Discussion:
New York Times - The Earth is Full
(too old to reply)
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-08 22:55:22 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 7, 2011

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look
back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices
spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed
through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were
displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all
— and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when
the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/
natural resource/population redlines all at once?

“The only answer can be denial,” argues Paul Gilding, the veteran
Australian environmentalist-entrepreneur, who described this moment in
a new book called “The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will
Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World.” “When you
are surrounded by something so big that requires you to change
everything about the way you think and see the world, then denial is
the natural response. But the longer we wait, the bigger the response
required.”

Gilding cites the work of the Global Footprint Network, an alliance of
scientists, which calculates how many “planet Earths” we need to
sustain our current growth rates. G.F.N. measures how much land and
water area we need to produce the resources we consume and absorb our
waste, using prevailing technology. On the whole, says G.F.N., we are
currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far
faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into
the future. Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths.
“Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,” says
Gilding.

This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of
growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. While in Yemen
last year, I saw a tanker truck delivering water in the capital, Sana.
Why? Because Sana could be the first big city in the world to run out
of water, within a decade. That is what happens when one generation in
one country lives at 150 percent of sustainable capacity.

“If you cut down more trees than you grow, you run out of trees,”
writes Gilding. “If you put additional nitrogen into a water system,
you change the type and quantity of life that water can support. If
you thicken the Earth’s CO2 blanket, the Earth gets warmer. If you do
all these and many more things at once, you change the way the whole
system of planet Earth behaves, with social, economic, and life
support impacts. This is not speculation; this is high school
science.”

It is also current affairs. “In China’s thousands of years of
civilization, the conflict between humankind and nature has never been
as serious as it is today,” China’s environment minister, Zhou
Shengxian, said recently. “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion
of resources and the worsening ecological environment have become
bottlenecks and grave impediments to the nation’s economic and social
development.” What China’s minister is telling us, says Gilding, is
that “the Earth is full. We are now using so many resources and
putting out so much waste into the Earth that we have reached some
kind of limit, given current technologies. The economy is going to
have to get smaller in terms of physical impact.”

We will not change systems, though, without a crisis. But don’t worry,
we’re getting there.

We’re currently caught in two loops: One is that more population
growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices;
rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East,
which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices,
which leads to more instability. At the same time, improved
productivity means fewer people are needed in every factory to produce
more stuff. So if we want to have more jobs, we need more factories.
More factories making more stuff make more global warming, and that is
where the two loops meet.

But Gilding is actually an eco-optimist. As the impact of the imminent
Great Disruption hits us, he says, “our response will be
proportionally dramatic, mobilizing as we do in war. We will change at
a scale and speed we can barely imagine today, completely transforming
our economy, including our energy and transport industries, in just a
few short decades.”

We will realize, he predicts, that the consumer-driven growth model is
broken and we have to move to a more happiness-driven growth model,
based on people working less and owning less. “How many people,”
Gilding asks, “lie on their death bed and say, ‘I wish I had worked
harder or built more shareholder value,’ and how many say, ‘I wish I
had gone to more ballgames, read more books to my kids, taken more
walks?’ To do that, you need a growth model based on giving people
more time to enjoy life, but with less stuff.”

Sounds utopian? Gilding insists he is a realist.

“We are heading for a crisis-driven choice,” he says. “We either allow
collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model.
We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we’re not stupid.”
ricky coleclough
2011-06-08 23:43:39 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 8, 11:55 pm, Jane the Omnipotent <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"The Earth is Full"

Sorry, can't help at the moment.....;)

They are still positive it's a radiation burn,,an intense one. A one
month 'all clear'.....;)

Vampire Castle somehow didn't seem so bad tonight!

Ricky
Steven Douglas
2011-06-09 00:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ricky coleclough
"The Earth is Full"
Sorry, can't help at the moment.....;)
They are still positive it's a radiation burn,,an intense one. A one
month 'all clear'.....;)
Vampire Castle somehow didn't seem so bad tonight!
That's great news, Ricky. You know I'm sincere, and I don't want to
hear from anyone else that I'm not.
ricky coleclough
2011-06-09 00:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
That's great news, Ricky. You know I'm sincere, and I don't want to
hear from anyone else that I'm not.
Thanks Steven. Yes, I do and it's appreciated. That's a nasty weight
lifted for a while. Thanks again.

Ricky
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-09 03:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ricky coleclough
"The Earth is Full"
Sorry, can't help at the moment.....;)
They are still positive it's a radiation burn,,an intense one. A one
month 'all clear'.....;)
Vampire Castle somehow didn't seem so bad tonight!
Ricky
Very glad to hear that, Ricky!!!
Barbarossa
2011-06-09 00:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 7, 2011
You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look
back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices
spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed
through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were
displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all
— and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when
the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/
natural resource/population redlines all at once?
Utter bullshit. With the right attitude this world can easily provide
for at least 20 billion people. We choose to not have the right attitude.

Our atmosphere can easily handle 10 times as much CO2 as today and
actually we are in a very cool phase of our planet. Average over the
last 500 million years is about 18°C, currently it is about 12°C.

