|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Ya babs tell us about all this catastrophic global warming.
By Rob Hotakainen, McClatchy Newspapers Rob Hotakainen, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Sat Jul 11, 6:00 am ET
WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.
quote:
loss of species
,
The only loss of species we need is a few less Libs pushing this nonsense.
|
|
|
Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:29 am |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
ever read any science magazines?  |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| I suppose they splains the Algore theory in detail. Only a lib would try to convince someone that it aint actually colder but warmer. Lets see another classic is "The checks in the mail" and another that I cant put up here cause of the family values thingy but it has to do with promising not to deposit a fluid in a certain area. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
as usual. attempt to deflay the question.....
science lesson 1: the egg in the bottle trick. boil one egg. find a glass bottle large enough for the egg (actually a bit larger) with a spout just smaller than the boiled egg. bring 4 kids into the room. shell the egg.
light a small wad of paper and drop into the bottle. immediately set the egg on end on the bottle spout. as you repeat a magical spell the egg will mysteriously pop into the bottle. the kids are amazed!!!!!!! you are a magician to the kids!!!!!
why did the egg go into the bottle? |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:45 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Algores trapped in a bottle? |
|
|
|
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:05 am |
|
|
Dan Moilanen
F L I N T O I D
|
Do you have any idea how the weather or climate works? Let alone the dynamics of climate change?
Seriously... wow. |
_________________
-Dan
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx |
|
|
Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:06 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Seriously... wow.
Ya I know when you libs say its warmer its actually colder or vs versa us dumb repubs just dont get it. Keep chugging that Algore koolaid. And since you apparently claim to be an expert on the subject why is it you libs changed 'Global warming" to the latest pc term "climate change" Im guessing it got a bit hard to defend the warming part. But seriously WOW.
I guess ill just have to quit reading stuff like this and pay more heed to the likes of Al,Dan and of course B again.
NOT
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense
The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.
It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:35 pm |
|
|
Dan Moilanen
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Ya I know when you libs say its warmer its actually colder or vs versa us dumb repubs just dont get it. Keep chugging that Algore koolaid. And since you apparently claim to be an expert on the subject why is it you libs changed 'Global warming" to the latest pc term "climate change" Im guessing it got a bit hard to defend the warming part. Laughing But seriously WOW.
I guess ill just have to quit reading stuff like this and pay more heed to the likes of Al,Dan and of course B again. NOT
Actually, yeah you should stop reading this stuff because it's garbage and clearly politically motivated. Real scientists don't give into politics  They care only about coming to a better understanding of our world and our existence. Also, I want to note that I've never seen an Inconvenient Truth nor have I listened to anything Al Gore produces... (I'm still pissed about the PMRC and it's complete ridiculousness).
I READ scientific journals, I've taken courses on this very subject, and I actually do more than simply reading random blog posts or google "global warming and scam"
Part of understanding the climate change debate comes from the fact that you have to remember it is based on overall trends of temperature increases and decreases. Mostly it is a matter of slight changes, whether cooler or warmer. There have been cool and warm periods within short amounts of time, remember el nino? But the data that suggests global warming is a product of carbon emissions is focused on longer periods of time, which reveal a direct correlation between increased levels of Carbon emissions and temperatures. Yes, other factors affect temperature such as solar or volcanic activity, but any geologist who has a clear picture of the history of Earth's climate would tell you that this is more than likely a result of man's impact on the environment. Burning coal is nasty stuff.
Again, there are periods of irregularity, and this very well could be a period of irregularity, but if we could accurately measure why it happened just recently, I would bet money on the fact that it is a direct product of ocean cooling from the melting of polar, glacial ice.
