In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

Billy wrote :

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

"Farm1" wrote :

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
Billy wrote :
When will it be safe for the farmers of Fukushima to resume their
livelihood, and grow non-toxic crops again?


Who was harmed by it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20707753
and
http://nipponnews.photoshelter.com/g...Matsumura-Livi
ng- in-Fukushima-Nuclear-Zone/G0000m1Fx8LsFjt8 and
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/08/d...-dried-meat-st
ick ing-around-the-bone-of-dead-cattle-12km-area/ and
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/fuku...ft-behind.html
and
https://www.facebook.com/20kmlife




How many people were killed by Fukishima, NOT the tsunami?

AND Fukishima was 1970's technology, Chernobyl was 1950's technology.

They now have safe clean nuclear that would even be safe in such
tsunami conditions.

http://www.planetarybillofrights.org...orAllTime.html

Just get the environazis out of the way.

Hey, as stated above we can't stop industry if they want to build
reactors, but don't expect tax-payers to pay their insurance. Let them
leak a few curies of radiation, and we'll have their villas. Put your
money where your mouth is, sweety.


As I stated, modern technology is safe and clean, and COULD be privately
profitable, IF the enviro-nazis could be taken off the backs of the
industry.

You don't seem to have very good reading comprehension, even for a sock
puppet character based on one of "novelist-philosopher", Ayn Rand's
fictional characters. Fiction is what Ayn Rand wrote. Her Objectivist
Movement lost all credibility when she dumped her married lover
Nathaniel Branden, when she discovered that he had taken another
mistress. Sounds a little subjective to me. But back to your reading
problem. There is no moratorium on building nuclear power plants.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co...es-T-Z/USA--Nu
clear-Power/#.UYftfoIZwnV
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is
expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2020, the first of those
resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24
new nuclear reactors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-A...ries_Indemnity
_Act
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the
Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957
and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues
for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States
before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the
nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents
while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The
Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first
approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described
in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a
Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility
liability or would be covered by the federal government.


http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html
The economic costs of Chernobyl? A variety of estimates from the 1990s
placed the costs over two decades at hundreds of billions of dollars.
These costs included direct damage, expenditures related to recovery and
mitigation, resettlement of people, social protection and health care
for the affected population, research on environment, health and the
production of clean food, radiation monitoring, as well as indirect
losses due to removing agricultural lands and forests from use and the
closing of agriculture and industrial facilities, and such additional
costs as cancellation of the nuclear power program in Belarus and the
additional costs of energy from the loss of power from Chernobyl.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost
Chernobyl disaster, 1986: $15 billion estimated cost of direct loss. It
is estimated that the damages could accumulate to ¤235 billion for
Ukraine and ¤201 billion for Belarus in the thirty years following the
accident.

2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, Japan: estimated more than $300
billion


------

So, we aren't talking about enviro-nazies (to use your crazed phrase).
We are talking about corporate entitlements, welfare queens, if you will.
You want the tax payers to pay for their own hanging rope.

There is no good reason to bring this up in a gardening group. Either
get your hands dirty, or hit the road.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

Billy wrote :

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

Wildbilly wrote :

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
Billy wrote :
When will it be safe for the farmers of Fukushima to resume their
livelihood, and grow non-toxic crops again?


Who was harmed by it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20707753
and
http://nipponnews.photoshelter.com/g...-Matsumura-Liv
ing -in-Fu kushima-Nuclear-Zone/G0000m1Fx8LsFjt8
and
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/08/d...e-dried-meat-s
tic king-a round-the-bone-of-dead-cattle-12km-area/
and
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/fuku...ft-behind.html
and
https://www.facebook.com/20kmlife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xabnoPsA9X4

Ah, the "No Nukes" movement from the 60's. How quaint.

Yet 21st century nuclear technology is completely safe, despite whiny
socialist propagandist enviro-nazis.

We have enough safe clean nuclear to cheaply power the whole world for
2 billion years.

http://www.planetarybillofrights.org...orAllTime.html

Blah, blah, blah. If nuclear energy was safe, the investors in nuclear
energy wouldn't require that government underwrite their insurance. Got
to put your money where your big, fat mouth is, sweety.


Like I just said, the industry has been regulated and harassed with
lawsuits by environazis, nearly out of existence, yet it STILL generates
20% of U.S. electricity and 70% in France, which is a socialist nation. Why
would socialists have it generating 70%? Don't they want to "save the
earth"? Oh, why they must think it safe and clean.

I don't have time to toilet train you.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co...es-T-Z/USA--Nu
clear-Power/#.UYf2BIIZwnX
The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for
more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.
The country's 104 nuclear reactors produced 821 billion kWh in 2011,
over 19% of total electrical output. There are now 103 units operable
and three under construction.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is
expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2020, the first of those
resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24
new nuclear reactors.

So, where are the enviro-nazis? Nuclear power plants are alive and well.
Your blather about enviro-nazis is just fiction, just like your loose
pants hero, Ayn Rand used to write (Nathaniel Branden).

The Feds, the "corporations big sugar daddy" will only pay for their
mistakes after they are in excess of $12.5 billion.

2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami (Fukushima), Japan: estimated more
than $300 billion

Chernobyl disaster, 1986: $15 billion estimated cost of direct loss. It
is estimated that the damages could accumulate to ¤235 billion for
Ukraine and ¤201 billion for Belarus in the thirty years following the
accident.

Like the man said, a hundred billion dollars here, and a hundred billion
dollars there, and soon your talking real money.


Now why don't you get back on that turnip cart that you obviously fell
off of, and go some where where people might be dumb enough to believe
your lies, some place like Elbonia.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Anonymous wrote:

"Farm1" wrote :

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jane Galt wrote:
How many people were killed by Fukishima, NOT the tsunami?

AND Fukishima was 1970's technology, Chernobyl was 1950's technology.

They now have safe clean nuclear that would even be safe in such
tsunami conditions.

http://www.planetarybillofrights.org...ForAllTime.htm
l

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power, having
carefully avoided defending your errors about climate change you shift
the topic. No surprise. But the content is actually much the same,
accusing your perceived opposition of bad faith and repeating chants
you like the sound of that you don't quite understand. No surprise.
Either your courage or your knowledge is insufficient to carry on a
responsive conversation, which is it?

The author of the nuclear diatribe is a Tea Bagger. 'Nuff said
methinks.

You're a tea bagger, a real one, who sucks balls for a living!

Sounds like one of the tx.guns posters.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

"Farm1" wrote :

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
Wildbilly wrote :

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
Billy wrote :
When will it be safe for the farmers of Fukushima to resume their
livelihood, and grow non-toxic crops again?


Who was harmed by it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20707753
and
http://nipponnews.photoshelter.com/g...Matsumura-Livi
ng -in-Fu kushima-Nuclear-Zone/G0000m1Fx8LsFjt8
and
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/08/d...-dried-meat-st
ic king-a round-the-bone-of-dead-cattle-12km-area/
and
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/fuku...ft-behind.html
and
https://www.facebook.com/20kmlife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xabnoPsA9X4

Ah, the "No Nukes" movement from the 60's. How quaint.

Yet 21st century nuclear technology is completely safe, despite whiny
socialist propagandist enviro-nazis.

If it's so safe then when are you offeing to store all those spent fuel
rods in your bedroom?

1950's technology, ass clown!



Here ya go. Now it shows its colors.

C-A-N Y-O-U R-E-A-D ?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co...s-T-Z/USA--Nuc
lear-Power/#.UYf7G4IZwnX

Nothing is stopping them, honey,
except they want" MO MONEY".

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

"Farm1" wrote :

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
"David Hare-Scott" wrote :

Jane Galt wrote:
How many people were killed by Fukishima, NOT the tsunami?

AND Fukishima was 1970's technology, Chernobyl was 1950's technology.

They now have safe clean nuclear that would even be safe in such
tsunami conditions.


http://www.planetarybillofrights.org...orAllTime.html

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power, having
carefully avoided defending your errors about climate change you shift
the topic. No surprise. But the content is actually much the same,
accusing your perceived opposition of bad faith and repeating chants
you
like the sound of that you don't quite understand. No surprise.
Either
your courage or your knowledge is insufficient to carry on a responsive
conversation, which is it?

David

So harsh on someone who doesn't have blind faith in your religions of
"Man
Made Global Warming" and "No Nukes".

Harsh? As opposed to your use of 'environazis'?




What else would we call people who think that man must be eradicated, to
"save the earth" and that humans are a blight on the ecosystem instead of
being part of it? Who want to tax people to death and into ruin, to make a
0.1 degree temperature difference in 100 years, when the real agenda is
global socialism and to eliminate human civilization?

Do you have a reputable, sane, authority who says that, or are you just
going to rattle on with your "BIG LIE"??


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co...es-T-Z/USA--Nu
clear-Power/#.UYf7G4IZwnX

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

Billy wrote :

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Jane Galt wrote:

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power,
having carefully avoided defending your errors about climate change
you shift the topic. No surprise. But the content is actually much
the same, accusing your perceived opposition of bad faith and
repeating chants you like the sound of that you don't quite
understand. No surprise. Either your courage or your knowledge is
insufficient to carry on a responsive conversation, which is it?

David

So harsh on someone who doesn't have blind faith in your religions of
"Man Made Global Warming" and "No Nukes".

On the contrary I care little for faith. I care much for evidence and
reasoning, you should give it a try. Let me start you off, here is
your post:

quote
Has nothing to do with the fact that government FUNDED weather
organizations were lying with their data, we may actually be entering a
period of global cooling, and the climate has been changing for
billions of years!

In fact there were periods in Europe when thet couldn't even grow crops
and were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions!
unquote

The next part is where you respond and present your evidence for these
claims that you say show climate change is a fraud. You need to
establish both the truth AND the relevance of these statements to your
position:

1 - weather organisations were lying with their data
2 - we may be entering a period of global cooling
3 - climate has been changing for billions of years
4 - there were periods in Europe when they couldn't even grow crops and
were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions

Take them one by one, show us your understanding. Or you could
disappear again.

David

You want a reasoned conversation from a "Bagger"? Are you mad, man?

Yes in deed, Global Forcing is at work , and we are supposed to be
heading into a new Ice Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Orbital_forcing
So why are we heating up, Jane, you sycophant of an adulterous false
prophet?

CO2 is what is wrong, and it started rising as soon as man put plow to
dirt, and has only accelerated with industrialization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebu...-co2-measureme
nts-intermediate.pdf


BULLSHIT!

With your false reasoning, man must be eliminated to "save the earth"!
Kill yourself and lower the CO2, won't you?

All that pseudo science completely ignores the FACT that plants take in CO2
and put out O2! Any indoor pot grower knows that they can speed up plant
growth by putting CO2 into the room.

Great! Our savior is stoned. Oh, happy day.

You do realize that it was acolytes of the loose pants Ayn Rand, who
crashed the economy of the Western World. Developing countries are doing
fine, thank you very much.

CO2 is part of a cycle. It goes round and round. Left to its own
devices, nature sequesters CO2 which becomes coal, oil, and limestone.
What people have done is to reintroduce carbon that had been naturally
sequestered in the soil, back into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide traps
heat raising the temperature, which increases evaporation of water which
increases the temperature, which thaws the frozen tundra releasing
methane which traps heat and raises the temperature, which melt the
light reflecting snow, exposing dark rock and soil which heats the
atmosphere. The more water vapor there is in the atmosphere, the more
energy it can release as it changes back to a liquid (let's call it
rain, OK?). This energy drives storms making them more powerful. The
oceans heat changing air flows over them, and the weather changes the
world over. Got it?

What sane people suggest is that we stop introducing the sequestered
carbon back into the atmosphere, and sequester much the CO2 that is
there. This can be done as easily as making charcoal.

We await your next Randian, environazis, "Bagger" dilerium. It is kinda
getting boring. Maybe you could do some summersaults, and high kicks to
liven it up.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote :

Jane Galt wrote:

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power,
having carefully avoided defending your errors about climate change
you shift the topic. No surprise. But the content is actually much
the same, accusing your perceived opposition of bad faith and
repeating chants you like the sound of that you don't quite
understand. No surprise. Either your courage or your knowledge is
insufficient to carry on a responsive conversation, which is it?

David

So harsh on someone who doesn't have blind faith in your religions of
"Man Made Global Warming" and "No Nukes".

On the contrary I care little for faith. I care much for evidence and
reasoning, you should give it a try. Let me start you off, here is your
post:

quote
Has nothing to do with the fact that government FUNDED weather
organizations were lying with their data, we may actually be entering a
period of global cooling, and the climate has been changing for billions
of years!