Loading Image...
--
Groetjes,
Barbarossa
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-09 03:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 7, 2011
You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we ll look
back at the first decade of the 21st century when food prices
spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed
through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were
displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all
and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when
the evidence was so obvious that we d crossed some growth/climate/
natural resource/population redlines all at once?
Utter bullshit. With the right attitude this world can easily provide
for at least 20 billion people. We choose to not have the right attitude.
Balderdash. We can't provide for the people we have now without
petroleum (10 calories of it for every calorie of food produced). As
petroleum depletes...and it will...it's sayonara.
Post by Barbarossa
Our atmosphere can easily handle 10 times as much CO2 as today and
actually we are in a very cool phase of our planet. Average over the
last 500 million years is about 18 C, currently it is about 12 C.
Climate change isn't my issue. It was included in the story, but that
is not why I posted it. I don't believe climate change is man made.
Post by Barbarossa
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx30/Barbarossa2010/image277.gif
--
Groetjes,
Barbarossa
Ala
2011-07-20 01:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Balderdash. We can't provide for the people we have now without
petroleum (10 calories of it for every calorie of food produced). As
petroleum depletes...and it will...it's sayonara.
http://www.thecaloriecounter.com/

Steven Douglas
2011-06-09 00:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Thomas Friedman is good on some issues, and not so good on others:

[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.

“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”

As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.

As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.

Yeah, right. [end quote]

Click the link to see the photo of Thomas Friedman's estate:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-09 03:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so. That is not why I
posted the piece, so save your links.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-09 03:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Doc
2011-06-09 05:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?

Hey, have some cognizance that we live in an info-drenched age, junior,
where additionally the same stories come up as one lives longer.
You could just as easily been talking the same topics decades ago --
partisanship, religion, wars, environment, scandals, etc. -- and,
occasionally, one becomes aware of the endless repetition, tires of it for
awhile, and slacks off reading every piece of chatter or news about so many
events.

But, since you like to tell us you're snipping our posts, that they're
offensive, unwanted, untrue, off topic, etc., with regular zeal, I don't
think you can crow about how you are more committed to reading everything
here. As one of your most unwanted posters, and hundreds of snipped,
allegedly 'unread' posts to you, that kind of tyrannical intolerance doesn't
encourage discourse, does it?

Doc
Jane
2011-06-09 13:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-09 13:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Well, since it's the first time it's happened since 1973, I think it
would indicate climate change. 1973 was near the end of the last
cooling period that lasted from 1940 to 1977.
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Well, you've done your best to make it all about you by reintroducing
the dominant topic on the group lately. When it comes to that topic,
it really *is* all about you. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-09 13:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Well, since it's the first time it's happened since 1973, I think it
would indicate climate change. 1973 was near the end of the last
cooling period that lasted from 1940 to 1977.
Again...one cannot extrapolate so broadly from one event, even if it
happens once in ten thousand years. If there is a pattern of snow in
June in Hawaii, then we will be getting somewhere.

