I'm sorry but Bush greatly outspent Gore and the press did all it could to
make the race "interesting" (close) but badmouthing Gore and glorifying
Bush. Gore did absolutely nothing wrong. Our Press and the process did a
great disservice to this country. D Kat


"B & J" wrote in message
...
Hey, no argument from me on any of what you said. Hillary is not going
to
run,
she made that clear in several interviews this week. I don't know how
an
election debacle turned into "Gore blew his wad..." when clearly the
popular
vote was his.

Yes, Gore did have the popular vote, but Dubya got the electoral votes.
What
irks me about Gore is that he so busily running away from Clinton that he
refused to use him where he would have made a big difference. He was much
too pious for his own good. In addition, Gore failed to carry his home
state
which would have given him the election without Florida. Gore and his
handlers ran a really stupid campaign. Dubya didn't win the election; Gore
lost it.

I also fully agree about WMD, as they now call it with loving adoration.
If you
notice when dub speaks now, he says "...we know they HAD weapons of mass
destruction..." As if this was a past inquiry.

Maybe if he ignores his exact words, they'll go away if he changes the
tense? Or did we misunderstand his pronunciation? :-) So far no one is
really holding his hands to the fire on this issue. What I would like to
see
is a group of Democrats assemble and start impeachment proceedings against
Dubya for lying to the American people and the world . After all, the
Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Isn't it far more
logical
to impeach a President for lying about a situation where American lives
were
lost and are still being lost?

John

The whole lot of them suck the big one. Bush is patting soldiers on
the
head
when he himself went AWOL. Eh.

Watch for all these patting on the head shots in next year's Republican
campaign. Those and cheering soldier as Dubya appears with be exploited to
the max....

Every reputable Scientist at this point concurs that global warming is a
fact. This is no longer disputed. Global warming does NOT mean that we all
have San Diego weather. It means that we have higher variance (more
extremes) in our weather patterns. More floods, more hurricanes, more hard
blizzards, more droughts, etc. Our oceans are the earths heat sinks and are
what drive our weather.

This last year we had more killing tornados than recorded in history. The
previous record breaker for that was 1997. The same can be said for just
about every weather event in the last decade. Our coral reefs are dieing,
massive ice chunks are breaking off the ice sheets on our poles, we are
loosing more and more lives to weather events... but hey... as Bush W said
.... adjust.

DKat

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wcbanta wrote:
Global warming produces many different effects worldwide. some areas may
get
wetter, some drier, some warmer and some colder. For example, increased
melting of Arctic glacial deposits could dilute the cold northern seas
and
cause the Gulf Stream to sink, causing and unlivable cold climate in
northern Europe. El Nino is another example - it makes some Pacific
islands
very wet and cooler while it warms the surrounding seas and kills marine
life by the millions of tons. It also makes for wet winters in the US.

The earth is not simple. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are simple.
--

And it's not nearly as simple as the global-warming chicken little's
make it out to be either. You mention the shrinking Arctic glacial
deposits -- what about the growing Antarctic and Greenland deposits?
If there is global warming, why is there a net *increase* in ice and
a net *lowering* of the sea level?

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?11526

The global warming hysteria is built on models that simply don't
work, and global warming hysterics are forced to plead to explanations
that accept *any* data. Things are getting warmer? It's global
warming!!! Things are getting cooler? It's global warming!!!
Is the sea level rising? It's global warming!!! Is the sea
level lowering? It's global warming!!!

The amusing thing about the argument that Arctic melting causes
paradoxical global cooling is that the *opposite* argument also
holds -- that Arctic melting that causes global warming. See:

http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci10-2-02.htm


Personally, I'll wait another 20 years to hear the hysterics go back
to the global cooling scare, like they were 20 years ago:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


billo

DKat wrote:

This last year we had more killing tornados than recorded in history. The
previous record breaker for that was 1997. The same can be said for just
about every weather event in the last decade. Our coral reefs are dieing,
massive ice chunks are breaking off the ice sheets on our poles, we are
loosing more and more lives to weather events... but hey... as Bush W said
... adjust.