In fact there were periods in Europe when thet couldn't even grow crops
and were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions!
unquote

The next part is where you respond and present your evidence for these
claims that you say show climate change is a fraud. You need to
establish both the truth AND the relevance of these statements to your
position:

1 - weather organisations were lying with their data
2 - we may be entering a period of global cooling
3 - climate has been changing for billions of years
4 - there were periods in Europe when they couldn't even grow crops and
were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions

Take them one by one, show us your understanding. Or you could
disappear again.

David


NOTHING anyone could say would convince Progressive Socialists who have the
agenda of collapsing and globalizing the United States into global
socialism. AND the alleged "scientists" running the "Man Made Global
Warming" smoke & mirrors show, get their incomes from huge government
grants, and are in many cases employed by these Progressive Socialist
governments. So yes, it is a religion of blind faith state worship to
people like you, and nothing that anyone could say will convince you,
because you refuse to see.

Just wait for the Collapse you're causing and I hope you enjoy it before
you die from it.

Huh? I thought we were talking about nuclear reactors in the gardens.
Where did the political hit come from?

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article . 131,
Jane Galt wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote :

Jane Galt wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote :

Jane Galt wrote:

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power,
having carefully avoided defending your errors about climate change
you shift the topic. No surprise. But the content is actually
much the same, accusing your perceived opposition of bad faith and
repeating chants you like the sound of that you don't quite
understand. No surprise. Either your courage or your knowledge is
insufficient to carry on a responsive conversation, which is it?

David

So harsh on someone who doesn't have blind faith in your religions
of "Man Made Global Warming" and "No Nukes".

On the contrary I care little for faith. I care much for evidence
and reasoning, you should give it a try. Let me start you off, here
is your post:

quote
Has nothing to do with the fact that government FUNDED weather
organizations were lying with their data, we may actually be
entering a period of global cooling, and the climate has been
changing for billions of years!

In fact there were periods in Europe when thet couldn't even grow
crops and were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions!
unquote

The next part is where you respond and present your evidence for
these claims that you say show climate change is a fraud. You need
to establish both the truth AND the relevance of these statements to
your position:

1 - weather organisations were lying with their data
2 - we may be entering a period of global cooling
3 - climate has been changing for billions of years
4 - there were periods in Europe when they couldn't even grow crops
and were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions

Take them one by one, show us your understanding. Or you could
disappear again.

David


NOTHING anyone could say would convince Progressive Socialists who
have the agenda of collapsing and globalizing the United States into
global socialism.

Where are these people you refer to? What has that got to do with me?
You know nothing about me or my politics, not that it is relevant, other
than I have asked you to make your case. Yet once again you retreat
tossing nothing but bluster behind you.

AND the alleged "scientists" running the "Man Made
Global Warming" smoke & mirrors show, get their incomes from huge
government grants, and are in many cases employed by these
Progressive Socialist governments. So yes, it is a religion of blind
faith state worship to people like you, and nothing that anyone could
say will convince you, because you refuse to see.

It is clearly impossible for me to see what you haven't yet presented.
You have had several opportunities to fix this and dodged and weaved
every time. You made four statements and cannot support one of them.
When it's time to step up and take your swing you are still hiding in
the weeds calling out school-yard insults.

Unless you are prepared to engage with the issue I have nothing more to
say.

David


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...eir-own-words-
climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
The Capitalist's Tool? Larry Bell, the author is hawking his book on a
"Climate Hoax", and he is an architect not an atmospheric scientist. Do
you have some one who isn't so partisan?


http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Good to have all the nuts in one place. Some disagree because they don't
like the models, or the inputs, but that isn't to say that they don't
disagree on the conclusions.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Not much science here, just Bagger feel good stories.
Temp keep setting records, no new lows. More CO2 in the atmosphere.
Corral reefs dying from lowered pH of the oceans. "100 year" storms
happening more often.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01...tortion-for-a-
global-warming-scam/

http://planet3.org/2013/04/01/overze...xposes-global-
warming-scam/
Sartre Batr, another "Bagger" partisan with no apparent expertise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby,
industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United
States.[4][5][6][7][8]

I could go on and on, of just Google: Global Warming scam

but suspect that you guys are just Marxists who like to heckle anyone who
disagrees with your state worshipping religion.