Do you know anything about how ocean currents determine weather patterns? Are you familiar with the law of convection? Look it up. Any high school chemistry/physics class would talk about it.
quote:
twotap schreef:
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
It's a pretty big claim to say that "most" scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt Earth's climate. Using the word
most
is far more significant than saying "a large amount." However, given the quantities of said "large amount" is questionable at best due to the very nature of the petition. No one's credentials are presented other than their own name and Ph.D/MA listing. Signing a petition while having a Ph.D does not even mean that the particular academic has a degree RELEVANT to the topic of climate change. I'm going to get a Ph.D in political science, I could sign the petition and have my name attached with a Ph.D after it, but it doesn't mean that my signature is significant or relevant to the subject. This "smoking" gun item is questionable at best. Again, if you want to challenge global warming, give me a well produced academic study that has been submitted for peer review from others within the field. If you can't do this, then I won't take anything from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" which is
NOT a university
but rather a small collection of scientists within fields unrelated to climatology who obviously have a political agenda. In other words, elite interests paid for them to form the non-profit so they could produce "scientific" data to dupe people like yourself. Even a simple google search reveals this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
But it is really easy to make up a name for a non-profit organization that sounds significant and legitimate... especially when the purpose of the organization exists to promote the interests of
MEDICINE
not
CLIMATE
research:
"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness."
Plus, if that isn't enough, this "institute" is not composed of any geologists... who are the only scientists who can paint an accurate picture of the Earth's history of heating and warming. They do this primarily through the study of glacial samples and layers in addition to other ways they determine the history of the Earth. But you're not one of those crazy people who actually think the Earth is only 10,000-20,000 years old though? Because if that's the case, then obviously you reject any form of the scientific method as "heresy." That Galileo Galilei was a pretty crazy guy, wasn't he? How dare he work his black magic!
quote:
twotap schreef:
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
Again, what and where? What are these sources? I want to see the peer-reviewed study that supports this conclusion. Can you produce it? Questionable at best.
quote:
twotap schreef:
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
Actually no, there is an accurate collection of data that suggests that within the late 19th and throughout 20th century, global temperatures showed an overall net increase in temperature despite it's period of heating or cooling.
quote:
twotap schreef:
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
Show me a link.
quote:
twotap schreef:
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
And the total amount of overall reclaimed land from the oceans has significantly increased and it would cost billions of dollars worth of damage in the low-lying areas around the world (which have and currently are seeing increased ocean levels). During the brief warming period (which resulted in a mini-ice age in roughly 1200 onward which led to the deaths of millions due to famine and disease) from about 800-1200, what did society look like? Did it have mass fishing industries dependent on balanced ecosystems and food webs? We currently have those and are you willing to potentially put thousands out of work through your indirect contribution to the disruption of oceanic ecosystems? Because if there are overall temperature increases of only 1-2 degrees in our oceans, it leads to dramatic changes in ocean pH levels, which kills microorganisms that serve as the base of the food chain within the oceans. So there arguments that go both ways, but there are important reasons why the integrity of oceanic ecosystems needs to be maintained. They didn't understand any of this though back in the dark ages... HERESY!
quote:
twotap schreef:
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
These are all questionable figures at best. Where do they come up with these estimates? Energy producers? It doesn't include any of the numerous potential economic benefits that would result from developing alternative energy methods. Again, what about the potential costs on low-lying areas around the world? Manhattan has some of the highest property values in the world and it's one of the lowest lying cities in the world. What about those costs?
quote:
twotap schreef:
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
The "evidence" that suggests that greenhouse gas reduction programs will do nothing is bogus.
quote:
twotap schreef:
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense
The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.
It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute.
It's ultimately a question of how we consume as Americans, and members of one of the most industrialized states in the world. Why is it a bad thing to reconsider how we consume energy? Why is it a bad thing to seek alternative sources of energy that can provide economic benefits to other areas besides coal country? We don't live in West Virgina, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. We live in vehicle city, a city full of people trained in manufacturing that could produce new cars, trains, wind turbines, solar panels, and any of the potential machinery, tools, or parts that produce said technology. If you deny global warming, you deny ALL of that potential economic opportunity for Michigan and the City of Flint. Do you care more about coal states than Michigan? Because I think it's an important question to ask.