DKat

Talk about short-sighted. They've been keeping weather records for
what, 100 or so years? What if the natural cycle is something like 6000
years? You know, Noah, floods, the verdant Sahara turning to desert,
etc. There wouldn't be any sand on the beaches in the Tropics if coral
reefs hadn't been dying for millenea.
Seems Mr. Sun was very active in recent years with its sunspot activity
also - record levels and all of that.
Hmmm, wonder if Bush did that too?

I too was a young guy in the 70s and was all worried when "every
reputable scientist" touted global cooling. Its a matter of perspective
I suppose.

For once GW is correct - "get used to it".

It didn't help for the press to report on precincts which didn't justify
results. I think the media learned a great lesson on that one. BTW, Florida is
doing all it can do spend tons of money on moving an airport up in the panhandle
so some company, (I think it's called Joe Something) can develop the property to
high end homes and golf courses. Never mind all the estuary and wildlife
preserve which is there.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:43:02 GMT, "DKat" wrote:

I'm sorry but Bush greatly outspent Gore and the press did all it could to
make the race "interesting" (close) but badmouthing Gore and glorifying
Bush. Gore did absolutely nothing wrong. Our Press and the process did a
great disservice to this country. D Kat


"B & J" wrote in message
...
Hey, no argument from me on any of what you said. Hillary is not going
to
run,
she made that clear in several interviews this week. I don't know how
an
election debacle turned into "Gore blew his wad..." when clearly the
popular
vote was his.

Yes, Gore did have the popular vote, but Dubya got the electoral votes.
What
irks me about Gore is that he so busily running away from Clinton that he
refused to use him where he would have made a big difference. He was much
too pious for his own good. In addition, Gore failed to carry his home
state
which would have given him the election without Florida. Gore and his
handlers ran a really stupid campaign. Dubya didn't win the election; Gore
lost it.

I also fully agree about WMD, as they now call it with loving adoration.
If you
notice when dub speaks now, he says "...we know they HAD weapons of mass
destruction..." As if this was a past inquiry.

Maybe if he ignores his exact words, they'll go away if he changes the
tense? Or did we misunderstand his pronunciation? :-) So far no one is
really holding his hands to the fire on this issue. What I would like to
see
is a group of Democrats assemble and start impeachment proceedings against
Dubya for lying to the American people and the world . After all, the
Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Isn't it far more
logical
to impeach a President for lying about a situation where American lives
were
lost and are still being lost?

John

The whole lot of them suck the big one. Bush is patting soldiers on
the
head
when he himself went AWOL. Eh.

Watch for all these patting on the head shots in next year's Republican
campaign. Those and cheering soldier as Dubya appears with be exploited to
the max....

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:19:38 -0400, --Bill--
wrote:

For once GW is correct - "get used to it".


"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some
fantastic pictures."

GWBush
"As crude a weapon as a cave man's club the chemical barrage has been hurled at the fabric of life."
Rachel Carson



tomj

"DKat" wrote in message
t...
I'm sorry but Bush greatly outspent Gore and the press did all it could to
make the race "interesting" (close) but badmouthing Gore and glorifying
Bush. Gore did absolutely nothing wrong. Our Press and the process did a
great disservice to this country. D Kat

Press or no press, there is still something intrinsically wrong with a
candidate who doesn't carry his own state. Even Mondale did that when
running against Regan, the Alzheimer poster boy and the darling of the
Republicans.

John

animaux wrote:

results. I think the media learned a great lesson on that one. BTW, Florida is
doing all it can do spend tons of money on moving an airport up in the panhandle
so some company, (I think it's called Joe Something) can develop the property to
high end homes and golf courses. Never mind all the estuary and wildlife
preserve which is there.

Yawn. You obviously don't know the Florida panhandle. A coupla million
residents who have to drive 3-4 hours to get a shitty connection to
Atlanta for a flight to anywhere else...all that while being acosted by
"natural' gators and skeeters at every turn cuz there's more than enough
wetland in the Panhandle to balance a few thousand acres of airport and
additional condos.
I'd like to think that the big bux golf boys would resolve this
situation and could be so amiable as to plunk down a real airport and if
they do it quick they can name it the "Bush Regional Airport" to give
you anti-guys something new to feed on. I suppose if it came to be the
"gore-port" it would somehow be more tolerable?
Which tree do you want to strap yourself to?