Say high to the bottom of my Kill File, Sweety.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
"Farm1" wrote :

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
"David Hare-Scott" wrote :

Jane Galt wrote:
How many people were killed by Fukishima, NOT the tsunami?

AND Fukishima was 1970's technology, Chernobyl was 1950's
technology. They now have safe clean nuclear that would even be safe
in such
tsunami conditions.


http://www.planetarybillofrights.org...orAllTime.html

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power,
having carefully avoided defending your errors about climate
change you shift the topic. No surprise. But the content is
actually much the same, accusing your perceived opposition of bad
faith and repeating chants you like the sound of that you don't
quite understand. No surprise. Either your courage or your
knowledge is insufficient to carry on a responsive conversation,
which is it? David

So harsh on someone who doesn't have blind faith in your religions
of "Man Made Global Warming" and "No Nukes".

Harsh? As opposed to your use of 'environazis'?




What else would we call people who think that man must be
eradicated, to "save the earth" and that humans are a blight on the
ecosystem instead of being part of it? Who want to tax people to
death and into ruin, to make a 0.1 degree temperature difference in 100
years, when the real agenda
is global socialism and to eliminate human civilization?

You need help.

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards....

:-)) Now that is a real blast from the past.

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. 121.131...
"David Hare-Scott" wrote :
Jane Galt wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote :

Jane Galt wrote:

Just get the environazis out of the way.

So you are back to hurl more slogans and insults having rested and
recovered for four months. Now you are on about nuclear power,
having carefully avoided defending your errors about climate change
you shift the topic. No surprise. But the content is actually
much the same, accusing your perceived opposition of bad faith and
repeating chants you like the sound of that you don't quite
understand. No surprise. Either your courage or your knowledge is
insufficient to carry on a responsive conversation, which is it?

David

So harsh on someone who doesn't have blind faith in your religions
of "Man Made Global Warming" and "No Nukes".

On the contrary I care little for faith. I care much for evidence
and reasoning, you should give it a try. Let me start you off, here
is your post:

quote
Has nothing to do with the fact that government FUNDED weather
organizations were lying with their data, we may actually be
entering a period of global cooling, and the climate has been
changing for billions of years!

In fact there were periods in Europe when thet couldn't even grow
crops and were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions!
unquote

The next part is where you respond and present your evidence for
these claims that you say show climate change is a fraud. You need
to establish both the truth AND the relevance of these statements to
your position:

1 - weather organisations were lying with their data
2 - we may be entering a period of global cooling
3 - climate has been changing for billions of years
4 - there were periods in Europe when they couldn't even grow crops
and were all starving, BEFORE modern carbon emissions

Take them one by one, show us your understanding. Or you could
disappear again.

David


NOTHING anyone could say would convince Progressive Socialists who
have the agenda of collapsing and globalizing the United States into
global socialism.

Where are these people you refer to? What has that got to do with me?
You know nothing about me or my politics, not that it is relevant, other
than I have asked you to make your case. Yet once again you retreat
tossing nothing but bluster behind you.

AND the alleged "scientists" running the "Man Made
Global Warming" smoke & mirrors show, get their incomes from huge
government grants, and are in many cases employed by these
Progressive Socialist governments. So yes, it is a religion of blind
faith state worship to people like you, and nothing that anyone could
say will convince you, because you refuse to see.

It is clearly impossible for me to see what you haven't yet presented.
You have had several opportunities to fix this and dodged and weaved
every time. You made four statements and cannot support one of them.
When it's time to step up and take your swing you are still hiding in
the weeds calling out school-yard insults.

Unless you are prepared to engage with the issue I have nothing more to
say.

David


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...eir-own-words-
climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01...tortion-for-a-
global-warming-scam/

http://planet3.org/2013/04/01/overze...xposes-global-
warming-scam/

I could go on and on, of just Google: Global Warming scam

If anyone was silly enough to include the word 'scam' in a search, they
should be hnest enough to just admit that they have already made up their
mind and are totally incapable of accepting any infomation that doesnt'
agree with their world view.

but suspect that you guys are just Marxists who like to heckle anyone who
disagrees with your state worshipping religion.

Really pathetic ad hom noted.