Learn about science before you show your ignorance.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Well, you've done your best to make it all about you by reintroducing
the dominant topic on the group lately. When it comes to that topic,
it really *is* all about you. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Still getting your jollies reading those discussions, then?
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 00:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Well, since it's the first time it's happened since 1973, I think it
would indicate climate change. 1973 was near the end of the last
cooling period that lasted from 1940 to 1977.
Again...one cannot extrapolate so broadly from one event, even if it
happens once in ten thousand years. If there is a pattern of snow in
June in Hawaii, then we will be getting somewhere.
It's got to start somewhere.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Learn about science before you show your ignorance.
Rod is right, you're off the clock again. More of the same type of
attack you've been consistently throwing at me for many, many months.
I stated *facts* about the snow in Hawaii, so your catty little remark
was uncalled for.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Well, you've done your best to make it all about you by reintroducing
the dominant topic on the group lately. When it comes to that topic,
it really *is* all about you. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Still getting your jollies reading those discussions, then?
I think you're projecting. I've made numerous requests for an end to
that topic. You've been silent. You reintroduced the topic. You
thought there might be jollies to be had in that topic (by falsely
projecting "jollies" onto me where none exist). Anyone who thinks
there are any "jollies" to be had in that discussion must be getting
her jollies from it.
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 01:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Well, since it's the first time it's happened since 1973, I think it
would indicate climate change. 1973 was near the end of the last
cooling period that lasted from 1940 to 1977.
Again...one cannot extrapolate so broadly from one event, even if it
happens once in ten thousand years. If there is a pattern of snow in
June in Hawaii, then we will be getting somewhere.
It's got to start somewhere.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Learn about science before you show your ignorance.
Rod is right, you're off the clock again. More of the same type of
attack you've been consistently throwing at me for many, many months.
I stated *facts* about the snow in Hawaii, so your catty little remark
was uncalled for.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Well, you've done your best to make it all about you by reintroducing
the dominant topic on the group lately. When it comes to that topic,
it really *is* all about you. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Still getting your jollies reading those discussions, then?
I think you're projecting. I've made numerous requests for an end to
that topic. You've been silent. You reintroduced the topic. You
thought there might be jollies to be had in that topic (by falsely
projecting "jollies" onto me where none exist). Anyone who thinks
there are any "jollies" to be had in that discussion must be getting
her jollies from it.
Au contraire. I'm not even reading it.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 02:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Well, since it's the first time it's happened since 1973, I think it
would indicate climate change. 1973 was near the end of the last
cooling period that lasted from 1940 to 1977.
Again...one cannot extrapolate so broadly from one event, even if it
happens once in ten thousand years. If there is a pattern of snow in
June in Hawaii, then we will be getting somewhere.
It's got to start somewhere.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Learn about science before you show your ignorance.
Rod is right, you're off the clock again. More of the same type of
attack you've been consistently throwing at me for many, many months.
I stated *facts* about the snow in Hawaii, so your catty little remark
was uncalled for.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Well, you've done your best to make it all about you by reintroducing
the dominant topic on the group lately. When it comes to that topic,
it really *is* all about you. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Still getting your jollies reading those discussions, then?
I think you're projecting. I've made numerous requests for an end to
that topic. You've been silent. You reintroduced the topic. You
thought there might be jollies to be had in that topic (by falsely
projecting "jollies" onto me where none exist). Anyone who thinks
there are any "jollies" to be had in that discussion must be getting
her jollies from it.
Au contraire. I'm not even reading it.
Anyone who thinks there are "jollies" to be had in that discussion
must be getting her jollies from it. It would have never occurred to
me to think in those terms when it comes to that discussion.
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 03:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
The global warming crap wasn't my focus. The climate is changing, I
believe, but it does not require man to do so.
Yes, snow in Hawaii in June certainly indicates climate change,
doesn't it?
It may or it may not. One cannot extrapolate so broadly from one
event.
Well, since it's the first time it's happened since 1973, I think it
would indicate climate change. 1973 was near the end of the last
cooling period that lasted from 1940 to 1977.
Again...one cannot extrapolate so broadly from one event, even if it
happens once in ten thousand years. If there is a pattern of snow in
June in Hawaii, then we will be getting somewhere.
It's got to start somewhere.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Learn about science before you show your ignorance.
Rod is right, you're off the clock again. More of the same type of
attack you've been consistently throwing at me for many, many months.
I stated *facts* about the snow in Hawaii, so your catty little remark
was uncalled for.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
That is not why I posted the piece, so save your links.
I don't care why you posted the piece. I posted a piece about the
hypocrisy of Thomas Friedman. You're not the only person reading this
group, you know; though it is getting closer and closer to that all
the time, isn't it?
Well, you are certainly doing your best to make it all about me.
Well, you've done your best to make it all about you by reintroducing
the dominant topic on the group lately. When it comes to that topic,
it really *is* all about you. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Still getting your jollies reading those discussions, then?
I think you're projecting. I've made numerous requests for an end to
that topic. You've been silent. You reintroduced the topic. You
thought there might be jollies to be had in that topic (by falsely
projecting "jollies" onto me where none exist). Anyone who thinks
there are any "jollies" to be had in that discussion must be getting
her jollies from it.
Au contraire. I'm not even reading it.
Anyone who thinks there are "jollies" to be had in that discussion
must be getting her jollies from it. It would have never occurred to
me to think in those terms when it comes to that discussion.
Really? You're the one who keeps talking about the DISGUSTING
embellishments, lol. The high drama gives you away. I don't even know
what the DISGUSTING embellishments are.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 03:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Anyone who thinks there are "jollies" to be had in that discussion
must be getting her jollies from it. It would have never occurred to
me to think in those terms when it comes to that discussion.
Really? You're the one who keeps talking about the DISGUSTING
embellishments, lol. The high drama gives you away. I don't even know
what the DISGUSTING embellishments are.
Trust me, they're disgusting. And grotesque. And sickening. I saw you
say somewhere that you found some of it sickening. I decided to point
it out because I thought it was unfair that you reintroduced the topic
to the group, then stood back and said nothing while Barbarossa was
unfairly attacked. Then, when you finally did say something, you
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks. Then, when I
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc. But then you have no
principles, do you?
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 11:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Anyone who thinks there are "jollies" to be had in that discussion
must be getting her jollies from it. It would have never occurred to
me to think in those terms when it comes to that discussion.
Really? You're the one who keeps talking about the DISGUSTING
embellishments, lol. The high drama gives you away. I don't even know
what the DISGUSTING embellishments are.
Trust me, they're disgusting. And grotesque. And sickening. I saw you
say somewhere that you found some of it sickening. I decided to point
it out because I thought it was unfair that you reintroduced the topic
to the group, then stood back and said nothing while Barbarossa was
unfairly attacked.
It's not my place to fight anyone's battles for him. I realize that is
what you like to do; particularly, if they are opposing me, but that
is not what I do. I mind my own business.

Then, when you finally did say something, you
Post by Steven Douglas
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks.
I didn't 'blame' anyone. Who are you, anyway? His keeper?

Then, when I
Post by Steven Douglas
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc.  
One wonders why you bother to read it, since you aren't directly
involved (except inasmuch as you can find things to accuse me of).

