Mountain Bikers' Alleged "Love of Nature"

V-for-Vendicar

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
>> claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a
>>
>> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>>
>> So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?
>>
>> Both perhaps.
>>
>> We await your decision.


"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
> I give. Your rapier wit and obvious knowledge on all matters
> meteorological are too much.

You still haven't answered the question.

If you don't decide, I will decide for you.

Mike Romain

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote
>> How dare you to offer some proof. They won't accept it because they
>> have their minds made up already.
>
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer
>
> January 16, 2008
>
>
> The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
> NASA
> scientists announced today.

OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed.
It was all over the news recently.

Mike

Bill Sornson

V-for-Vendicar wrote, after removing all context (of course):
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote

>> Kind of makes you wonder why Al Gore is going to spend $300M on GW
>> propaganda now that it's the "consensus" view.

> No need to wonder. Here is the explanation....
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer

That's been debunked already, but that just proves the point. Why is Al
going to spend 300 million bucks promoting what "all the experts" say is
"obvious"?

It's a frigging scam.

BS (not)

Bill Sornson

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was
>> skewed. It was all over the news recently.
>
> