LOL, here we go with the "I've got LB on ignore" pantomime again. What a sad little man, weighing 350 pounds, no less.
Knock Out Punches!
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Obviously not a very good one. :lipsrsealed:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Nope.
Commercial disputes/trial lawyer for a very large power transmission and distribution company (we serve all types of generators and utilities).
You're moving closer to category 1 stupidity with statements like that about CO2 though.
Hint: the atmosphere of Venus is.......
Commercial disputes/trial lawyer for a very large power transmission and distribution company (we serve all types of generators and utilities).
You're moving closer to category 1 stupidity with statements like that about CO2 though.
Hint: the atmosphere of Venus is.......
And every time I have a go at you Bob, they jump straight in kissing my arse. Yet they just cannot stand anyone agreeing with any of your views. They just hate it so much I can almost touch it.
Fact is, I don't expect anyone to give a damn about me or my posts. I get labelled right wing, or is it left? I get confused you see, because I stand firmly in the middle. I actually don't know what views are left-wing and which are right-wing. I simply state mine.
It seems as though to question is to be damned. To differ is to be ridiculed. Shame.
Thank you Jeff. I remember you telling me that before. So I am kind of right then, considering the enrgy companies do benefit from the GW scam.
BTW, Venus has absolutley nothing in common with the Earth, other than it is round, floating in space and circling the Sun.
Hint: Stick to what you know.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Venus is often referred to as Earth's twin.
You might want to dig a little deeper on that one.
Energy companies both benefit and suffer from attempts to mitigate GW. Just like most everyone else.
I didn't peg you for conspiracy/scam guy? Doubting the science is one thing, believing in the global worldwide conspiracy of all climate scientists and governments to steal white people's money and give it to brown folks is a bit extreme don't you think?
You might want to dig a little deeper on that one.
Energy companies both benefit and suffer from attempts to mitigate GW. Just like most everyone else.
I didn't peg you for conspiracy/scam guy? Doubting the science is one thing, believing in the global worldwide conspiracy of all climate scientists and governments to steal white people's money and give it to brown folks is a bit extreme don't you think?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
P.S.: You can start here with your homework assignment on Venus:
Venus is classified as a terrestrial planet and is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet" owing to their similar size, gravity, and bulk composition (Venus is both the closest planet to Earth and the planet closest in size to Earth). It is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light. Venus has the densest atmosphere of the four terrestrial planets, consisting mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 92 times that of Earth's. With a mean surface temperature of 735 K, Venus is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. It has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor does it seem to have any organic life to absorb it in biomass. Venus is believed to have previously possessed oceans,[14] but these vaporized as the temperature rose due to the runaway greenhouse effect.
You may want to rethink whether unchecked CO2 emissions are a good idea or not.
Venus is classified as a terrestrial planet and is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet" owing to their similar size, gravity, and bulk composition (Venus is both the closest planet to Earth and the planet closest in size to Earth). It is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light. Venus has the densest atmosphere of the four terrestrial planets, consisting mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 92 times that of Earth's. With a mean surface temperature of 735 K, Venus is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. It has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor does it seem to have any organic life to absorb it in biomass. Venus is believed to have previously possessed oceans,[14] but these vaporized as the temperature rose due to the runaway greenhouse effect.
You may want to rethink whether unchecked CO2 emissions are a good idea or not.
Firstly I would like to thank you Jeff where you state that you didn't peg me as a conspiracy guy.
However, I am saddened that you use the fact that scientists studying the cosmos refer to Venus as Earths' twin to reinforce the pro man made GW claims.
Surely you must agree that such scientists themselves, only consider any theory at any time to be the best guess at the time? What do we do when the next theory comes along? Ask for a tax refund? Good luck with that Mr. tax payer!
I suppose you must think that venus lost it's atmosphere due to all the trucks, cars and burger joints it once had? Really? All I can say, is that if I were in court, I would hope my counsel had better arguements than that!
However, I am saddened that you use the fact that scientists studying the cosmos refer to Venus as Earths' twin to reinforce the pro man made GW claims.
Surely you must agree that such scientists themselves, only consider any theory at any time to be the best guess at the time? What do we do when the next theory comes along? Ask for a tax refund? Good luck with that Mr. tax payer!
I suppose you must think that venus lost it's atmosphere due to all the trucks, cars and burger joints it once had? Really? All I can say, is that if I were in court, I would hope my counsel had better arguements than that!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Venus lost its atmosphere? Ok, anti-ignorance lawyer to the rescue!
Venus has TOO MUCH atmosphere. Incredible atmospheric pressures.
