Re: T'was bad month for Global Warminists

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 8:46 am

As always you show just how ignorant that you are SamCoger. Why do you think there are laws now being passed against cyber-bullying? And why do you think that a woman from Missouri has now been indicted for FELONIES in cyber crimes? I will be interested in your usual two bit full of garbage totally erroneous explanation to things you show repeatedly that you have no comprehension of whatsoever. All these news laws are for people just like you. Because before you would do this to somone in person you'd run for it. Because in reality you are a coward. That is what bullies are cowards. And you fit the profile to a T. And Sam do you think for some reason that maybe available font sizes, colors, ect. perhaps were meant for projects online, business websites huh. Anything can be misused from its intent. That argument shows just what a twit you really are.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 9:03 am

Oh and that 40 year warming period of yours Aaron so loves to quote . I'm doing some research. Right now it says ocean temperature. Not surface, or air, or overall planetary temperature. Time to start picking apart all these little "supposed" brilliant sciencific arguments of yours and seeing what they really say. One at a time.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 9:11 am

Oh and Sam you have been boring me to tears since day one. With your foolish ridiculous arguments that all fall in line with the right wingers and the American Petroleum Institute. You say other people don"t think for themselves but I go on other forums as well. And you sound exactly like every other extremist right winger that I have across. If i interchanged your name with some of theirs no one could tell the difference. (Except those like my friend) There is not one original thought in any thing that you write and you are the sheep you tell other people that they The number of entries that sound just like you (except most of them have space limits) And no oversized fonts either. Why the number is very huge and increasing daily I am sure.

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 9:53 am

lindaredtail wrote:It seems to me Aaron that you talk about other people taking the party line. What is it you are doing? Reading the Gospel of Sam? That is definately how it appears.

And Sam keeps saying bolts from crossbows. What about arrows? How many different size bolts? Back to the research. Do you do any or do you just follow Sam?

AAAAWWWWW ..... Linda Lou, ........ you creditability is approaching that of whale feces.

And no one pays any attention to whale feces ...... because it is all at the bottom of the ocean.

Now Linda Lou, here immediately following is a url reference to Medieval Terms.

http://www.renaissancemagazine.com/glossary/glossaryb.html

Did you see it Linda, it is in blue font with an "http://" as the first characters ... and if you place your cursor on said, the cursor "arrow" will change to a "finger pointing hand". Linda, that "finger pointing hand" isa telling you "this is an Internet link to a Web site", ...... which mean iffen you "click" your mouse button it will magically download information from said Web site.

Now Linda Lou, here immediately following is a "hyper text" url reference to the same Medieval Terms site.

Medieval Terms

Do you see it Linda. Now, I included bold type and underline so ya wouldn't miss it. And Linda, it acts the same as the way I described the one above it, OK.

And Linda, iffen you click on either one of them, a list of Medieval Terms will magically appear, ....... and then if you look down said list you will find this entry for bolts, OK. To wit:

BOLTS, CROSSBOW: Shortened arrows used in arbalests; small stocky missiles know for being capable of incredible penetration.

Linda, the projectile fired via a crossbow is called a "bolt", ..... not an "arrow", ..... kapish, ....... understand.

And Linda baby, in that you asked, ...... "How many different size bolts?", ......... I have wasted more of my valuable time to provide another reference to answer your question because I damn well know you wouldn't believe a f'ing word I said ....... because you are an ... an .... a typical "Sexual Harassment Female" who will deviously and dishonestly accuse any male that pisses you off ...... with any type or form of misdeed that you can think up. Your emotional state overrides any possibility of any logical or reasonable thoughts.

And here is that reference, to wit:

http://www.crossbows-bolts.com/crossbow-bolts.php

.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 10:04 am

Sam sometimes you should watch what you ask for. www.newsmax.com/insidecover/polar_bear_inhofe/2008/05/15/96302.html I'm sure Sam that you know who Mr. Inhofe is. One of those Republican darlings. Well very recently he had something to say which answers your question and quite tidily too. You see he doesn't support GW nor any of the data either just like you. He opposed the idea of the polar bear being put on the endangered species list. He listed why he believes that the polar bear has done so well these last 40 years and I quote. Inhofe said "that the credit for the INCREASE IN NUMBERS should be given to protection already provided to the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties, including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of the Polar Bears, and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006 as well as conservation, education and outreach agreements with native peoples." That from a staunch conservative. Sounds like he is saying Sam that it isn't a natural phenomenon due to rising temperatures. ALL THOSE THINGS HE LISTED ARE GOVERNMENTS ,PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES IN OTHER WORDS PEOPLE WHO HAVE HELPED THE POLAR BEAR INCREASE IN NUMBERS. Now I'll be waiting for the false rationalizations, the verbal dance, the attempt at a snow job, the bully pulpit as you try to get around this one.
flower