But then you have no
Post by Steven Douglas
principles, do you?
As I stated previously, find some principles yourself and then get
back to me.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 12:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Anyone who thinks there are "jollies" to be had in that discussion
must be getting her jollies from it. It would have never occurred to
me to think in those terms when it comes to that discussion.
Really? You're the one who keeps talking about the DISGUSTING
embellishments, lol. The high drama gives you away. I don't even know
what the DISGUSTING embellishments are.
Trust me, they're disgusting. And grotesque. And sickening. I saw you
say somewhere that you found some of it sickening. I decided to point
it out because I thought it was unfair that you reintroduced the topic
to the group, then stood back and said nothing while Barbarossa was
unfairly attacked.
It's not my place to fight anyone's battles for him. I realize that is
what you like to do; particularly, if they are opposing me, but that
is not what I do. I mind my own business.
Were you minding your own business when you quoted Barbarossa from
seven years ago? Were you minding your own business when you
reintroduced the topic to the group, and thereby unleashing a torrent
of unfair attacks on Barbarossa? No, you only started minding your own
business after you started the fire, and then ran away like a coward.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when you finally did say something, you
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks.
I didn't 'blame' anyone.
Yes, you did actually. You singled him out when you asked if he'll
ever get bored with this topic, while completely failing to say
ANYTHING to Ricky or Doc about their unfair attacks on him. I don't
blame Barbarossa for responding to every single post written on the
topic by Ricky and Doc. You started it, Ricky and Doc jumped all over
it, and Barbarossa has been responding to it ever since. And your
first instinct is to blame Barbarossa. But then you have no
principles. If you did, you'd have directed your question to Ricky and
Doc.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Who are you, anyway? His keeper?
Unlike some people, I don't stand by silently while someone is being
unfairly attacked. I'm this way in my real life, too. Whenever I see
*bullies* going after someone, I'll step in and do something about it,
whether you like it or not.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when I
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc.  
One wonders why you bother to read it, since you aren't directly
involved (except inasmuch as you can find things to accuse me of).
I haven't *accused* you of anything. I've stated the actual fact that
you starting this, and then ran away from it because you're an
unprincipled coward. If you had a shred of principles, you'd tell Doc
and Ricky they're wrong. If I was doing to someone what they're doing
to Barbarossa, you'd have no problem telling me I was wrong, would you
you unprincipled coward? You'd also tell me I'm a prude (which you've
done numerous times, but you can't bring yourself to say that to Ricky
and Doc).
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
But then you have no
principles, do you?
As I stated previously, find some principles yourself and then get
back to me.
Do you have an example of an unprincipled stand I've taken? I have
several examples of your lack of principles, so you show an example of
just *one* of mine.
ricky coleclough
2011-06-10 13:34:37 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 10, 1:44 pm, Steven Douglas <***@mail.com> wrote:

then stood back and said nothing while Barbarossa was unfairly
attacked.


Unfairly?

Ah, now I see which side of the fence you truly are.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2011-06-11 14:45:12 UTC
Permalink
 then stood back and said nothing while Barbarossa was unfairly
attacked.
Unfairly?
Yes, unfairly.
Ah, now I see which side of the fence you truly are.
Then you also see which side of the fence everyone except you and Doc
are on. It's just you and Doc attacking Barbarossa, while Rod made it
perfectly clear that he doesn't care what people do behind closed
doors, as long as its consensual and doesn't harm anyone. Jane has
implied, in a quieter and more meek way as she carefully tiptoes
around your bluff and bluster, that she agrees with Rod. No one else
is making it an issue. The only reason Doc jumped all over it is
because he always does whatever you do.
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 16:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Anyone who thinks there are "jollies" to be had in that discussion
must be getting her jollies from it. It would have never occurred to
me to think in those terms when it comes to that discussion.
Really? You're the one who keeps talking about the DISGUSTING
embellishments, lol. The high drama gives you away. I don't even know
what the DISGUSTING embellishments are.
Trust me, they're disgusting. And grotesque. And sickening. I saw you
say somewhere that you found some of it sickening. I decided to point
it out because I thought it was unfair that you reintroduced the topic
to the group, then stood back and said nothing while Barbarossa was
unfairly attacked.
It's not my place to fight anyone's battles for him. I realize that is
what you like to do; particularly, if they are opposing me, but that
is not what I do. I mind my own business.
Were you minding your own business when you quoted Barbarossa from
seven years ago? Were you minding your own business when you
reintroduced the topic to the group, and thereby unleashing a torrent
of unfair attacks on Barbarossa? No, you only started minding your own
business after you started the fire, and then ran away like a coward.
Hello? I've been here daily ever since. Anyone is free to address me
about it, but you are the only one obsessed enough to do so.
Ironically, it doesn't even concern you!
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when you finally did say something, you
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks.
I didn't 'blame' anyone.
Yes, you did actually. You singled him out when you asked if he'll
ever get bored with this topic, while completely failing to say
ANYTHING to Ricky or Doc about their unfair attacks on him. I don't
blame Barbarossa for responding to every single post written on the
topic by Ricky and Doc. You started it, Ricky and Doc jumped all over
it, and Barbarossa has been responding to it ever since. And your
first instinct is to blame Barbarossa. But then you have no
principles. If you did, you'd have directed your question to Ricky and
Doc.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Who are you, anyway? His keeper?
Unlike some people, I don't stand by silently while someone is being
unfairly attacked. I'm this way in my real life, too. Whenever I see
*bullies* going after someone, I'll step in and do something about it,
whether you like it or not.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when I
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc.  
One wonders why you bother to read it, since you aren't directly
involved (except inasmuch as you can find things to accuse me of).
I haven't *accused* you of anything. I've stated the actual fact that
you starting this, and then ran away from it because you're an
unprincipled coward. If you had a shred of principles, you'd tell Doc
and Ricky they're wrong. If I was doing to someone what they're doing
to Barbarossa, you'd have no problem telling me I was wrong, would you
you unprincipled coward? You'd also tell me I'm a prude (which you've
done numerous times, but you can't bring yourself to say that to Ricky
and Doc).
Remember back when you and Ricky were battling John and Randy?
Remember how I stayed out of it (which pissed you off to no end)? Same
deal here. 'Right' and 'wrong' is subjective, depending which side of
the fence you are on. I don't choose sides.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
But then you have no
principles, do you?
As I stated previously, find some principles yourself and then get
back to me.
Do you have an example of an unprincipled stand I've taken? I have
several examples of your lack of principles, so you show an example of
just *one* of mine.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-11 14:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when you finally did say something, you
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks.
I didn't 'blame' anyone.
Yes, you did actually. You singled him out when you asked if he'll
ever get bored with this topic, while completely failing to say
ANYTHING to Ricky or Doc about their unfair attacks on him. I don't
blame Barbarossa for responding to every single post written on the
topic by Ricky and Doc. You started it, Ricky and Doc jumped all over
it, and Barbarossa has been responding to it ever since. And your
first instinct is to blame Barbarossa. But then you have no
principles. If you did, you'd have directed your question to Ricky and
Doc.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Who are you, anyway? His keeper?
Unlike some people, I don't stand by silently while someone is being
unfairly attacked. I'm this way in my real life, too. Whenever I see
*bullies* going after someone, I'll step in and do something about it,
whether you like it or not.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when I
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc.  
One wonders why you bother to read it, since you aren't directly
involved (except inasmuch as you can find things to accuse me of).
I haven't *accused* you of anything. I've stated the actual fact that
you starting this, and then ran away from it because you're an
unprincipled coward. If you had a shred of principles, you'd tell Doc
and Ricky they're wrong. If I was doing to someone what they're doing
to Barbarossa, you'd have no problem telling me I was wrong, would you
you unprincipled coward? You'd also tell me I'm a prude (which you've
done numerous times, but you can't bring yourself to say that to Ricky
and Doc).
Remember back when you and Ricky were battling John and Randy?
Remember how I stayed out of it (which pissed you off to no end)?
Except you didn't stay out of it. You made it clear that there was no
difference between the people doing the attacking, and the people
responding to the attacks.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Same deal here.
Yes, I know. In fact, you've actually said something to the person
being attacked, while you had nothing to say to the people doing the
attacking.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
'Right' and 'wrong' is subjective, depending which side of
the fence you are on.
I discovered which side of the fence you're on, which is why I ended
the "friendship", such as it was.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
I don't choose sides.
Which is why I'm glad I was never your "friend" in real life. Who
needs friends like that?
ricky coleclough
2011-06-11 16:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Which is why I'm glad I was never your "friend" in real life. Who
needs friends like that
Nor do I when I answer a question you posed regarding CO2, and I
answered it with a....thought provoking reply.

