Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan. Piece of **** onlyruns 50 miles on a charge!

Tony D. wrote:
> Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is
> something which can be measured.

Actually the data is showing cooling off now. But that's the only thing
you said that I disagree with.

> The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny
> efforts as opposed to natural occurrences...

Hah! Yeah - like solar output,

> The climatic models are so
> complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand
> them...

Besides the point that they only work when tailored for the actual data
you use to build them to prove that warming is taking place, but
miserably fail when used for projections with new data.

And yet when it is proven that controlling CO2 isn't going to fix
anything (and in fact with what little effect it has, it will move
things an immeasurable amount in the wrong direction anyway), they will
continue to create a new false economy built around it because they want
to build their own self-enriching industry based on it (think: Al Gore).
Everyone but them will suffer.

> The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best
> way to treat your brain cancer".
>
> The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the
> trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are few
> industries that can match the improvement made here. They simply choose
> to take a number and lower it no matter how it is to be achieved or if
> the effort is better expended elsewhere. The burning of rain forests
> adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's content of autos. No
> regulation there.
>
> Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired power
> plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people who refuse
> to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity
> ingrained in the "green" movement.

Exactly. Their solution is to destroy the coal industry (Obama vowed to
do so) and to do no nuclear.

BTW - are we still wasting tax money on bio-fuels wasting even more
energy and at the same time making a food source scarcer and dricing
prices up?

Why don't they fix the problems they have already created instead of
creating new problems? Because there's money to be made at the expense
of everyone else - all in the name of helping everybody.

> So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was
> inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s.
>
> Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30
> times it has melted before based on historic samples?

And the overall "increase" in melting is fabricated by cherry picking
the data.

> The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in a
> "mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle.

Oh well then we must discontinue looking at that parametric. Look
instead over hear at the snow pack data that we picked local minima on
during times we wanted to claim higher temperatures and local maxima
during times we wanted to claim lower temperatures.

> Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which...

Yep - inflicting the worst possible economic damage possible in the name
of fixing a non-problem.

> ...could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again?

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:14:01 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:

>PeterD wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>>>> world say it's real?...
>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
>>>> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
>>>> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
>>>> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
>>>> hard to find pages of their web site.
>>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
>>> And, what do the corrected data show?
>>
>> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
>> they covered up... Been well documented.
>
>Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
>

If you don't know the basics, don't know the history, why the hell
shoudl anyone waste their time trying to show you the facts?

Tony D. wrote:
> Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is
> something which can be measured.
>
> The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny
> efforts as opposed to natural occurrences. The climatic models are so
> complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand
> them. The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best
> way to treat your brain cancer".
>
> The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the
> trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are few
> industries that can match the improvement made here.

Really? Cars don't get that much better mileage than those made in the
'60s and '70s. About a 50% or so increase from 1975.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1975_feg.pdf

> They simply choose
> to take a number and lower it no matter how it is to be achieved or if
> the effort is better expended elsewhere. The burning of rain forests
> adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's content of autos. No
> regulation there.

Unfortunately, we're also running out of oil, especially oil that can
easily be refined into gasoline. And we're using oil faster than ever.
Last year, a huge amount of oil was found. But that oil is going to be
more expensive than ever to get out of the ground.

> Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired power
> plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people who refuse
> to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity
> ingrained in the "green" movement.

It's also possible to charge the cars with power generated overnight,
when the electricity generation is more efficient. In addition, the
energy used to generate the electricity is less than the energy used by
a gasoline motor to run the car. So a net energy savings occurs if the
right type of energy is used to generate the electricity.

> So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was
> inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s.

Really? Not everyone agreed in the 70s and 80s. And not everyone agrees,
today.

> Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30
> times it has melted before based on historic samples?
>
> The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in a
> "mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle.
>
> Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which
> could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again?

We have a more energy-efficient economy. THat's a good thing.