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 10:05 am

Oh Sam and that last one. What a ludicrous gathering of bull.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 10:10 am

Oh and Sammy, I think me in my most emotional state (or so you think) just blew your argument out of the water. (I like that pun) Actually though as a stable minded person I know when the credit really doesn't belong to me. My thanks belong to Mr. Inhofe. Round of applause.
bounce

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 10:38 am

Oh by the way Sammy. You made my point. This is not a media outlet. This is a forum where people give their views. Media outlets use advertising in an attempt to dominate a particular marketplace. Bold advertising, ect. That is why they do it. To MONOPOLIZE THE MARKETPLACE.

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 11:07 am

lindaredtail wrote:Oh and that 40 year warming period of yours Aaron so loves to quote . I'm doing some research. Right now it says ocean temperature. Not surface, or air, or overall planetary temperature. Time to start picking apart all these little "supposed" brilliant sciencific arguments of yours and seeing what they really say. One at a time.

Linda, .... first, .... lets correct your misnomer in the above so that it does not create another problem later on.

There was no reference to a "40 year warming period". It was "the reduction in thickness of Arctic sea ice over the past 40 years". The current "warming period" has been in progress for over 200 years.

Now Linda, before you do very much "researching" in a fruitless attempt to discredit and prove me wrong, ......... I strongly suggest that you go to the Web site that I exerted my referenced information from.

YES, THIS TIME ...go to that site I referenced and look/read it over carefully, ...... and then you can decide if you want to attempt to DISCREDIT all of the cited authorities noted in said paper, ....... because that is what you will have to do ..... to discredit me relative to the data I posted.

Linda, here following is said datum that I posted, .... including the url reference from whence said datum was obtained, to wit:

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, Rothrock et al presented compelling evidence of the reduction in thickness of Arctic sea ice over the past 40 years. Combining their data with data from another study on the extent of Arctic sea ice , it would appear that the total mass of sea ice has shrunk by up to 60% in the past 40 years.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Arctic_Ice/

Linda, the url reference to said datum is the last line in the above quote.

This time, ...... click on it ...... and read the paper ....... before you open your feminist Sexual Harassing mouth ....... in another sorid attempt to defame and/or discredit me.

It ain't gonna happen. You are way out of your league and would have greater success at attempting to "pee up a rope".

Linda, now you initiated "this game" ....... and I have been "playing by your rules", ..... but I am better at "the game" than you are. So, anytime you want to call a "timeout" I will honor it. But you had better do the same.

cheers

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 11:25 am

Sam you are not better at this at all. I noticed clearly that you ignored the comments by Mr. Inhofe. Of course you did. Even though he is a conservative icon his remarks clearly dispute what you have been posting. No I did not start this. You did. There will never be a "timeout" from me. See I follow the second philosophy I posted earlier. Confront the bully, not ignore him.

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 11:37 am

lindaredtail wrote:Sam sometimes you should watch what you ask for. www.newsmax.com/insidecover/polar_bear_inhofe/2008/05/15/96302.html I'm sure Sam that you know who Mr. Inhofe is. One of those Republican darlings. Well very recently he had something to say which answers your question and quite tidily too. You see he doesn't support GW nor any of the data either just like you. He opposed the idea of the polar bear being put on the endangered species list. He listed why he believes that the polar bear has done so well these last 40 years and I quote. Inhofe said "that the credit for the INCREASE IN NUMBERS should be given to protection already provided to the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties, including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of the Polar Bears, and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006 as well as conservation, education and outreach agreements with native peoples." That from a staunch conservative. Sounds like he is saying Sam that it isn't a natural phenomenon due to rising temperatures. ALL THOSE THINGS HE LISTED ARE GOVERNMENTS ,PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES IN OTHER WORDS PEOPLE WHO HAVE HELPED THE POLAR BEAR INCREASE IN NUMBERS. Now I'll be waiting for the false rationalizations, the verbal dance, the attempt at a snow job, the bully pulpit as you try to get around this one.

Linda, your above post only CONFIRMS my 2nd "conclusion" from the other thread, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The increase in bear population is directly proportional to the decrease in sea ice.

2. It is therefore lies and deception to claim polar bears are endangered due to ice melt.

cheers

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 11:39 am

lindaredtail wrote:Oh Sam and that last one. What a ludicrous gathering of bull.