Perhaps you didn't really want to know after all? Mind, after the
formulae, you will then have to dig deeply into bio records for the
sea

CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O ⇌ Ca2+ + 2 HCO−3

Werewolfy
Jane
2011-06-11 22:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when you finally did say something, you
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks.
I didn't 'blame' anyone.
Yes, you did actually. You singled him out when you asked if he'll
ever get bored with this topic, while completely failing to say
ANYTHING to Ricky or Doc about their unfair attacks on him. I don't
blame Barbarossa for responding to every single post written on the
topic by Ricky and Doc. You started it, Ricky and Doc jumped all over
it, and Barbarossa has been responding to it ever since. And your
first instinct is to blame Barbarossa. But then you have no
principles. If you did, you'd have directed your question to Ricky and
Doc.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Who are you, anyway? His keeper?
Unlike some people, I don't stand by silently while someone is being
unfairly attacked. I'm this way in my real life, too. Whenever I see
*bullies* going after someone, I'll step in and do something about it,
whether you like it or not.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when I
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc.  
One wonders why you bother to read it, since you aren't directly
involved (except inasmuch as you can find things to accuse me of).
I haven't *accused* you of anything. I've stated the actual fact that
you starting this, and then ran away from it because you're an
unprincipled coward. If you had a shred of principles, you'd tell Doc
and Ricky they're wrong. If I was doing to someone what they're doing
to Barbarossa, you'd have no problem telling me I was wrong, would you
you unprincipled coward? You'd also tell me I'm a prude (which you've
done numerous times, but you can't bring yourself to say that to Ricky
and Doc).
Remember back when you and Ricky were battling John and Randy?
Remember how I stayed out of it (which pissed you off to no end)?
Except you didn't stay out of it. You made it clear that there was no
difference between the people doing the attacking, and the people
responding to the attacks.
There wasn't. I was friends with all four people involved in that one
and I didn't see anyone who was innocent.