Jeff

dr_jeff wrote:
> Tony D. wrote:
>> Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it
>> is something which can be measured.
>>
>> The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny
>> efforts as opposed to natural occurrences. The climatic models are so
>> complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand
>> them. The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best
>> way to treat your brain cancer".
>>
>> The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the
>> trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are
>> few industries that can match the improvement made here.
>
> Really? Cars don't get that much better mileage than those made in the
> '60s and '70s. About a 50% or so increase from 1975.
> http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1975_feg.pdf

This the typical "dumb" response, tying efficiency to mileage. Average
mileage may be nearly the same but customer preferences and gov
requirements mean the same mileage is coming from larger, more powerful,
more luxurious and dramatically safer vehicles.

>
>> They simply choose to take a number and lower it no matter how it is
>> to be achieved or if the effort is better expended elsewhere. The
>> burning of rain forests adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's
>> content of autos. No regulation there.
>
> Unfortunately, we're also running out of oil, especially oil that can
> easily be refined into gasoline. And we're using oil faster than ever.
> Last year, a huge amount of oil was found. But that oil is going to be
> more expensive than ever to get out of the ground.

Another old chestnut. There is no oil "shortage" now or even
foreseeable. And while "Arabian" style crude is a small part of the
totals, oil is the only practical choice because the alternatives cost
astronomically more AND most of then from source to use to disposal have
a GREATER net impact on the environment.
>
>> Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired
>> power plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people
>> who refuse to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter
>> stupidity ingrained in the "green" movement.
>
> It's also possible to charge the cars with power generated overnight,
> when the electricity generation is more efficient. In addition, the
> energy used to generate the electricity is less than the energy used by
> a gasoline motor to run the car. So a net energy savings occurs if the
> right type of energy is used to generate the electricity.

The old spend trillions on infrastructure to save a few bucks theory.
>
>> So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was
>> inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s.
>
> Really? Not everyone agreed in the 70s and 80s. And not everyone agrees,
> today.
>

You should check the magazine covers with the scientific community
banding together to study the problem. About the same degree as today.

>> Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30
>> times it has melted before based on historic samples?
>>
>> The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in
>> a "mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle.
>>
>> Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which
>> could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again?
>
> We have a more energy-efficient economy. THat's a good thing.
>
> Jeff

If someone invents a new insulation and it costs me $10k to replace my
$200 worth of attic fiberglass and it saves me $42/yr in fuel oil, I
would have a different description.

It is equivalent to the imbeciles that buy a Prius to "save money", even
when you do the math and show them the payback period. Or the "do
gooder" who buys it to "set an example", even when studies show the
entire process from creating the battery/car to disposing of it at the
end of its life have a net NEGATIVE compared to std vehicles.

Tony D. wrote:
> dr_jeff wrote:
>> Tony D. wrote:
>>> Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it
>>> is something which can be measured.
>>>
>>> The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny
>>> efforts as opposed to natural occurrences. The climatic models are so
>>> complex that there are very few people who could pretend to
>>> understand them. The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree
>>> on the best way to treat your brain cancer".
>>>
>>> The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the
>>> trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are
>>> few industries that can match the improvement made here.
>>
>> Really? Cars don't get that much better mileage than those made in the
>> '60s and '70s. About a 50% or so increase from 1975.
>> http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1975_feg.pdf
>
> This the typical "dumb" response, tying efficiency to mileage. Average
> mileage may be nearly the same but customer preferences and gov
> requirements mean the same mileage is coming from larger, more powerful,
> more luxurious and dramatically safer vehicles.

Not really. Compare this to A/C efficiency or refrigerator efficiency.
There is a much better increase in efficiency compared to cars. And
let's compare this to computers, which are millions of times faster,
able to store millions of times more data, and are able to send data to
other computers millions of times faster. Gee, A/C and refrigerators
don't even compare.

The fact is that to do what cars do, get people and things from point A
to point B, they do so using almost as much fuel as they did 30 years ago.

>>
>>> They simply choose to take a number and lower it no matter how it is
>>> to be achieved or if the effort is better expended elsewhere. The
>>> burning of rain forests adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's
>>> content of autos. No regulation there.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we're also running out of oil, especially oil that can
>> easily be refined into gasoline. And we're using oil faster than ever.
>> Last year, a huge amount of oil was found. But that oil is going to be
>> more expensive than ever to get out of the ground.
>
> Another old chestnut. There is no oil "shortage" now or even
> foreseeable. And while "Arabian" style crude is a small part of the
> totals, oil is the only practical choice because the alternatives cost
> astronomically more AND most of then from source to use to disposal have
> a GREATER net impact on the environment.

