[Andre Jute[_2_]]

If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

[RichL]

* Still Just Me * wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:20:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

Surely even a moron like you isn't stupid enough to take a few
statements from radical groups/individuals, or others which are
totally out if context, and suggest they represent everyone concerned
about Global Warming?

Or are you?

It's "performance art". Whoa!

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Andre Jute:
If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

Still-Just-Me:
Surely even a moron like you isn't stupid enough to take a few
statements from radical groups/individuals, or others which are
totally out if context, and suggest they represent everyone concerned
about Global Warming?

Or are you?

Richard P Leavitt aka RichL
It's "performance art". *Whoa!

Well, let's see who those "radical groups/individuals" in the
"performance art" are.

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning
throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Okay, anyone who belongs to some nutwing organization called "Earth
First!" (with an exclamation!) is clearly a fruitcake with several
nuts spinning loose. Real people belong to humanity, which puts people
first. Dave Foreman is clearly a genocidal maniac in the making -- and
proud of it.

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

Actually, the Club of Rome for years counted Maurice Strong, founder
of the IPCC among its executive members. The great and the good of
officialdom are members. (If they were ever to let you through their
plush portal, Lord Valve, you will most assuredly fall down dead of
instant trauma caused by socialist overload in the very air they
exhale. Never mind the neatly parted grey hair and the expensive
suits, these are leftover marxists.) Good old Morrie is the main man
of you global warmies, so if you want to call him the fruti-tuti di
capo tuti, and his institution a radical nuthouse group, that's all
right by me -- I'll graciously permit it.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Ted Turner is an American self-made billionaire and the last time I
spoke to him he was deputy chairman of Time-Warner, the second largest
media group in the world, who just happen to count among my
publishers. So we'd better not call him a radical nutcase or it could
interfere with the ease of my old age in various agreeable no-tax
regimes. Basically Mr Turner is a suit, no relation to Osama bin
Laden, not a nutcase by any stretch of the imagination, just a smart
businessman; global warming scares are no doubt a boon to his
business.

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1
billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

The United Nations is the top echelon of international
intergovernmental co-operation and the "owner" of the IPCC. If you two
loudmouths want to call the UN a radical group ready for the
straitjacket, who am I to argue with such experts as the pseudonymous
"Still Just Me" (a blustering idiot) and Richard P Leavitt (SJM's
nincompoop chorus). The experts have spoken: the UN is a "radical
group".

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Oh yeah, of course he's a radical fruitcake: his limmo once ran over a
girl who knew a guy whose brother was on a leftie college paper twenty
years ago.

Osama bin Laden is Richard P Leavitt's rabbi...

You two morons curl me up with laughter: you're so ignorant, you don't
even understand that the IPCC, whom you're trying to protect against
the crimes of its footsoldiers, was born in the bloody Club of Rome
and belongs to the UN which you twice condemned.

God, you global warmies are tenth-rate.

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 15, 9:20*am, Andre Jute wrote:
If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Don't worry Andre, someone will shoot Dave first before the others.

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

Again, no need to worry about such value statements.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Then he could corner a market and build things back up when he becmes
a dicktator.
He'd have rather a lot of opposition.....

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

Again there are too many ppl in the way to worry about this idea.

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

There's a mob outside and they wanna start with Jacques....

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

Don't let hot nights keep you awake in summertime.

Of course nobody knows how we'll cope in the year 3009 when there are
30 billion on the planet but I'm told McDonalds is looking forward to
that day.

I'm sure there are millions of other planets in the observable
universe with life or maybe life has been and gone. And I'm sure many
planets have had crowd control bothers, or will have them, or have
them now which would mean they would have to think of a way to survive
against plagues, shortages, temperatures, etc, etc, etc, not to
mention troubles with politicians only thinking 10 years ahead, and
demographics experts telling ppl bull****.

And maybe this universe is a mere pimple on God's nose, and the rest
of the body of God and the world and universe in which God lives is
just a pimple on a larger God's nose, and so on until 10 raised to an
infinite number.......

But while you consider the authors you mention above and their
unlikely solutions, consider a world in maybe 3009 where Ireland is 5C
average hotter, and food production falls to 20% of what it is now but
there are 3 times the ppl to feed, and oil has risen to 4 times the
price it is now, and sea levels have risen a metre or two.
People are like rats and when you have a sufficient number in too
small a space then fighting and disease tend to break out and the
numbers are culled. Nuclear war would be a great culler of all
species, and the genetic mutations which might follow such a war may
not necessarily lead more co-operative types to breed better than
those who just fight.

The future is frightfully un-predictable, and God won't tell us who
else to contact to advice.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 15, 12:36*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
snip bits and peices.....

God, you global warmies are tenth-rate.

Well, lookin at how all the Warmies are communicating in Copenhagen,
I'd tend to agree.

But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

The biggest company running the NSW ski resort at Perisher Valley in
NSW is worried it will soon have to spend 40 million bucks on an
enormous expansion of artificial snow making machinery during the next
decade or else it risks going broke because ppl won't want to ski.
That company, like many others, know warming is happening.

The whole trouble with Warming is that it is creeping up on us way too
slow. We are getting use to it as it warms. Nothing seems odd. Sky is
still blue, birds sing songs in trees outside, the grass is green,
well, in springtime at least anyway. Warming is an idea that was
designed to be denied. And getting stoinkingly rich appeals to most
people much more than moping about all gloomy over boring
temperatures; and when ppl do get rich ppl just buy a bigger air con
to be comfy, problem solved.

I reckon if a decent hurricane blew the whole state of NY into the
Atlantic, maybe ppl would act, or if sea levels rose a metre by
Easter, or if their supermarkets put up their prices 100% in 6mths
because of food shortages. Bible sales would rise though, despite
bible price rises......

The other trouble with Warming is that although we here now will
aclimatise to the changes, maybe billions of future ppl won't be able
to so easily - whatever the causes of the warming. Warming is a bit
like cancer. If you detect cancer early enough, maybe you can save a
person with action. But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment. So getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

Mein Got, I will soon get the Nobel Prize for Being Avidly Depressed,
the nobel BAD award.......

But I still like triodes and bicycles.

Patrick Turner.

[Chalo]

Patrick Turner wrote:

But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

Within our lifetimes, it will be weather and not temperature that will
get our attention. One degree warmer feels the same to us as one
degree cooler, but that one degree represents a stupendous amount of
energy for the storms and other weather systems that are driven by the
gradient between slightly cooler and slightly warmer air and water
masses.

That's why record snows and other harsh cold weather are as much a
harbinger of a warming climate as glacial retreat and rising sea
levels. More energetic climate equals more chaotic climate, and even
the cold extremes will reflect that.

Chalo

[AMuzi]

Patrick Turner wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:36 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
snip bits and peices.....

God, you global warmies are tenth-rate.

Well, lookin at how all the Warmies are communicating in Copenhagen,
I'd tend to agree.

But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

The biggest company running the NSW ski resort at Perisher Valley in
NSW is worried it will soon have to spend 40 million bucks on an
enormous expansion of artificial snow making machinery during the next
decade or else it risks going broke because ppl won't want to ski.
That company, like many others, know warming is happening.

The whole trouble with Warming is that it is creeping up on us way too
slow. We are getting use to it as it warms. Nothing seems odd. Sky is
still blue, birds sing songs in trees outside, the grass is green,
well, in springtime at least anyway. Warming is an idea that was
designed to be denied. And getting stoinkingly rich appeals to most
people much more than moping about all gloomy over boring
temperatures; and when ppl do get rich ppl just buy a bigger air con
to be comfy, problem solved.

I reckon if a decent hurricane blew the whole state of NY into the
Atlantic, maybe ppl would act, or if sea levels rose a metre by
Easter, or if their supermarkets put up their prices 100% in 6mths
because of food shortages. Bible sales would rise though, despite
bible price rises......

The other trouble with Warming is that although we here now will
aclimatise to the changes, maybe billions of future ppl won't be able
to so easily - whatever the causes of the warming. Warming is a bit
like cancer. If you detect cancer early enough, maybe you can save a
person with action. But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment. So getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

Mein Got, I will soon get the Nobel Prize for Being Avidly Depressed,
the nobel BAD award.......

But I still like triodes and bicycles.

Patrick Turner.

alternate:
http://www.hornpipe.com/ba/ba13a.htm

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

Patrick Turner wrote:
But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

Chalo wrote:
Within our lifetimes, it will be weather and not temperature that will
get our attention. One degree warmer feels the same to us as one
degree cooler, but that one degree represents a stupendous amount of
energy for the storms and other weather systems that are driven by the
gradient between slightly cooler and slightly warmer air and water
masses.

That's why record snows and other harsh cold weather are as much a
harbinger of a warming climate as glacial retreat and rising sea
levels. More energetic climate equals more chaotic climate, and even
the cold extremes will reflect that.

oh, the horror:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...009-quiet.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 8:18 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
On Dec 15, 9:20 am, Andre Jute wrote:

If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Don't worry Andre, someone will shoot Dave first before the others.

Makes me nostalgic for the days when I could put some little ****** in
front of the firing squad for taking my parking spot across the door
from El Presidente, my boss.

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

Again, no need to worry about such value statements.


Let's be clear, Patrick: those guys aren't joking; they mean it.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Then he could corner a market and build things back up when he becmes
a dicktator.
He'd have rather a lot of opposition.....

He thrives on it. For fun he headed up a syndicate to compete for the
America's Cup.

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

Again there are too many ppl in the way to worry about this idea.

That didn't worry Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and suchlike. Why
should it worry UN officials who see man as "the cancer?" You naivety
astounds me, Patrick.

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

There's a mob outside and they wanna start with Jacques....

I wish.

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

Don't let hot nights keep you awake in summertime.

6 degrees C today, wind 12 miles. You can bet your house I wasn't
wearing a kilt!

Of course nobody knows how we'll cope in the year 3009 when there are
30 billion on the planet but I'm told McDonalds is looking forward to
that day.

They probably got a recipe for Soylent Green already.

I'm sure there are millions of other planets in the observable
universe with life or maybe life has been and gone.

That's always seemed likely to me. The universe is vast.

And I'm sure many
planets have had crowd control bothers, or will have them, or have
them now which would mean they would have to think of a way to survive
against plagues, shortages, temperatures, etc, etc, etc, not to
mention troubles with politicians only thinking 10 years ahead, and
demographics experts telling ppl bull****.

The chances of sentient beings developing are rather less, and the
chances of them being humanoid are vanishingly small, perceptible,
calculable even, only because the universe is so vast and growing all
the time.

And maybe this universe is a mere pimple on God's nose, and the rest
of the body of God and the world and universe in which God lives is
just a pimple on a larger God's nose, and so on until 10 raised to an
infinite number.......

Whoa! I would want some time to give serious consideration to whether
I want to be a pimple on God's nose and therefore the subject of his
careful attention, or a pimple on his arse, to be thoughlessly
scratched out of existence. Don't get reckless in your old age,
Patrick.

But while you consider the authors you mention above and their
unlikely solutions, consider a world in maybe 3009 where Ireland is 5C
average hotter, and food production falls to 20% of what it is now

That doesn't follow at all. Quite the contrary. Higher temperature is
good for plants; the harvests get bigger. Our modern world has its
characteristic shape because of the "global warming" of the Medieval
Warm Period when agriculture was firmly established, plant yields
escalated drastically, and people had disposable income because of
higher agricultural yields.

but
there are 3 times the ppl to feed, and oil has risen to 4 times the
price it is now, and sea levels have risen a metre or two.

Everything has a natural cycle. So what? it is incredible arrogant,
hubris in fact, to claim that our particular time is the best of all
times, and the planet should be fixed in our image.

People are like rats and when you have a sufficient number in too
small a space then fighting and disease tend to break out and the
numbers are culled. Nuclear war would be a great culler of all
species, and the genetic mutations which might follow such a war may
not necessarily lead more co-operative types to breed better than
those who just fight.

You should write science fiction, Patrick. Sure to pay better than
building amps.

The future is frightfully un-predictable, and God won't tell us who
else to contact to advice.

It's good that you realize it. So why do you global warmies advocate
all kinds of reckless measures that will make the future even more
uncertain through the law of unintended effect?

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 10:17 am, Chalo wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

Within our lifetimes, it will be weather and not temperature that will
get our attention. One degree warmer feels the same to us as one
degree cooler, but that one degree represents a stupendous amount of
energy for the storms and other weather systems that are driven by the
gradient between slightly cooler and slightly warmer air and water
masses.

That's why record snows and other harsh cold weather are as much a
harbinger of a warming climate as glacial retreat and rising sea
levels. More energetic climate equals more chaotic climate, and even
the cold extremes will reflect that.

Chalo

A little local weather, isn't that what the global warmies say when
the sensible people point to the crisp, cool day outside the window?

Andre Jute
What is sauce for the goose...

[Chalo]

AMuzi wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

[...]record snows and other harsh cold weather are as much a
harbinger of a warming climate as glacial retreat and rising sea
levels. *More energetic climate equals more chaotic climate, and even
the cold extremes will reflect that.

oh, the horror: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hurricane-seas...

We know you too well to believe you don't understand what "chaotic"
means, Andy. Don't be dense.

Chalo

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 15, 9:17*pm, Chalo wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

But meanwhile the ice in the world continues to melt and glaciers
retreat and average temps are on the rise despite the Coolies saying
its a'coolin justa bit now.......

Within our lifetimes, it will be weather and not temperature that will
get our attention. *One degree warmer feels the same to us as one
degree cooler, but that one degree represents a stupendous amount of
energy for the storms and other weather systems that are driven by the
gradient between slightly cooler and slightly warmer air and water
masses.

Indeed. Just don't tell Lord Valve and all the other climate change
denialists

That's why record snows and other harsh cold weather are as much a
harbinger of a warming climate as glacial retreat and rising sea
levels. *More energetic climate equals more chaotic climate, and even
the cold extremes will reflect that.

With G/warming, the equator regions will heat up most, and then the
difference between these regions and regions nearer the poles becomes
greater so more energy is transfered in weather patterns including
storms.

Perhaps there will be massive volcanic eruptions. If this happens like
Pinaturbo in Phillipines, the the DUST and PARTICULATES will cool the
planet.

Maybe what we could do now is develop some low radiation H-bombs and
drop them on sleeping volcanoes to wake them up. Maybe even several
hundred conventional high explosive Deep Penetration Bombs should do
the trick.

It would give the USAF something to do.

Patrick Turner.







Chalo

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 16, 8:05*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:18 am, Patrick Turner wrote:





On Dec 15, 9:20 am, Andre Jute wrote:

If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Don't worry Andre, someone will shoot Dave first before the others.

Makes me nostalgic for the days when I could put some little ****** in
front of the firing squad for taking my parking spot across the door
from El Presidente, my boss.

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

Again, no need to worry about such value statements.

Let's be clear, Patrick: those guys aren't joking; they mean it.

Everyone who says anything about GW and the value of mankind always
means it.
None ever joke about much.

OK, OK, but usually they die screaming.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Then he could corner a market and build things back up when he becmes
a dicktator.
He'd have rather a lot of opposition.....

He thrives on it. For fun he headed up a syndicate to compete for the
America's Cup.

Ya, I remmember all that alright.

World manipulation is more dificult than a boat race.

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion..
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

Again there are too many ppl in the way to worry about this idea.

That didn't worry Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and suchlike. Why
should it worry UN officials who see man as "the cancer?" You naivety
astounds me, Patrick.

Yes but Stalin was poisoned, Hitler poisened himself when he lost,
Mao, well, he faded away and was replaced by a guy who said to be rich
was glorious, and Pol Pot was also sidelined after attempted mahem.

Where was the cancer? seems like the four guys mentioned were, and at
least two were treated with chemotherapy. Good riddance to such
monsters.

Stating "mankind is cancer on the Earth" is a bit like saying dinsaurs
also were cancer pre 65 mill Ya. Itsa bull**** statement, except there
is quasi truth because mankind is sucking the life out of the Earth
and diminishing the species of flora and fauna wherever we look. If
you look at the cities from a satellite they look like tumors on the
skin of an animal, the animal in this case is GAIA. But maybe your
best friends live in the cities that are so ravenous for all manner of
input from nature. So chemotherapy for city dwellers will not be ever
used willingly. Its not to say it won't happen i the form of a few
churlish nuclear wars which eventually must OK IMHO when somebody who
wasn't joking has one to let off surrepticiously in the middle of
Dublin, or NY.


„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

There's a mob outside and they wanna start with Jacques....

I wish.

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

Don't let hot nights keep you awake in summertime.

6 degrees C today, wind 12 miles. You can bet your house I wasn't
wearing a kilt!

37C max here today, wind about 15kph. I was on the bike at 5.45 am,
and back by 8 am after 57km to a mountain top.

Its bloody hot in my tin shed. Unusually hot. Record hot weather we
are told. Hotter than even when the little warmie middle ages thinge
and Roman warming was going on.

Of course nobody knows how we'll cope in the year 3009 when there are
30 billion on the planet but I'm told McDonalds is looking forward to
that day.

They probably got a recipe for Soylent Green already.

????

I'm sure there are millions of other planets in the observable
universe with life or maybe life has been and gone.

That's always seemed likely to me. The universe is vast.

We really could use some interfacing with many others around the
univerese/s.

It'd have to be far more informative than dealing with Jesus, or
Mohommad, or Budha.



And I'm sure many
planets have had crowd control bothers, or will have them, or have
them now which would mean they would have to think of a way to survive
against plagues, shortages, temperatures, etc, etc, etc, not to
mention troubles with politicians only thinking 10 years ahead, and
demographics experts telling ppl bull****.

The chances of sentient beings developing are rather less, and the
chances of them being humanoid are vanishingly small, perceptible,
calculable even, only because the universe is so vast and growing all
the time.

If you have
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000
planets, and "intelligent" life is present in
0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% of planets, then life is
abundant.

And maybe this universe is a mere pimple on God's nose, and the rest
of the body of God and the world and universe in which God lives is
just a pimple on a larger God's nose, and so on until 10 raised to an
infinite number.......

Whoa! I would want some time to give serious consideration to whether
I want to be a pimple on God's nose and therefore the subject of his
careful attention, or a pimple on his arse, to be thoughlessly
scratched out of existence. Don't get reckless in your old age,
Patrick.

Worse, maybe this universe is a haemoroid on God's arsole. This is
positively worrying because you know how surgeons deal with
haemoroids.

Now your average haemoroid smells a bit pooey. And as I look around me
there's a lotta things that smel like ****......


But while you consider the authors you mention above and their
unlikely solutions, consider a world in maybe 3009 where Ireland is 5C
average hotter, and food production falls to 20% of what it is now

That doesn't follow at all. Quite the contrary. Higher temperature is
good for plants; the harvests get bigger. Our modern world has its
characteristic shape because of the "global warming" of the Medieval
Warm Period when agriculture was firmly established, plant yields
escalated drastically, and people had disposable income because of
higher agricultural yields.

Sure, higher future temps are going to be a real boon to agriculture
in places which are very marginal and frigid most of the year now. But
in Oz and Aftrica, desertification due to less H20 and hotter T will
spread and kill land which is now marginal for agriculture.

To me, the rising T I expereince here already is like the weather
patterns of inner Oz where its always been hotter are spreading
outwards to cover temperate areas; Canberra is only 80km from the east
coast of Oz as a crow flies. But we are getting weather which would be
normal for somewhere 200km more westerly.
Inland towns in Oz regularly get many days over 45C. These places are
horrid places to live, and there isn't much agriculture. These areas
support very few cattle per sq km.

A month's rainfall is less than a dingo's ****.

but
there are 3 times the ppl to feed, and oil has risen to 4 times the
price it is now, and sea levels have risen a metre or two.

Everything has a natural cycle. So what? it is incredible arrogant,
hubris in fact, to claim that our particular time is the best of all
times, and the planet should be fixed in our image.

Times have been good for many. Its easy to be smug about it all and
think nothing can go wrong.
History shows **** happens, and in many cases people don't realise its
happening until its too late.


People are like rats and when you have a sufficient number in too
small a space then fighting and disease tend to break out and the
numbers are culled. Nuclear war would be a great culler of all
species, and the genetic mutations which might follow such a war may
not necessarily lead more co-operative types to breed better than
those who just fight.

You should write science fiction, Patrick. Sure to pay better than
building amps.

I dunno, I reckon many quite boring half baked science fiction authors
sold more books fulla bull**** and made much more than I can with a
damn soldering iron.

Let's face it man, the keyboard is mightier than the soldrin iron!!!!

The future is frightfully un-predictable, and God won't tell us who
else to contact to advice.

It's good that you realize it. So why do you global warmies advocate
all kinds of reckless measures that will make the future even more
uncertain through the law of unintended effect?

But its always what wev'e done.

Tampering.

Farnarkling.

**** farting around.

Tweaking.

We are never satisfied with the status quo for very long, unless the
status quo lets us become stoinkingly rich.

Dictators like stataus quo while those who support them follow a
policy of Mercs for jerks.

Young students full of untested idealism are allergic to status quo.
Their bedrooms have Che pinned up. Very cool.
Very ****ing dangerous as well.

These last few years there hasn't been much for millions of young
folks to run wild on the street for.
Recent wars in the ME didn't bring home many body bags, hell, not like
it was during Vietnam.
Not even the terrible wars in the Congo has anyone on the streets in
the West. Westerers often don't get killed in wars between brown
peoples. We should fix the Congo. Much of the minerals used in
electronics come from the Congo, but we love our mobile phones and
PCs, even though brown people die because of what we love.

I reckon young folks will get uppity about greenhouse. Many will
plainly refuse to breed once they get their BA at a uni and score a
job which barely pays enough to buy a flat let alone raise kids. At
least the jobs don't involve sweat while outside in the heat, phew!
Those idealistic young folks are rather selfish. OK, so there will be
far fewer tax payers in 3009. Lots of oldies needing to be supported
though, and many of these oldies will have heads fulla bull****. I can
get a decent prostate operation now if I want one, but maybe in 3009
it won't be so easy. But hopefully not even necessary because of
medical advances. Hell, who cares about all those things you are
supposed to pay to do like breeding when the fundemental necessity is
to stay alive with medical help. And help from the odd dentist as
well.

So the Stumblathon of progress will stumble along like it always has,
and some if not much of the process will be SNAFU.

Life is merely an extended Greek tragedy.

Patrick Turner.



Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Mike Pritchard]

Andre Jute wrote:

[snipped]

I was having a humorous conversation about global warming, with one of my
meteorologist buddies the other day. I asked him about folks like
you--who are working hard to discredit the world's scientists, for
supposedly lying to us about the earth's warming.

He just laughed and said such people are a very small number on the
lunatic fringe, whom no one really listens to. As he said "if there's so
much to this story, then why is no one still covering it?"

It's been pretty much debunked as a plot to discredit the scientists,
carried out by major companies whom new regulations would impact
negatively--in other words, cost them money.

I had to admit...the only time I hear anything about it any more, is on
this group. The mainstream media is completely ignoring this now debunked
"conspiracy", supposedly carried out by the scientists.....and, with good
reason.

I also asked about the medieval warm period--since that's been mentioned
here a few times--suggesting that event proves current warming is nothing
special.

His reply (as best I can recall)...you cannot compare that event, to the
current scenario--as the cause was very likely different, from what is
driving today's warming. He added...the historical event was also
smaller, involving most of europe...and not the whole planet. Sea levels
didn't rise and glaciers didn't melt...both of which are happening,
currently.

Weather patterns can come in cycles...including warming trends. But, this
one is different--and you cannot deny that.

We may not have all the answers yet, but denying a problem exists will not
make it go away.

The funny part of our conversation---my friend suggested the government
solve the problem by using some of the alien technology they've been
hiding. But then...we both agreed admitting aliens do exist, would likely
be seen as a threat to government's ability to "govern." The realization
that we are not alone, would likely bring all people together, as "one
earth", rather than separate countries & governments, as we are now. All
the fat politicians *and* their corporate buddies would be out of work.

Yeah....that'll never happen.

OK....foil hats off now.

(grin)

Mike

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?

Andre Jute
Now I know why at the University of Chicago the state college is
referred to as "those football players".

On Dec 16, 7:06*pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

[snipped]

I was having a humorous conversation about global warming, with one of my
meteorologist buddies the other day. *I asked him about folks like
you--who are working hard to discredit the world's scientists, for
supposedly lying to us about the earth's warming.

He just laughed and said such people are a very small number on the
lunatic fringe, whom no one really listens to. *As he said "if there's so
much to this story, then why is no one still covering it?"

It's been pretty much debunked as a plot to discredit the scientists,
carried out by major companies whom new regulations would impact
negatively--in other words, cost them money.

I had to admit...the only time I hear anything about it any more, is on
this group. *The mainstream media is completely ignoring this now debunked
"conspiracy", supposedly carried out by the scientists.....and, with good
reason.

I also asked about the medieval warm period--since that's been mentioned
here a few times--suggesting that event proves current warming is nothing
special.

His reply (as best I can recall)...you cannot compare that event, to the
current scenario--as the cause was very likely different, from what is
driving today's warming. *He added...the historical event was also
smaller, involving most of europe...and not the whole planet. *Sea levels
didn't rise and glaciers didn't melt...both of which are happening,
currently.

Weather patterns can come in cycles...including warming trends. *But, this
one is different--and you cannot deny that.

We may not have all the answers yet, but denying a problem exists will not
make it go away.