I do stand up for anyone who is unfairly attacked on the rare
occasions that it happens here (most give as good as they get, so I
stay out of it). I stood up for Susan when Tony made cracks about her
weight.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Same deal here.
Yes, I know. In fact, you've actually said something to the person
being attacked, while you had nothing to say to the people doing the
attacking.
Asking someone if they are bored yet is hardly the same as chastising
them! Anyway, that person and I get along just fine, so what's it to
you?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
'Right' and 'wrong' is subjective, depending which side of
the fence you are on.
I discovered which side of the fence you're on, which is why I ended
the "friendship", such as it was.
There was no friendship.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
I don't choose sides.
Which is why I'm glad I was never your "friend" in real life. Who
needs friends like that?
I'm equally glad. Who needs a real-life stalker?
Steven Douglas
2011-06-12 01:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when you finally did say something, you
blamed Barbarossa for responding to the unfair attacks.
I didn't 'blame' anyone.
Yes, you did actually. You singled him out when you asked if he'll
ever get bored with this topic, while completely failing to say
ANYTHING to Ricky or Doc about their unfair attacks on him. I don't
blame Barbarossa for responding to every single post written on the
topic by Ricky and Doc. You started it, Ricky and Doc jumped all over
it, and Barbarossa has been responding to it ever since. And your
first instinct is to blame Barbarossa. But then you have no
principles. If you did, you'd have directed your question to Ricky and
Doc.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Who are you, anyway? His keeper?
Unlike some people, I don't stand by silently while someone is being
unfairly attacked. I'm this way in my real life, too. Whenever I see
*bullies* going after someone, I'll step in and do something about it,
whether you like it or not.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Then, when I
repeated *once* something Doc had said dozens of times, you said
something about "jollies" to me, but not to Doc.  
One wonders why you bother to read it, since you aren't directly
involved (except inasmuch as you can find things to accuse me of).
I haven't *accused* you of anything. I've stated the actual fact that
you starting this, and then ran away from it because you're an
unprincipled coward. If you had a shred of principles, you'd tell Doc
and Ricky they're wrong. If I was doing to someone what they're doing
to Barbarossa, you'd have no problem telling me I was wrong, would you
you unprincipled coward? You'd also tell me I'm a prude (which you've
done numerous times, but you can't bring yourself to say that to Ricky
and Doc).
Remember back when you and Ricky were battling John and Randy?
Remember how I stayed out of it (which pissed you off to no end)?
Except you didn't stay out of it. You made it clear that there was no
difference between the people doing the attacking, and the people
responding to the attacks.
There wasn't. I was friends with all four people involved in that one
and I didn't see anyone who was innocent.
Really? So when Ricky and I were unfairly accused of playing some
"Danielle game" that neither of us knew anything about, and all we did
was ask John to explain what he meant and he refused, you can't see
that John started it and all Ricky and I did was *respond* to
something John started? I STILL don't know what John was talking
about, and he crawled away like a little coward and never explained
what he meant by it.
Post by Jane
I do stand up for anyone who is unfairly attacked on the rare
occasions that it happens here (most give as good as they get, so I
stay out of it). I stood up for Susan when Tony made cracks about her
weight.
Yes, and then Tony called you a fair weather friend, and you backed
down in a thread you titled, "To Tony":

[quoting Jane] "I'm going, but I first wanted to apologize for jumping
on you over the fat
comment. You were right, I was acting like a "fair weather friend"
and I am
sorry."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/6a53e33ac9d10e5b?hl=en

Did you think I wouldn't remember that part? Don't forget I have every
post ever made here in my own personal archives, ready to pull out at
a moment's notice. I should have seen right then that you have no
principles. Either you should have stood your ground with Tony, or you
should never have jumped on Tony in the first place. But leave it to
you to be blowing with the breeze when it comes to displaying your
lack of principles.
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Same deal here.
Yes, I know. In fact, you've actually said something to the person
being attacked, while you had nothing to say to the people doing the
attacking.
Asking someone if they are bored yet is hardly the same as chastising
them!
But you didn't ask Doc or Ricky if they were getting bored, did you?
They're the ones who took the topic *you* reintroduced to the group,
and blew it up into what it's become here. Why didn't you ask them,
but instead asked the guy who was being unfairly attacked?
Post by Jane
Anyway, that person and I get along just fine, so what's it to
you?
That's not the point, and I'm glad you're getting along with
Barbarossa. I hope the two of you become the best of friends, and you
finally ask Ricky and Doc if they're getting bored with that topic.
But you won't, because you have no principles.
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
'Right' and 'wrong' is subjective, depending which side of
the fence you are on.
I discovered which side of the fence you're on, which is why I ended
the "friendship", such as it was.
There was no friendship.
You've got that right.
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
I don't choose sides.
Which is why I'm glad I was never your "friend" in real life. Who
needs friends like that?
I'm equally glad. Who needs a real-life stalker?
As I said previously, I am no more stalking you than you were stalking
me all those months I was asking you for a truce. Notice when you
unilaterally decided you would no longer respond to me, you didn't ask
for a truce? I asked you for a truce for many months, but you told me
that was off the table.
Jane
2011-06-12 03:25:01 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 11, 9:46 pm, Steven Douglas <***@mail.com> wrote:
< a whole lot of crap>

No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.