Even if global warming is a "myth" as you propose it is, what's wrong with reducing our overall consumption of energy. Fossil fuels are finite and won't function forever... we may not see the conversion from fossil fuels to alternative energy but our children's children might. At
current
consumption levels they estimate that coal supplies in the U.S. will last for roughly another 100 years (not positive on that number, I think it may have been estimated as higher), however our rate of consumption has exponentially increased and will only continue to increase as computers and other technological devices are developed. Familiar with the term exponential growth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
Doubling time is pretty problematic 
These "8 points" are developed by a conservative think tank and NOT an independent, peer-reviewed study. Thus, legitimacy it lacks. Think tanks are not experts, they are groups of politically and capitally motivated individuals who seek to influence the political, social, and economic system in their own and their clients' interests. They'd find "scientists" who would tell you that the sky is red if it made them a profit... that's how it works. The Heartland Institute actually denies the health effects of second-hand smoke... would you agree with that? Personally, I have issues accepting anything as "legitimate" from an source that knowingly profits off of the suffering and addiction of people while denying the harms of the product they produce... that's ethically wrong on so many levels.
So yet again, what's the moral of this story? This source is *drum roll*.... not legitimate!
So you REALLY should stop reading this garbage. I'm not suggesting listening to Al Gore either, just saying you should seek more legitimate sources that do not include people who are economically tied into the debate or exist solely to defend or criticize legislation.[/b] |
_________________
-Dan
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx |
|
|
Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:51 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
well said sir....well said (clapping)!  |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:41 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
legitimate sources that do not include people who are economically tied into the debate or exist solely to defend or criticize legislation.[/b]
So anyone getting federal grant money to agree with the global warming premise is to be disregarded? Got it. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:26 am |
|
|
Dan Moilanen
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
quote:
legitimate sources that do not include people who are economically tied into the debate or exist solely to defend or criticize legislation.[/b]
So anyone getting federal grant money to agree with the global warming premise is to be disregarded? Got it.
Yet again, you misread what I'm saying and it shows how little you really know about academia. |
_________________
-Dan
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx |
|
|
Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:42 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Still waiting for the reason that "global warming" was suddenly revised to be known henceforth as "climate change"? Ill bet it went something like this. Memo to all scientists, weather folks, meterologists and the like who are at the present time reaping financial benefits and grants to sound the PC Global Warming alarm in unison. You must now refrain from using the term 'Global Warming" and immediatley and without delay begin to use the cleverly thought up term "Climate Change" in its place. This will allow us to explain away to those skeptics the sudden cooling that is taking place all across the nation and the world and actually make the claim that the cooling trend is caused by the earth getting hotter. All PC news and weather casters ( who will if they want to keep their jobs) hollywood actvists, lib Politicans and the like will join in and together we will be able to finally take control of all those evil industrial and manufacturing firms who keep ignoring us and either shut them down or make them tow the line as we the chosen ones see fit. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:07 pm |
|
|
Dan Moilanen
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Still waiting for the reason that "global warming" was suddenly revised to be known henceforth as "climate change"?
Yet again, you reveal that you do not understand how weather or climate actually works...
You earn an "F" |
_________________
-Dan
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx |
|
|
Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
And of course still waiting for your answer as to why the sudden change in tactics.
Your
answer so far is a flunking grade. Since I tired of waiting for a qualified explanation of whats occuring I did a 2 minute google search. This sure sounds reasonable dont you agree?
Hey Backagain you might want to have a look also.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:05 am |
|
|
mutt of flint
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
And of course still waiting for your answer as to why the sudden change in tactics.
Your
answer so far is a flunking grade. Since I tired of waiting for a qualified explanation of whats occuring I did a 2 minute google search. This sure sounds reasonable dont you agree?
Hey Backagain you might want to have a look also.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
reread what he wrote. its in there. pretty much its because people got stupid when they called it global cooling and went "why is it hot?" then when they called it global warming people went "then why is it cold?" with further study they showed that where the global warming is happening is in the poles of the earth, causing the ice caps to melt effecting the climate around the world by having adverse effets on convection. thats the layman approach. correct me if I'm wrong dan.
quote:
Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.
I'm surprised dan let this inocuous statement go. no. it would not stop the changing of the earths climate as it is ever changing due to a planet continuing to be alive. it will however give us time to correct our mistake. I suggest not reading opinion columns and emerse yourself in a variety of books written by people who's life is based on knowing all of this and proving it to be fact. I'm not going to ask a dentist to prove global warming wrong. |
_________________
I'm not a polarized. deal with it. |
|
|
Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