Cut right to the quick, ......... did it. Razz

.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 11:43 am

I no longer have to work to discredit you. Mr. Inhofe did that for me. As a member of Congress (and a conservative opponent of GW) he has access more than likely to far more information than you. He credits the increase in the polar bear population to human intervention on their behalf as in my previous posted quotation from him. I also just saw a photo of hunters seal hunting with rifles. You see Sam I do not forget. This began as a disagreement about the seals coming to the polar bears and the reduction of ice and its importance to the survival of the polar bear. The points you made are not valid. Period. 1.The seals do not come to the polar bears.Seal oil has now become a big thing. Lots of work goes into processing pelts and only 3 companies do it now as well. I don't totally trust Wikipedia but its links are very good. For some the pelts don't matter any longer. Human comparison is not valid. 2. A major conservative icon says the increase is due to human intervention and not enviromental reasons. Your case that we began this with is erroneous. Period.

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 11:44 am

lindaredtail wrote:Oh and Sammy, I think me in my most emotional state (or so you think) just blew your argument out of the water. (I like that pun) Actually though as a stable minded person I know when the credit really doesn't belong to me. My thanks belong to Mr. Inhofe. Round of applause.

Does this mean you are finally "seeing the light" ....... and will be supporting and voting for McCain in November?

.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 11:50 am

My reasons for not voting for John McCain are numerous.

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 11:57 am

lindaredtail wrote:Oh by the way Sammy. You made my point. This is not a media outlet. This is a forum where people give their views. Media outlets use advertising in an attempt to dominate a particular marketplace. Bold advertising, ect. That is why they do it. To MONOPOLIZE THE MARKETPLACE.

OH, Linda Lulu, ........ you mean like this full page Ad in the New York Times, to wit:

T'was bad month for Global Warminists - Page 8 Petrae10

I think you are right Linda. Razz

.

by Aaron Sat May 17, 2008 12:00 pm

lindaredtail wrote:Sam you are not better at this at all. I noticed clearly that you ignored the comments by Mr. Inhofe.

It appears that you ignored them as well. Or didn't bother reading the entire article one.

At any rate, Mr. Inhofe certainly doesn’t back your point Linda. In fact, he disputes GW altogether and states the polar bear SHOULD NOT have been placed on the endangered species list based on unproven large scale models and based on testimony from a leading expert, William P. Horn, former assistant secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 1985-1988 (responsible for the ESA program) who also had experience serving on the Board of Environmental Sciences and Toxicology of the National Academy of Sciences (isn't this one of those government guys you place so much stock in Linda?), this act will hurt the very programs that you cited as reasons for the growth in polar bear population.

So if the polar bear population does decline over the next 10 to 20 years, how will we know if it’s due tpo GW or the damage created from placing them on this list?

Seems to me the decision to place the polar bears on the endangered species is nothing but a political decision, don't you agree Linda!!!

Turning to the decision to count polar bears as being among the endangered species Inhofe said “Today’s decision will have far-reaching consequences. Liberal special interests have employed hundreds of lawyers to try to convert current environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act into climate laws.

"Yet the ESA [Endangered Species Act] is simply not equipped to regulate economy-wide greenhouse gases, nor does the Fish and Wildlife Service have the expertise to be a pollution control agency. The regulatory tools of the ESA function best when at-risk species are faced with local, tangible threats.

"Greenhouse gas emissions are not local. The implications of today’s decision, therefore, will undoubtedly lead to a drastic increase in litigation and eager lawyers ready to use this listing to do exactly what they have intended to do all along — shut down energy production.”

Inhofe cited testimony of 'William P. Horn, former assistant secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 1985-1988 (responsible for the ESA program) who also had experience serving on the Board of Environmental Sciences and Toxicology of the National Academy of Sciences.

Horn told the Environment and Public Works Committee, “It would be a mistake to list the presently healthy and sustainable polar bear populations as a threatened species under the ESA.

"Such action will produce a variety of adverse consequences including 1. creating an ESA listing precedent that opens Pandora’s Box in the form of other unwarranted listings that will diminish resources available for bona fide wildlife conservation and recovery efforts; 2. setting the stage for new rounds of litigation and judicial activism to turn the ESA into a regulatory monster of unprecedented proportions, and 3. harming existing successful polar bear conservation and management programs."

According to Horn "A decision to list a presently healthy species — exhibiting no present trajectory toward endangerment — based on large scale hemispheric models forecasting problems 50 years in the future is a radical departure from the language of the ESA.