The funny part of our conversation---my friend suggested the government
solve the problem by using some of the alien technology they've been
hiding. *But then...we both agreed admitting aliens do exist, would likely
be seen as a threat to government's ability to "govern." *The realization
that we are not alone, would likely bring all people together, as "one
earth", rather than separate countries & governments, as we are now. *All
the fat politicians *and* their corporate buddies would be out of work.

Yeah....that'll never happen.

OK....foil hats off now.

(grin)

Mike

[Mike Pritchard]

Andre Jute wrote:

Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?

Andre Jute
Now I know why at the University of Chicago the state college is
referred to as "those football players."

No, dufus....the reason I snip, is to avoid multiple long pages of CRAP being
copied along with my reply. It's commone internet courtesy....and used to be
done to save bandwidth (for some users). If you can't remember what you wrote,
it's not my fault.

As for the university...I simply work here. Did I mention my weather buddy has
any affiliation with the university? No. And in fact, he does NOT. You made
that assumption....and you know what they say about "assuming" something?

So... now that we have that out of the way, thanks for trying to insult me,
rather than addressing the points I mentioned.

Typical....and predictable.

Mike

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 17, 7:14*pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?

To which Pritchard (full reply below) replied:
As for the university...I simply work here.

Worse and worse. Now it isn't some some *undergraduate* first snipping
all the referred material, then quoting an *anonymous* source as an
authority, it is a *staff member* committing these solecisms. Way to
go, Mike. I'm sure it's a real career builder for you.

Did I mention my weather buddy has
any affiliation with the university? No. And in fact, he does NOT.

So what is this anonymous "buddy" held up to us as an authority? An
unemployed and no doubt unemployable grad of UI? A weather forecaster?
We all know how trustworthy those are! Way to go Mike, another real
career builder for you.

Now I know why at the University of Chicago the state college is
referred to as "those football players."

Yup, at Illinois State even the football players are anonymous and
wear brown bags over their heads in embarrassment at the silliness of
the staff.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Here's Mike "Poltroon" Pritchard's full post:
No, dufus....the reason I snip, is to avoid multiple long pages of CRAP being
copied along with my reply. *It's commone internet courtesy....and used to be
done to save bandwidth (for some users). *If you can't remember what you wrote,
it's not my fault.

As for the university...I simply work here. *Did I mention my weather buddy has
any affiliation with the university? *No. *And in fact, he does NOT. *You made
that assumption....and you know what they say about "assuming" something?

So... now that we have that out of the way, thanks for trying to insult me,
rather than addressing the points I mentioned.

Typical....and predictable.

Mike

[RS[_3_]]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:43:47 -0500, RS wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

You missed one.

Global warming is happening, nothing to do with us. Get used to it.

In no instance are we totally ****ed.

d

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:43:47 -0500, RS wrote:

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

You missed one.

Global warming is happening, nothing to do with us. Get used to it.

Bingo. Just like in the old days. (MWP.)

In no instance are we totally ****ed.

Well, not climatically.

BS

[Mike Pritchard]

Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:14 pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?

To which Pritchard (full reply below) replied:
As for the university...I simply work here.

Worse and worse. Now it isn't some some *undergraduate* first snipping
all the referred material, then quoting an *anonymous* source as an
authority, it is a *staff member* committing these solecisms. Way to
go, Mike. I'm sure it's a real career builder for you.


Wow...the absolute cluelessness continues!! Still not addressing the points I
made....but rather, continuing to sling the insults.

Very, very professional reply....and totally sidesteps the points I made.
Apparently, that means you cannot discredit what I said. Nice--I win!

Dude.....you have no idea what the **** you're talking about.



Did I mention my weather buddy has
any affiliation with the university? No. And in fact, he does NOT.

So what is this anonymous "buddy" held up to us as an authority? An
unemployed and no doubt unemployable grad of UI? A weather forecaster?
We all know how trustworthy those are! Way to go Mike, another real
career builder for you.


Again....you have no idea what you're talking about. This is funny.



Now I know why at the University of Chicago the state college is
referred to as "those football players."

Yup, at Illinois State even the football players are anonymous and
wear brown bags over their heads in embarrassment at the silliness of
the staff.


Another example of just how clueless you are. Dude....I don't work for Illinois
State University. But....you obviously know it all. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!


Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar


Dude, you try to present yourself, as if you have half a clue. Clearly, you DO NOT.

OK Mr. weather expert. Where'd you get your meteorology degree? What's that? You
don't have one? Have you ever set foot in a weather class? No? Well...there's a
big surprise!! Yet, you have all the answers....

I'm willing to admit that I don't have all the answers. I keep an open mind, with
regard to the global warming issue. But, my background and what little weather
experience I do have, convinces me that the earth has a problem....a big one.

Weather is not my main gig. It is a hobby...and I do have some education to back it
up. I'll let you wonder how much, because I couldn't care less what you think.

You?

Yeah....I thought not. No weather education, at all. No experience....nothing. You
probably know less than the TV weather bunnies. I'd bet on that.

You're nothing more than a "Mr. Know-it-all", but you don't know as much as you think
you do. That's obvious.

(neener-neener)

Mike

[Patrick Turner]

On Dec 18, 5:43*pm, RS wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:
But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.
...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything *+ *Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

The 4th scenario could be the one which tries the patience of future
people.

People say that raising CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056% could not do much.

People might say that having an amplifier with THD = 0.028% will not
sound any different to one with THD = 0.056%.

Its so so easy to dismiss the idea that 0.028% *OF ANY ****EN THING*
makes any difference to any other thing.

Anyway, if people really do believe in greenhouse heating then they
have to be prepared to put their money where their mouths are and pay
to change things. Unfortunately, Copenhagen has taught everyone that
ideals are just fine, but one has to pay through the nose for an ideal
world, and nobody has the money. Didn't the world just lose all the
spare cash it had in the global financial crisis?

People just don't yet quite realize that there is no escape from
everyone including themselves having to pay a lot more for energy if
we refuse to burn carbon.

I don't know what the value is of my share of energy infrastructure
is, but if the whole of Oz has 220 billion of equity in power stations
and petro-chemical stations and there are 22 million in Oz, then that
makes my share worth $10,000.
Of course I don't own this, but it is held by companies for me and
profits them while providing a high standard of living for me.
OK, so the price to demolish my share might be $5,000, and to build
alternatives maybe $30,000, and of course I don't have that amount of
cash and would have to borrow it. The Govt might borrow it for me but
then I have to pay taxes to pay the debt off. The simplest way to fund
the necessary investment is to raise ther GST from 10% to 25%.

And any Govt who does this commits political suicide.