-ex

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 05:54:18 -0400, --Bill-- wrote:


Yawn. You obviously don't know the Florida panhandle. A coupla million
residents who have to drive 3-4 hours to get a shitty connection to
Atlanta for a flight to anywhere else...all that while being acosted by
"natural' gators and skeeters at every turn cuz there's more than enough
wetland in the Panhandle to balance a few thousand acres of airport and
additional condos.
I'd like to think that the big bux golf boys would resolve this
situation and could be so amiable as to plunk down a real airport and if
they do it quick they can name it the "Bush Regional Airport" to give
you anti-guys something new to feed on. I suppose if it came to be the
"gore-port" it would somehow be more tolerable?
Which tree do you want to strap yourself to?

-ex


You obviously are not current.

If you can read grown up material, take a look:

http://www.pbs.org/now/society/panhandle.html

animaux wrote:


You obviously are not current.

If you can read grown up material, take a look:

http://www.pbs.org/now/society/panhandle.html

I don't get it. Whining about a condo development and an airport. The
panhandle is about 200 miles long and a good portion is already condoed.
Oh yeah, I really do get it.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:13:36 -0400, --Bill-- wrote:

animaux wrote:


You obviously are not current.

If you can read grown up material, take a look:

http://www.pbs.org/now/society/panhandle.html

I don't get it. Whining about a condo development and an airport. The
panhandle is about 200 miles long and a good portion is already condoed.
Oh yeah, I really do get it.

No, you don't. Some of the wildlife there count on the estuary to live. If
people start trampling on everything and lay on the beach with all their crap it
indeed will harm the coast line where wildlife is concerned. That, and the
current property owners do NOT want this. The like their small airport just
where it is. Do you live in Florida?

animaux wrote:
portion is already condoed.
Oh yeah, I really do get it.


No, you don't. Some of the wildlife there count on the estuary to live. If
people start trampling on everything and lay on the beach with all their crap it
indeed will harm the coast line where wildlife is concerned. That, and the
current property owners do NOT want this. The like their small airport just
where it is. Do you live in Florida?

Did. Niceville, near Fort Walton Beach.
Nobody WANTS development in their backyard but overstating a situation
rarely serves to make a credible argument.
How 'bout where you live? Do you live in a house? How many furry
critters counted on that location before your desire for shelter took
precedence?

"DKat" wrote in message
t...
Every reputable Scientist at this point concurs that global warming is a
fact. This is no longer disputed. Global warming does NOT mean that we
all
have San Diego weather. It means that we have higher variance (more
extremes) in our weather patterns. More floods, more hurricanes, more
hard
blizzards, more droughts, etc. Our oceans are the earths heat sinks and
are
what drive our weather.


Funny, I thought "global" warming meant the "globe" was getting "warmer."

Blaming warming for increased polar ice is like saying that boiling water
creates ice cubes.


Regards, PLMerite

"PLMerite" wrote in message

"DKat" wrote in message
t...
Every reputable Scientist at this point concurs that global
warming is a fact. This is no longer disputed. Global warming
does NOT mean that we all have San Diego weather. It means that
we have higher variance (more extremes) in our weather patterns.
More floods, more hurricanes, more hard blizzards, more droughts,
etc. Our oceans are the earths heat sinks and are what drive our
weather.


Funny, I thought "global" warming meant the "globe" was getting
"warmer."

Blaming warming for increased polar ice is like saying that boiling
water creates ice cubes.

Global warming also causes sunspots...

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:09:40 -0400, --Bill-- wrote:

animaux wrote:
portion is already condoed.
Oh yeah, I really do get it.


No, you don't. Some of the wildlife there count on the estuary to live. If
people start trampling on everything and lay on the beach with all their crap it
indeed will harm the coast line where wildlife is concerned. That, and the
current property owners do NOT want this. The like their small airport just
where it is. Do you live in Florida?