Except that the supply and demand are nearly the same amount. And
remember what happened when the demand went up a just a bit more about 1
or 1.5 years ago? High gas prices.

That the Middle East no longer supplies as high a proportion of the
world's oil supply, the supply is still limited.

>>
>>> Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired
>>> power plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people
>>> who refuse to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter
>>> stupidity ingrained in the "green" movement.
>>
>> It's also possible to charge the cars with power generated overnight,
>> when the electricity generation is more efficient. In addition, the
>> energy used to generate the electricity is less than the energy used
>> by a gasoline motor to run the car. So a net energy savings occurs if
>> the right type of energy is used to generate the electricity.
>
> The old spend trillions on infrastructure to save a few bucks theory.

Yet, the fact is that by conservation, we become more competitive than
other countries. The alternative is that we become less competitive. It
may be old, but it is true.

>>
>>> So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was
>>> inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s.
>>
>> Really? Not everyone agreed in the 70s and 80s. And not everyone
>> agrees, today.
>>
>
> You should check the magazine covers with the scientific community
> banding together to study the problem. About the same degree as today.

Really? Time magazine is not the voice of the scientific community. The
fact is that the scientific community did not support the global cooling
the way it has examined and supported with data global heating today. If
I am incorrect, support your argument.

>>> Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30
>>> times it has melted before based on historic samples?
>>>
>>> The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in
>>> a "mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle.
>>>
>>> Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars
>>> which could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again?
>>
>> We have a more energy-efficient economy. THat's a good thing.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> If someone invents a new insulation and it costs me $10k to replace my
> $200 worth of attic fiberglass and it saves me $42/yr in fuel oil, I
> would have a different description.

That's a straw-man argument.

> It is equivalent to the imbeciles that buy a Prius to "save money", even
> when you do the math and show them the payback period.

Some people realize that the environment is more important than just
money. (Unfortunately, no one has accounted for the environmental cost
of making the batteries.)

> Or the "do
> gooder" who buys it to "set an example", even when studies show the
> entire process from creating the battery/car to disposing of it at the
> end of its life have a net NEGATIVE compared to std vehicles.

Really? What studies? Be specific, please.

Jeff

On Oct 5, 7:52*pm, PeterD > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
> >Bill Putney wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
> >>> world say it's real?...
>
> >> News flash: They don't. *You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
> >> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
> >> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
> >> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
> >> hard to find pages of their web site.
>
> >What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
> >And, what do the corrected data show?
>
> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
> they covered up... Been well documented.

No, it is not. It's the stuff of right-wing web sites, the same
conspiracy nuts who claim Bush was behind 9/11 and Obama is not a US
citizen.

>
>
>
> >>> Every scientific organization?...
>
> >> News flash: They don't. *You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
> >> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
> >> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
> >> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
> >> hard to find pages of their web site.
>
> >So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from
> >NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>
> Huh?
>
>
>
> >> * Why do all the
> >>> articles in scientific journals say it's real?
>
> >> News flash: They don't. *You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
> >> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
> >> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
> >> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
> >> hard to find pages of their web site.
>
> >While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
> >scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
> >little data that don't support that global warming is real.
>
> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,

Yes there is. Every national science academy, every scientific
organization in the world says so. All the articles in scientific
journals say so.

Do yourself a favor: Read some science. Right-wing web sites are not
good sources.

> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
> to belive the sky is falling.
>
> >Jeff
>
>
No, we are choosing to believe the science instead of right-wing
propaganda and idiotic conspiracy theories.

On Oct 5, 8:20*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> PeterD wrote:
> > There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
> > is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
> > happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
> > to belive the sky is falling.
>
> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. *The biggest driver?
> * Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! *LOL!

The 2000s are the hottest decade ever. How is that cooling off?

>
> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's
> - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which.

Uh, you forget a lot. It's 2005, then 1998 and 2007 tied. 8 of the
hottest years on record have occurred in the 2000s.


>*When you look at the false
> NASA data,

Oh BS.


>it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when you look
> at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk
> about your inconvenient truth!)

Yes, talk about truth. Talk about science. Please learn some.