I doubt we could rely on private enterprize to make the transfer to
alternative energies. They'd weasel out of obligations, corrupt the
politicians, and charge us all double to make a profit.

Meanwhile in China ppl there must be thinking how they can afford the
changes. But maybe not as hard as they think.
They work for $50 a month.

When Mao said let's eliminate flies, everyone caught 10 flies each,
and suddenly there were 12 billion less flies in China in just one
day. Someone else said "Have only one child", and 50 years later there
800 million fewer ppl than there would have been in China as a result.

The Chinese used to be frugal, and ride bicycles, and dream about a TV
set.

Now they all want roads, cars, and 1,001 gadgets. By the time they all
have modern conveniences, I'd reckon their effect of world resources
could be catastrophic. Indians and Iranians and every other emerging
nation also wants a slice of apple pie.

Finding somewhere suitable to grow apple trees is becoming
problematical because as soon as you plant a tree, some ******* comes
along with a plan for a road, a dam, feedlot for pigs, an office
tower, a parking lot, shopping mall, or a row of multi-storey units
all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same. Finding
clean water for the tree is another problem.

Even if we are wrong about greenhouse and we still went to
alternatives at great cost, it means we would leave huge amounts of
fossil fuel underground for distant future generations. The world will
always need *some* fossil fuels and want some mining of them to use
for chemicals and tar to make roads.

But if the present trends continue and all oil and coal are dug up in
the next 500 years, what do people do then?


Patrick Turner.

[Larry[_12_]]

On Dec 14, 5:20*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

Andre,

Thanks for confirming that you're a lunatic along with the others you
quote. Let's now get back to cycling.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Andre Jute wrote:
If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT,

lol

[Ouroboros Rex]

Andre Jute wrote:
Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?

Markedly superior to your straw-man list of kooks. lol

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

This is what I sent originally:

*****
If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution
*******
If Mike Pritchard and/or his anonymous "buddy" want to discuss those
quotations, they're welcome. So far they haven't, instead merely
interposing irrelevances and ad hominem attacks. That Pritchard writes
from a University of Illinois address merely gives the university a
bad name.

Andre Jute
Bored with this undergraduate waste of time

This Pritchard's latest mindless, time-wasting reply:

On Dec 18, 2:58*pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:14 pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?

To which Pritchard (full reply below) replied:
As for the university...I simply work here.

Worse and worse. Now it isn't some some *undergraduate* first snipping
all the referred material, then quoting an *anonymous* source as an
authority, it is a *staff member* committing these solecisms. Way to
go, Mike. I'm sure it's a real career builder for you.

Wow...the absolute cluelessness continues!! *Still not addressing the points I
made....but rather, continuing to sling the insults.

Very, very professional reply....and totally sidesteps the points I made.
Apparently, that means you cannot discredit what I said. *Nice--I win!

Dude.....you have no idea what the **** you're talking about.



Did I mention my weather buddy has
any affiliation with the university? *No. *And in fact, he does NOT.

So what is this anonymous "buddy" held up to us as an authority? An
unemployed and no doubt unemployable grad of UI? A weather forecaster?
We all know how trustworthy those are! Way to go Mike, another real
career builder for you.

Again....you have no idea what you're talking about. *This is funny.



Now I know why at the University of Chicago the state college is
referred to as "those football players."

Yup, at Illinois State even the football players are anonymous and
wear brown bags over their heads in embarrassment at the silliness of
the staff.

Another example of just how clueless you are. *Dude....I don't work for Illinois
State University. *But....you obviously know it all. *HA HA HA HA HA!!!!



Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Dude, you try to present yourself, as if you have half a clue. *Clearly, you DO NOT.

OK Mr. weather expert. *Where'd you get your meteorology degree? *What's that? *You
don't have one? *Have you ever set foot in a weather class? *No? *Well...there's a
big surprise!! *Yet, you have all the answers....

I'm willing to admit that I don't have all the answers. *I keep an open mind, with
regard to the global warming issue. *But, my background and what little weather
experience I do have, convinces me that the earth has a problem....a big one.

Weather is not my main gig. *It is a hobby...and I do have some education to back it
up. *I'll let you wonder how much, because I couldn't care less what you think.

You?

Yeah....I thought not. *No weather education, at all. *No experience.....nothing. *You
probably know less than the TV weather bunnies. *I'd bet on that.

You're nothing more than a "Mr. Know-it-all", but you don't know as much as you think
you do. *That's obvious.

(neener-neener)

Mike

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 18, 4:21*pm, Larry wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:20*pm, Andre Jute wrote:





If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

Andre,

Thanks for confirming that you're a lunatic along with the others you
quote. *Let's now get back to cycling.

How is it "lunatic" to quote people's expressed opinions by name? Are
you aware that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was dismissed as "a lunacy" on
the grounds that if he were serious, he wouldn't say such things? Six
million gassed Jews later... Little Larry says that anyone quoting
global warmies promising to "eliminate 350,000 people per day" is a
"lunatic". I hope history doesn't expose you as another naive fool,
Larry, I really do.

Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko

[Mike Pritchard]

Andre Jute wrote:

This is what I sent originally:

Snipped, because I know it bugs the crap out of you!

And, for the life of me, I don't undestand *why* you insist on including all previous
text! What a waste!! But, you can't understand that, it seems....you're the only one who
insists on doing so.

You're not worth wasting time on any more. You're nothing more than a lunatic. I can see
that now.

I'll let you continue to ponder this "undergrad", as you seem to think I am. Pretty
funny....I sure wish I was still that young!

See ya 'round, dufus.

(wink)

Mike (who has more weather knowledge in his left ball, than Andre will ever have in his
whole brain....)

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 18, 7:43*pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
This is what I sent originally:

*Snipped, because I know it bugs the crap out of you!

And here, in a nutshell, we have the entire motivation of the lesser
global warming faithful, to be noticed by being an irritant.

It is hardly worth the effort to put down such worthless trailer park
trash.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich


And, for the life of me, I don't undestand *why* you insist on including all previous
text! *What a waste!! *But, you can't understand that, it seems....you're the only one who
insists on doing so.

You're not worth wasting time on any more. *You're nothing more than a lunatic. *I can see
that now.

I'll let you continue to ponder this "undergrad", as you seem to think I am. *Pretty
funny....I sure wish I was still that young!

See ya 'round, dufus.

(wink)

Mike *(who has more weather knowledge in his left ball, than Andre will ever have in his
whole brain....)

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-18, RS wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

That's known as "Pascal's Wager".