Did. Niceville, near Fort Walton Beach.
Nobody WANTS development in their backyard but overstating a situation
rarely serves to make a credible argument.
How 'bout where you live? Do you live in a house? How many furry
critters counted on that location before your desire for shelter took
precedence?

The critters are still here. We have rats, mice, snakes, birds, toads, frogs,
ants, armadillo's, moles, voles, skinks and now, have had a heron land near the
pond who almost got the fish, but didn't. My property is old homestead
property, not wetlands where migratory birds live during winter. I'm clearly not
overstating. They want to move an airport which is perfectly fine where it is,
so they can build McMansions and put up boat marinas in sensitive areas where
pelicans, sand hill cranes and a host of other water birds live in winter.

And yes, we have a small parcel in Destin. It's property which we didn't
develop. We won't develop.

An estuary/rookery is not overstating anything.

In article ,
DKat wrote:
Every reputable Scientist at this point concurs that global warming is a
fact. This is no longer disputed.

Well, no. At least not in the way you mean it. Not every reputable
scientist, for instance, believes that this global warming is a
trend that will last a certain number of years. Not every reputable
scientist believes that human factors have an important impact.

Climate changes. There's a reason that Greenland got called
Greenland and Iceland got called Iceland.

And all the chest thumping by holier-than-thou ecofundamantalists
doesn't change the fact that they don't really have a clue.

Get back to me in 150 years, and we can see. Otherwise,
you are no different than the ecofundamentalists telling
me we were all going to freeze to death in the new Ice
Age in 1975, or run out of oil in 1979, or run out of
strategic minerals in 1985, etc. etc. etc.


This last year we had more killing tornados than recorded in history.


Well, I don't know who "we" is, white-eyes. And this is
pretty much bullshit. How many tornadoes hit what is
now the continental US in, oh, 1885? You don't have a
clue. You have no idea how much of this is due to
changes in reporting as opposed to changes in tornadoes.

This reminds me of a statistic from North Carolina. When
they first instituted the Medical Examiner system there,
the number of reported murders increased by something like 40%
and the number of suicides and accidental deaths fell..
Clearly, having forensic pathologists around causes
murder!!!!

Even accepting your primitive view of recording, your
claim of more "killing tornadoes" is simply untrue. The
mortality due to tornadoes has trended *down.* The high
was in 1925, with 800 deaths. In 2000 there were less
than 50.

see:

www.stemnet.nf.ca/CITE/tornadoes_stats.htm
hpccsun.unl.edu/nebraska/U_S_SEVERE.html


The same can be said for just
about every weather event in the last decade.


.... if your time frame is a decade...


Our coral reefs are dieing,


.... except for those that are growing. If warming oceans
kill some, it *also* makes more water amenable to reef
growth that was previously too cold. Funny thing about
that.


massive ice chunks are breaking off the ice sheets on our poles,


.... well, one of them. Maybe. The opposite is happening at
the other.



we are
loosing more and more lives to weather events...


.... except we're not.


but hey... as Bush W said
... adjust.


I am. I am adjusting to the chicken-little lies of the
ecofundamentalists by not swallowing their pseudoreligious rantings
without questions.

The most amusing thing about the ecofundamentalist rant is the idea
that the world should be frozen in time -- that the climate of 1960
should be the climate for all eternity, that the species of 1960 should
be the species of all eternity, that the world of 1960 should be the
world of all eternity.

If there is anything that "nature" tells us, it's that things will
change. The world will warm up, in spite of what ecofundamentalists
want. The world will cool down, in spite of what ecofundamentalists
want. Species will come, in spite of what ecofundamentalists want.
Species will go, in spite of ecofundamentalists want.

The one driving force of nature is change -- and by their teleologic
opposition, the ecofundamentalist religion is fundamentally
anti-nature. The ecofundamentalists are not selling nature, they are
selling a particular religious aesthetic that opposes nature.

*I* may or may not adjust, but "nature" certainly will, to whatever
people do -- with or without your permission.


billo