"It pushes the decision horizon far into the genuinely unseeable future, is predicated on uncertain intervening events where it is difficult if not impossible to tie those events directly to specific on-the-ground situations, and will likely precipitate the subsequent listing of an array of otherwise healthy species which might also be forecast to face problems a half century or more from now."

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 12:14 pm

lindaredtail wrote:Sam you are not better at this at all. I noticed clearly that you ignored the comments by Mr. Inhofe. Of course you did. Even though he is a conservative icon his remarks clearly dispute what you have been posting.

HORSEFEATHERS, he only done what politicians do best, ....... "give credit".

Still having reading problems aren't you Lulu. Get yourself a new pair of glasses.

No I did not start this. You did. There will never be a "timeout" from me. See I follow the second philosophy I posted earlier. Confront the bully, not ignore him.

Re-confirming the fact that you are a liar, right.

Lulu, if you don't tell a lie ........ then you won't have to un-lie it. Razz

.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 12:34 pm

I haven't told any lies number one and number 2 just as usual how easy it was to dismiss Mr. Inhofe. I already said I know that he doesn't believe in GW. Only a fool thinks that he was only giving credit. He was giving REASONS TO DISPUTE WHAT HE DISAGREES WITH. With which you are right that he disagrees with polar bears on the endangered species list. Doesn't agree with YOUR PREMISE that the increase in population is directly proportional to the decrease in ice. Because he is smart enough to know that winning the small argument trashes the larger argument . You however do not comprehend that. Not even a little bit. I have no problem reading Sammy. But you have a whole lot comprehending.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 1:02 pm

SamCoger today at 11:57 a.m. What does that post have to do do with anything. That is a group of people advertising in a newspaper. I have seen just as many from the conservative side. This is a forum. Not an advertising outlet. This is where people engage in dialogue. It is not the appropriate place for giant colored lettering or posts so long that they lose their point. It is as simple as that. It is about your desire and need to dominate and monopolize the forum and the people who post here. Especially those who do not agree with you. I would take a very good guess that the Science degree you talk about is in computer science which has nothing to do with the natural sciences such as biology, or chemistry or any of those things. You are far from the expert that you claim to be on any of these subjects. On animals Terry is far more knowledgeable than you because his degree is in natural sciences. My degree is in natural sciences as well. Computers are wonderous inventions. But they are an artificial enviroment. How many true science courses did you take?

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 1:08 pm

And the Mister Horn that you quote worked for Ronald Reagan. He also disputes the need to put the polar bear on the endangered species list. You are very quick to call liberal sources biased. What do you think he might be? His statements in no way advance your arguments. They are a part of Mr. Inhofe's attempt to deal with the polar bear issue without endangering his larger argument against GW. It in no way effects the ice melt argument.

by SamCogar Sat May 17, 2008 2:04 pm

lindaredtail wrote: On animals Terry is far more knowledgeable than you because his degree is in natural sciences. My degree is in natural sciences as well. Computers are wonderous inventions. But they are an artificial enviroment. How many true science courses did you take?

Linda , I earned an AB Degree from Glenville State College with a Major/Minor in Biological and Physical Science and had done quit my High School Teaching job and had been designing computers and related equipment SEVERAL YEARS ...... before they ever invented a Computer Science Degree.

And "YES", ...... computers are wonderous inventions.

I know, ..... because I helped DESIGN a few of them. cheers

Most probably I was working in Engineering and Manufacturing of mini-computers and POS terminals ......... even before the pee was running down your leg out of your diaper. Laughing

So now, tell us all about your natural science degree.

See if you can make me believe you actually have one. affraid

.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 2:10 pm

See Sam I don't believe for one second all that garbage. I don't owe you any justificatiion for my education whatsoever. The first computers were created in the early 1900's You are just the average computer geek and that is all you are. You should be singing the Scarecrow's Song from the Wizard of Oz if you believe that I would believe that you are some kind of computer genius. Becaise I don't. Oh and is it allowable in West Virginia for someone with an A.B. to teach High School? Most high school teachers here have Master's Degrees Not Associates.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 2:18 pm

I just came off of the Glenwille State College Website and an AB is an Associates of Arts in Business. I have a Bachelor of Art's in Psychology a year of pre-med school and a minor in religious studies. You mentioned a second degree. Computers I presume. How did you teach High School with that once again.

by lindaredtail Sat May 17, 2008 2:22 pm

Usual games Sammy Boy. Posting the same post in two places now? Getting a bit redundant aren't we?

by Sponsored content