Bye.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-12 03:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
Post by Jane
Bye.
Jane
2011-06-12 12:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Bye.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-12 19:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Jane
2011-06-12 19:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Very little of what you say about me is factual...including that long--
winded, boring and oh-so-childish post.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-12 22:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Very little of what you say about me is factual...
What is undeniably factual is that you lied when you said you stood up
for Susan.
Post by Jane
including that long--
winded, boring and oh-so-childish post.
What else can you say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out?
Jane
2011-06-12 22:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Very little of what you say about me is factual...
What is undeniably factual is that you lied when you said you stood up
for Susan.
Post by Jane
including that long--
winded, boring and oh-so-childish post.
What else can you say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out?
That's where your rich imagination comes in. You have yet to back me
into a corner.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-13 00:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Very little of what you say about me is factual...
What is undeniably factual is that you lied when you said you stood up
for Susan.
Post by Jane
including that long--
winded, boring and oh-so-childish post.
What else can you say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out?
That's where your rich imagination comes in. You have yet to back me
into a corner.
Well, I asked, "What else can you say ...", and that's definitely
another thing you can say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out. What is a fact is that you've had nothing to say
about your *lie* that you stood up for Susan.
Jane
2011-06-13 00:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Very little of what you say about me is factual...
What is undeniably factual is that you lied when you said you stood up
for Susan.
Post by Jane
including that long--
winded, boring and oh-so-childish post.
What else can you say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out?
That's where your rich imagination comes in. You have yet to back me
into a corner.
Well, I asked, "What else can you say ...", and that's definitely
another thing you can say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out. What is a fact is that you've had nothing to say
about your *lie* that you stood up for Susan.
What is a fact is that I said I am not going to get into long drawn
out mind-numbingly boring threads with you anymore. I could say plenty
more, but I chose not to. In fact, this is my last post in this
thread. I know how incredibly important it is for you to have the last
word, so go for it.

Add another pathetic tiny triumph trophy to your collection.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-13 00:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
< a whole lot of crap>
Actually, everything I wrote was factual and accurate, complete with a
link to your post disproving your lie that you stood up for Susan. The
moment Tony called you a fair weather friend, you crumpled like a
cooked noodle and apologized to Tony while effectively abandoning your
"standing up" for Susan. How did I not realize you had no principles
even then?
Post by Jane
No, Steven, I am not doing this again. No responses to long-winded,
childish, multi-part posts.
I was just responding to your long-winded, childish, multi-part post.
But what else are you going to say when you're backed into a corner
and can't figure a way out?
You have a rich fantasy life, I've noticed.
The fantasy was yours when you said you stood up for Susan. Everything
I said was factual and accurate.
Very little of what you say about me is factual...
What is undeniably factual is that you lied when you said you stood up
for Susan.
Post by Jane
including that long--
winded, boring and oh-so-childish post.
What else can you say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out?
That's where your rich imagination comes in. You have yet to back me
into a corner.
Well, I asked, "What else can you say ...", and that's definitely
another thing you can say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out. What is a fact is that you've had nothing to say
about your *lie* that you stood up for Susan.
What is a fact is that I said I am not going to get into long drawn
out mind-numbingly boring threads with you anymore.
Yes, that's what you say when you're backed into a corner and can't
figure a way out.
Post by Jane
I could say plenty more, but I chose not to.
You chose not to because you're backed into a corner and can't figure
a way out.
Post by Jane
In fact, this is my last post in this
thread. I know how incredibly important it is for you to have the last
word, so go for it.
It's just so ironic that it's important to you to have the last word,
too, yet you criticize me for it. Why do you have one standard for
yourself, and an entirely different one for me?
Post by Jane
Add another pathetic tiny triumph trophy to your collection.
Just a couple of weeks ago you were reveling in your own little
supposed "trophy", as you loved your own words SO much, you posted
them again. Yet you write what you wrote just above to me, as if
you've never done that. Seriously, why do you have one standard for
yourself, and an entirely different one for me?
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-09 13:54:51 UTC
Permalink
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 00:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
Barbarossa
2011-06-10 00:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
Good point. If CO2 was the main cause of global warming and more and
more CO2 gets in the atmosphere every year one would expect every year
to be a record. Since that is not the case CO2 cannot be the main cause
of global warming.
--
Groetjes,
Barbarossa
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 00:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
Good point. If CO2 was the main cause of global warming and more and
more CO2 gets in the atmosphere every year one would expect every year
to be a record. Since that is not the case CO2 cannot be the main cause
of global warming.
I'm hoping Jane the Omnipotent can explain it. She's a science expert,
you know.
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 01:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
*One* event (a June snowfall in Hawaii) is an indication of *nothing*.
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 02:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
*One* event (a June snowfall in Hawaii) is an indication of *nothing*.
Well, actually it's an indication that it's colder than it's been
there since 1973.

[excerpt] The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the
Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were
negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World
War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend.
Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating
global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each
direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild
global cooling for the next two decades. [end excerpt]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 03:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
*One* event (a June snowfall in Hawaii) is an indication of *nothing*.
Well, actually it's an indication that it's colder than it's been
there since 1973.
One event indicates nothing.
Post by Steven Douglas
[excerpt] The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the
Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were
negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World
War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend.
Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating
global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each
direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild
global cooling for the next two decades. [end excerpt]
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 03:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
*One* event (a June snowfall in Hawaii) is an indication of *nothing*.
Well, actually it's an indication that it's colder than it's been
there since 1973.
One event indicates nothing.
By itself, you're right. But take into consideration that 1998 was the
hottest year on record, and every year since has been cooler than
1998. Then read the following excerpt, written by a scientist. Then
grow up.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
[excerpt] The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the
Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were
negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World
War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend.
Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating
global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each
direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild
global cooling for the next two decades. [end excerpt]
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Jane the Omnipotent
2011-06-10 03:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
*One* event (a June snowfall in Hawaii) is an indication of *nothing*.
Well, actually it's an indication that it's colder than it's been
there since 1973.
One event indicates nothing.
By itself, you're right.
Finally! That's all was saying since the first post, but, naturally,
you had to turn it into a debate for the sake of it.