The scenario you missed out, but which is the mostly likely because it's
what has been happening for the last 20 years is:

We try to avoid it + We don't do anything + Global Warming isn't real = We spent lotsa $

(by Global Warming I assume you mean AGW).

[RS[_3_]]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:50:49 -0600, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-12-18, RS wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

That's known as "Pascal's Wager".

The scenario you missed out, but which is the mostly likely because it's
what has been happening for the last 20 years is:

We try to avoid it + We don't do anything + Global Warming isn't real = We spent lotsa $

(by Global Warming I assume you mean AGW).

Yes, AGW. What did you mean by "We try to avoid it + We don't do
anything"?

As for real vs not-real, that's being debated by knowledgable
scientists, and probably doesn't need to be turned into a silly "Yes
it is" "No it isn't" usenet exchange, humorous as it is at times.

I will say though, that many of the deniers are the same people who
just spent close to a trillion $ and lots of lives expunging the
massive amounts of WMD's from Iraq. Relying on their opinion of a
"sure thing" was a serious and very costly mistake.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Mike Pritchard wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:14 pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Is this how undergraduates at the University of Illinois do "science":
first snip all the material referred to, then appeal to an anonymous
"authority"?
To which Pritchard (full reply below) replied:
As for the university...I simply work here.
Worse and worse. Now it isn't some some *undergraduate* first snipping
all the referred material, then quoting an *anonymous* source as an
authority, it is a *staff member* committing these solecisms. Way to
go, Mike. I'm sure it's a real career builder for you.


Wow...the absolute cluelessness continues!! Still not addressing the points I
made....but rather, continuing to sling the insults.

Very, very professional reply....and totally sidesteps the points I made.
Apparently, that means you cannot discredit what I said. Nice--I win!

Dude.....you have no idea what the **** you're talking about.


Did I mention my weather buddy has
any affiliation with the university? No. And in fact, he does NOT.
So what is this anonymous "buddy" held up to us as an authority? An
unemployed and no doubt unemployable grad of UI? A weather forecaster?
We all know how trustworthy those are! Way to go Mike, another real
career builder for you.

"UI" is the University of Iowa. No institution of higher education in
Illinois is referred to as "UI".


Again....you have no idea what you're talking about. This is funny.


Now I know why at the University of Chicago the state college is
referred to as "those football players."
Yup, at Illinois State even the football players are anonymous and
wear brown bags over their heads in embarrassment at the silliness of
the staff.


Another example of just how clueless you are. Dude....I don't work for Illinois
State University. But....you obviously know it all. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
[...]

Maybe a Great Void swallowed up all the cornfields between
Champaign-Urbana and Bloomington-Normal?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

RS wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:50:49 -0600, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-12-18, RS wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of
insurance is extremely difficult considering most people in the
world don't know what an insurance policy and premium is, and when
**** happens in their lives they just suffer and/or perish without
any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

That's known as "Pascal's Wager".

The scenario you missed out, but which is the mostly likely because
it's
what has been happening for the last 20 years is:

We try to avoid it + We don't do anything + Global Warming isn't
real = We spent lotsa $

(by Global Warming I assume you mean AGW).

Yes, AGW. What did you mean by "We try to avoid it + We don't do
anything"?

As for real vs not-real, that's being debated by knowledgable
scientists, and probably doesn't need to be turned into a silly "Yes
it is" "No it isn't" usenet exchange, humorous as it is at times.

I will say though, that many of the deniers are the same people who
just spent close to a trillion $ and lots of lives expunging the
massive amounts of WMD's from Iraq. Relying on their opinion of a
"sure thing" was a serious and very costly mistake.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...80706/20080706

http://www.hubdub.com/m12097/CAMECOC...fe_in_Montreal

"I wonder what Saddam possibly could have peaceably done with this material?
Why he wanted to hide it, and why he desired to posses it?

Case closed. Iraq war and deposing of Saddam was justified. UN Resolutions
justified it. US Congress approved it.

What is amazing is that this news was only really covered by investment
journalists covering Cameco Corp. it was only ever covered as a business
transaction. No one in the main stream seemed to even care!

The idea that Iraq posed no threat, and had no WMD, is one of the biggest
lies out there."

(Quoted from
http://boards.history.com/topic/Curr...Were/520083008)

Bill "and read the Authorization to Use Force (hint: WMD just one of many
reasons cited)" S.

[RS[_3_]]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:41:51 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

RS wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:50:49 -0600, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-12-18, RS wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of
insurance is extremely difficult considering most people in the
world don't know what an insurance policy and premium is, and when
**** happens in their lives they just suffer and/or perish without
any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

That's known as "Pascal's Wager".

The scenario you missed out, but which is the mostly likely because
it's
what has been happening for the last 20 years is:

We try to avoid it + We don't do anything + Global Warming isn't
real = We spent lotsa $

(by Global Warming I assume you mean AGW).

Yes, AGW. What did you mean by "We try to avoid it + We don't do
anything"?

As for real vs not-real, that's being debated by knowledgable
scientists, and probably doesn't need to be turned into a silly "Yes
it is" "No it isn't" usenet exchange, humorous as it is at times.

I will say though, that many of the deniers are the same people who
just spent close to a trillion $ and lots of lives expunging the
massive amounts of WMD's from Iraq. Relying on their opinion of a
"sure thing" was a serious and very costly mistake.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...80706/20080706

http://www.hubdub.com/m12097/CAMECOC...fe_in_Montreal

"I wonder what Saddam possibly could have peaceably done with this material?
Why he wanted to hide it, and why he desired to posses it?

Case closed. Iraq war and deposing of Saddam was justified. UN Resolutions
justified it. US Congress approved it.

What is amazing is that this news was only really covered by investment
journalists covering Cameco Corp. it was only ever covered as a business
transaction. No one in the main stream seemed to even care!

The idea that Iraq posed no threat, and had no WMD, is one of the biggest
lies out there."

(Quoted from
http://boards.history.com/topic/Curr...Were/520083008)

Bill "and read the Authorization to Use Force (hint: WMD just one of many
reasons cited)" S.

Wow, there's the mushroom cloud that they were talking about. Isn't
that amazing that the US would have found all that evidence and then
asked Canada to clam up about it. You have to wonder why they made
such a big thing about little shells buried in someone's yard when
they had all this evidence. We'll no doubt here about the mountains of
anthrax later as well.

So you'd do it all again, eh? What about actual threats..you know
N.Korea who actually -does- have nukes, and Iran who may end up with
the capability. Go after them now or not?

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-19, RS wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:50:49 -0600, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-12-18, RS wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:52:56 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

But cancer is not always able to be stopped
despite the medical bills people pay for treatment.