>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

On Oct 5, 8:56*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> dr_jeff wrote:
> > PeterD wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>
> >>> Bill Putney wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
> >>>>> world say it's real?...
> >>>> News flash: They don't. *You're way behind on your reading, or just
> >>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
> >>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
> >>>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
> >>>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
> >>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
> >>> And, what do the corrected data show?
>
> >> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
> >> they covered up... Been well documented.
>
> > Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
>
> It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
> You'll have to find it yourself. *If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not
> believe it anyway. *You'll believe what you want anyway. *In fact, it's
> been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework
> is mostly done for you. *But you still won't believe it.


So tell us, what scientific sources did you consult to come to this
conclusion?

>
> >>>>> Every scientific organization?...
> >>>> News flash: They don't. *You're way behind on your reading, or just
> >>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
> >>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
> >>>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
> >>>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
> >>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those
> >>> from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>
> >> Huh?
>
> > You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only data
> > that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor
> > are the data in question that only data that NASA has.
>
> Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
> point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
> organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
> when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion - it's
> "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand
> climate and climate change".

You are a liar.

>
> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global
> warming. *Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the
> formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of
> increasing temperature over time.

Turns out that's wrong. The National Academy of Sciences validated
Mann's work, and 10 other reconsructions of temp. agree with it.


>*That's just one example of majorly
> faked non-NASA data. *There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data
> faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the conclusion)
> - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got removed from
> his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's how honest and
> pure they were about "science". *When data was corrected, it showed the
> warming that was claimed was a lie. *Duh!

No it didn't. What scientific sources did you get this from?


>
> Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control
> your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow
> air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station
> and then soon after report a temperature rise. (2) When you falsify
> October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the
> previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make
> a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and
> correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be
> intentional fakery. Nice try. *Busted! *(3) *Oh - and don't launch
> satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends
> "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all
> of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat.
>

Hint: Don't post lies from right-wing web sites.

> > Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in
> > the world both say otherwise?
>
> You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? *But
> really - you'd have to ask them.


Yeah, all science is in on a vast conspiracy and only Bill Putney sees
the truth!

Pathetic.

>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

On Oct 5, 9:29*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> dr_jeff wrote:
> > Bill Putney wrote:
> >> PeterD wrote:
>
> >>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
> >>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
> >>> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
> >>> to belive the sky is falling.
>
> >> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. *The biggest
> >> driver? *Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! *LOL!
>
> >> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the
> >> 30's - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. *When you look at the
> >> false NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when
> >> you look at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the
> >> 30's. Talk about your inconvenient truth!)
>
> > Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few years.
>
> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
>
> > If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this.
>
> > Jeff
>
> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200..._the_hottest_y...
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
>
> 1934 and 2008 tied.
>
> --

Are the 48 US states the globe?


> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

" > wrote in
:

> On Oct 5, 9:29*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>> dr_jeff wrote:
>> > Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> PeterD wrote:
>>
>> >>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by
>> >>> man
> ,
>> >>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
>> >>> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are
>> >>> choosin
> g
>> >>> to belive the sky is falling.
>>
>> >> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. *The biggest
>> >> driver? *Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! *LOL!
>>
>> >> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in
>> >> the 30's - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. *When you look
>> >> at th
> e
>> >> false NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but
>> >> when you look at the corrected data, not even then - it was back
>> >> in the 30's. Talk about your inconvenient truth!)
>>
>> > Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few
>> > years.
>>
>> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
>>
>> > If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this.
>>
>> > Jeff
>>
>> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998
_no_longer_the_hottest_y.
>> ..
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
>>
>> 1934 and 2008 tied.
>>
>> --
>
> Are the 48 US states the globe?

So how do you claim the whole world, when there have only been
precision measureing devises to the degree claimed used in the last maby
100 years, being generous. and no possible way to know the world temps
before that, as much of it not even connected before that. this is a
bunch of PROJECTION with no historical possibility other than generally
large changes. your scientific basic is CRAP. No one knows either way
and can not prove it. They are "all" using computer modles on both sides
and its CRAP. A bunch of idiots guessing and we are supposed to change
how the world works on this????????? What a bunch of retards. KB
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with the letter 'x')
>
>



--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others