Astronomers tend to think that Venus may have been much more like Earth early on, with liquid oceans of water. Those were lost as CO2 built up in the atmosphere with no means to lock it back into rocks, or in biomass like we have on Earth.
Venus is an example of what can happend with a runaway greenhouse effect. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere and you can tip the scale to a runaway overheating effect.
I do have to say, I'm certainly no expert on climatology but the ignorance of basic scientific fact on the "anti-" Global Warming side is often stunning.
Venus has TOO MUCH atmosphere. Incredible atmospheric pressures.
Astronomers tend to think that Venus may have been much more like Earth early on, with liquid oceans of water. Those were lost as CO2 built up in the atmosphere with no means to lock it back into rocks, or in biomass like we have on Earth.
Venus is an example of what can happend with a runaway greenhouse effect. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere and you can tip the scale to a runaway overheating effect.
I do have to say, I'm certainly no expert on climatology but the ignorance of basic scientific fact on the "anti-" Global Warming side is often stunning.
Hi peeps, not sure if this is the right thread, but I found this report quite interesting. (Why have we now got 2 climate threads?)
I have no view on it really because I have no idea who the writer is or how much he knows, but some of the editorial does resonate a tad.
BBC News - What happened to America's community spirit?
I have no view on it really because I have no idea who the writer is or how much he knows, but some of the editorial does resonate a tad.
BBC News - What happened to America's community spirit?
Responding to Jeff before considering keith's post.
Jeff. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
Screw Venus. If Venus is Earth's twin, show me the bodies? Fossilsed relics of life. That is just one theory used to support another theory. Earth's twin for cosmic comparison purposses maybe. As a life supporting entity? DO ME A FAVOUR!
Such uttter rubbish is not worth the reply I had typed prior to this edit!
All I ask is that before I am taxed on something, I would like it to be accepted truth and fact. Then tax away dear boy. Tax away.
Jeff. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?
Screw Venus. If Venus is Earth's twin, show me the bodies? Fossilsed relics of life. That is just one theory used to support another theory. Earth's twin for cosmic comparison purposses maybe. As a life supporting entity? DO ME A FAVOUR!
Such uttter rubbish is not worth the reply I had typed prior to this edit!
All I ask is that before I am taxed on something, I would like it to be accepted truth and fact. Then tax away dear boy. Tax away.
Last edited:
Further proof that Conservatives are more generous with charity than liberals. At least with their own money they are.
The release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns shows that he freely gave away more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income). In comparison, when Joe Biden was first running for vice president, his tax returns showed that he had given away just $3,690 to charity over the previous ten years (about 0.2 percent of his income). In other words, Romney gave away a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade.
Romney Gave 1,000 Times as Much to Charity in a Year as Biden Gave in a Decade | The Weekly Standard
The release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns shows that he freely gave away more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income). In comparison, when Joe Biden was first running for vice president, his tax returns showed that he had given away just $3,690 to charity over the previous ten years (about 0.2 percent of his income). In other words, Romney gave away a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade.
Romney Gave 1,000 Times as Much to Charity in a Year as Biden Gave in a Decade | The Weekly Standard
Pat
Supporter
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Veek, Mark
I see what you mean......................
This is kind of like the Iraq war, we were told that we invaded Iraq in order to take away Sadam Husan's weapons of mass destruction.
Even though their existence was not as you say: "to be accepted truth and fact".
In fact not only were there were no weapons of mass destruction, it turns out that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest kept from us, ignored and even destroyed any and all evidence to the contrary.
Yet we have been taxed and will continue to be taxed Billions and Billions of dollars and well over 100,000 people have died.
If you guys want to complain about being taxed for something not proven or fact.............................
We are all still being taxed and people are still dying, why are you not posting outrage over this?
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.
"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998
"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.
Bush should never have listened to those Democrats!
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.
"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998
"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.
Bush should never have listened to those Democrats!
My replies to above quote are in BOLD
Mark, please do not quote that deluded rambling idiot in your replies as then I get to see his rubbish.
I do not believe that he actually writes ALL of his own posts. I have never known a dyslexic write a perfectly constructed and spelled piece one minute and a complete grammatical and spelling nightmare the next, unless they were either a heavy drinker, they didn't write it in the first place, or all of the above.
It would be nice (and polite) to know exactly who you were talking to.
I do not believe that he actually writes ALL of his own posts. I have never known a dyslexic write a perfectly constructed and spelled piece one minute and a complete grammatical and spelling nightmare the next, unless they were either a heavy drinker, they didn't write it in the first place, or all of the above.
It would be nice (and polite) to know exactly who you were talking to.