...getting people
to invest in the cost of anti-warming measures as a form of insurance
is extremely difficult considering most people in the world don't know
what an insurance policy and premium is, and when **** happens in
their lives they just suffer and/or perish without any help.

That's an interesting parallel. People shouldn't complain cause they
haven't had a chance to use their medical insurance. You weigh the
odds, and spend big $ on insurance, or deal with the consequences.

Just like insurance, it's down to four possibilities:

We don't do anything + Global Warming Isn't Real = Terrific!

We try to avoid it + Global Warming IS Real = We're OK, maybe

We try to avoid it + Global Warming Isn't Real = We spent lotsa $

We don't do anything + Global Warming IS Real = We're really ****ed

That's known as "Pascal's Wager".

The scenario you missed out, but which is the mostly likely because it's
what has been happening for the last 20 years is:

We try to avoid it + We don't do anything + Global Warming isn't real = We spent lotsa $

(by Global Warming I assume you mean AGW).

Yes, AGW. What did you mean by "We try to avoid it + We don't do
anything"?

We have huge conferences in places like Kyoto and Copenhagen where world
leaders talk a lot about cutting CO2, but then hardly actually cut it at
all.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...borg55/English

To put it another way, lets say we index 1990 global emissions at
100. If there were no Kyoto at all, the 2010 level would have been
142.7. With full Kyoto implementation, it would have been 133. In
fact, the actual outcome of Kyoto is likely to be a 2010 level of
142.2 €“ virtually the same as if we had done nothing at all. Given
12 years of continuous talks and praise for Kyoto, this is not much
of an accomplishment.

As for real vs not-real, that's being debated by knowledgable
scientists, and probably doesn't need to be turned into a silly "Yes
it is" "No it isn't" usenet exchange, humorous as it is at times.

Indeed. But either way it would make more sense to put money aside for
mitigation (flood defences and so on) than trying to cut CO2, because
even if CO2 is the cause, it's unlikely to get reduced globally by a
significant amount.

If it isn't, sea levels still might rise a bit more anyway, and there's
no harm in being prepared for that.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

I wrote a thread on "THE MEIN KAMPF OF THE GLOBAL WARMING GENOCIDE" to
which Liddle Tommi Sherman, obviously not tightest spoke on the RBT
wheel, replied (and this is everything he wrote):

"UI" is the University of Iowa. No institution of higher education in
Illinois is referred to as "UI".

Maybe a Great Void swallowed up all the cornfields between
Champaign-Urbana and Bloomington-Normal?

Yo, Liddell Tommi, for an untravelled hick who can't distinguish
between Italy and Germany, you're pretty snippy about a little local
American microgeography. WTF is Iowa? And what does it have to do with
THE MEIN KAMPF OF THE GLOBAL WARMING GENOCIDE:

***
If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

*****

If you don't know what your betters are talking about, don't change
their threads to your insignificant little amusements, sonny; start
your own threads if you are so convinced you're worth hearing that you
just can't keep your idiocies to yourself.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich (for Liddell Tommi,
that's the one in *Germany* 1933-1945).

[Master Betty]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...snip

Keep it simple and learn how to post first.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 19, 2:57 am, RS wrote:

I will say though, that many of the
[manmade global warming] deniers are the same people who
just spent close to a trillion $ and lots of lives expunging the
massive amounts of WMD's from Iraq. Relying on their opinion of a
"sure thing" was a serious and very costly mistake.

Let's as a hypothetical concede that there were no WMD in Iraq. Under
that assumption, let us compare the war in Iraq with the war on global
warming.

First of all, Saddam Hussein was a manmade monster. The US put him in
place. Score one positive for the comparison.

Thing is though, by the same terms, Saddam was a real, provable
monster. There is no global warming, merely an entirely natural
uptrend from an historically and scientifically very real ice age.
Score one negative for the comparison.

No one can prove CO2 is responsible for global warming. (The hotspot
in the troposphere over the tropics is missing, and CO2 emissions
increase 800 years after temperature rises. Oops.) But we can prove
that the US made Saddam -- they bragged about it when he murdered his
left-leaning predecessor (and his wife and children). Score another
negative for the comparison.

However, the wars against Saddam were successful. The first contained
him, the second wiped him. By contrast the war against global warming
has had zero success and is likely even by the account of its
proponents to have zero success. (Kyoto is a joke, admitted even by
the people who set it up to be more about "proving willing" than being
effective.) Score another negative for the comparison.

The successful war against Saddam cost a few billion dollars and a few
tens of thousands of lives; it wiped a dictator and gave an entire
nation hope. The unsuccessful war against global warming has cost
trillions of dollars and millions of lives, and is set to cost even
more trillions of dollars and millions of lives, all for nothing; it
is a joke. Score a very big negative for the comparison.

The war on Saddam was motivated by weapons of mass destruction that he
may or may not have had. The war on CO2, which cannot in any kind of
rational science be responsible for global warming even if there is
global warming, is justified by global warming, which we now know was
created by lies. Score one positive for the comparison.

So, which was the more moral war? Why, the one to remove a real,
brutal dictator and restore his nation to democracy.

The war on CO2 is an immorality which its proponents try to justify
with a far, far larger lie than was used to justify the war on Saddam,
and the war on CO2 will cost far, far, more money and billions more
lives than the war in Iraq. There is no comparison: the war in Iraq
can easily be seen as moral, the war on CO2 can never be anything but
immoral.

Here is the text that opened this thread again: these people are
openly talking about the genocide of billions, all justified by the
twin lies that there is global warming and that the harmless natural
gas CO2 causes it:

***

If 220,000,000 murders, and counting, were necessary to ban DDT, how
many billion will be the 'few necessary murders' of global warming?

And who will those few billion murdered by anti-global warming
measures be?

Here are a few extracts from the MEIN KAMPF of the next genocide:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
--Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
-- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal.”
-- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

„A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.
At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would
be possible.“
-- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

„In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000
people per day.“
-- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Osama bin Laden never dreamed such dreams of genocide...

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

***

In short, global warming was invented for strictly political reasons,
and it is also the mask for the intention of genocide. And you want to
compare it to a small war that is morally justifiable?

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 19, 9:28*pm, "Master Betty" wrote:

Keep it simple and learn how to post first.

What part of "trailer park trash" did you fail to understand?

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

[Master Betty]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 9:28 pm, "Master Betty" wrote:

Keep it simple and learn how to post first.

What part of "trailer park trash" did you fail to understand?

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

+++=

Apologies.

Jim