But take into consideration that 1998 was the
Post by Steven Douglas
hottest year on record, and every year since has been cooler than
1998. Then read the following excerpt, written by a scientist. Then
grow up.
I read plenty on the subject, but thanks, anyway.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
[excerpt] The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the
Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were
negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World
War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend.
Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating
global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each
direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild
global cooling for the next two decades. [end excerpt]
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 03:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
PS. There is a preponderance of evidence that the climate is changing
Yes, it's always changing. So what?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
BUT trying to use one event as 'proof' is where you screw up.
Where did I say anything is proof? It is an indication of a possible
cooling trend, as happened between 1940 and 1977. The fact 1998 was
the hottest year we've had, and every year since has been cooler than
1998 also gives indication that we may be entering a period of
cooling.
*One* event (a June snowfall in Hawaii) is an indication of *nothing*.
Well, actually it's an indication that it's colder than it's been
there since 1973.
One event indicates nothing.
By itself, you're right.
Finally! That's all was saying since the first post,
I did not say anything about *one* event proving anything. You made
that up.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
but, naturally,
you had to turn it into a debate for the sake of it.
No, the snow in Hawaii in June is an indication of cooling. It's one
of several indications of cooling, as I've been saying all along.
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
But take into consideration that 1998 was the
hottest year on record, and every year since has been cooler than
1998. Then read the following excerpt, written by a scientist. Then
grow up.
I read plenty on the subject, but thanks, anyway.
Then why are you arguing with me? Just for the hell of it?
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
Post by Steven Douglas
[excerpt] The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the
Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were
negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World
War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend.
Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating
global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each
direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild
global cooling for the next two decades. [end excerpt]
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Barbarossa
2011-06-10 00:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for – nay,
demands – global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
“Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change,” Friedman wrote. “But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs…”
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
Very lucrative CO2 trading. Comes from Al Gore directly.
--
Groetjes,
Barbarossa
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 00:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for nay,
demands global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
Yes, this bill s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change, Friedman wrote. But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
Very lucrative CO2 trading. Comes from Al Gore directly.
Yes, I'm aware of that. He's been pretty quiet lately. What I'd like
some expert on science to tell me is why we had a period of cooling
from 1940 to 1977, a period of time when worldwide CO2 emissions were
increasing?
Barbarossa
2011-06-10 00:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for nay,
demands global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
Yes, this bill s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change, Friedman wrote. But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
Very lucrative CO2 trading. Comes from Al Gore directly.
Yes, I'm aware of that. He's been pretty quiet lately. What I'd like
some expert on science to tell me is why we had a period of cooling
from 1940 to 1977, a period of time when worldwide CO2 emissions were
increasing?
Filthy industry causing a lot of aerosols in the atmosphere causing a
dimming effect on sunshine, more clouds and more rain/snow/fog.
Especially since the the beginning of the 80s our air is less polluted,
cleaner industry, no substantial vulcanic activities. So less aerosols,
more sunlight reaching the earthsurface, less clouds (aerosols are
essential when it comes to watervapo(u)r condensation to
clouds-rain-snow), less clouds/rain/snow/fog means more sunlight and
lower albedo. And the sun was relatively more active the last few decades.
--
Groetjes,
Barbarossa
Steven Douglas
2011-06-10 00:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Jane the Omnipotent
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
[quoting] New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls for nay,
demands global warming laws that would require your next house to be
green.
Yes, this bill s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we
need to mitigate climate change, Friedman wrote. But it also
contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming
energy hogs
As we reported on February 3, Friedman married into a very wealthy
family and lives in an 11,000 sq ft mansion on a 7.5 acre estate in
Bethesda, Maryland. It was valued at nearly $10,000,000 before the
real estate crash.
As you can see in the aerial photo of the Friedman estate, his garage
is larger than your house. You know, his garage. Where he keeps his
fleet of green cars.
Yeah, right. [end quote]
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-green
Very lucrative CO2 trading. Comes from Al Gore directly.
Yes, I'm aware of that. He's been pretty quiet lately. What I'd like
some expert on science to tell me is why we had a period of cooling
from 1940 to 1977, a period of time when worldwide CO2 emissions were
increasing?
Filthy industry causing a lot of aerosols in the atmosphere causing a
dimming effect on sunshine, more clouds and more rain/snow/fog.
But if CO2 is the culprit for global warming, we still should have had
uninterrupted global warming during those decades.
Post by Barbarossa
Especially since the the beginning of the 80s our air is less polluted,
cleaner industry, no substantial vulcanic activities. So less aerosols,
more sunlight reaching the earthsurface, less clouds (aerosols are
essential when it comes to watervapo(u)r condensation to
clouds-rain-snow), less clouds/rain/snow/fog means more sunlight and
lower albedo.
If this is true, it means cleaning up the atmosphere has led to global
warming.
Post by Barbarossa
And the sun was relatively more active the last few decades.
Yes, I've heard Mars has also experienced global warming during the
last few decades.
ricky coleclough
2011-06-10 00:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Yes, I'm aware of that. He's been pretty quiet lately. What I'd like
some expert on science to tell me is why we had a period of cooling
from 1940 to 1977, a period of time when worldwide CO2 emissions were
increasing
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O ⇌ Ca2+ + 2 HCO−3

Does this help, Steven? Clue; examine oceanic activity.

Werewolfy
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...