine,
He learned to use his mouth's two sides--
When one side libels, the other will whine.

On 17 Oct, 09:17, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>Falcon wrote:
>
> >>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>[...]
>
> >>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> >>>a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> >>>model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >>few standards must be in place.
>
> >>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >>Grosspeckaa
>
> > The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> > typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> > you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> > others.
>
> Look, Jimmy,
>
> it is like this, that "pepole" typo was a deliberate plant to see if you
> would pick up on it. Pray, desist from using expressions such as
> "critique" in mixed company.
>
> Neill McEwan's use of the word 'cachet' in 98 or 99 almost provoked a
> riot on SCI. KateH  :) excepted, she seemed to think Cachet was some
> girl I picked up in Detroit.
>
> Grosspeckaa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

lol yeah right, any typos I made where also plants!

On 17 Oct, 09:27, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
>
> >>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>>Falcon wrote:
>
> >>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>>[...]
>
> >>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >>>few standards must be in place.
>
> >>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on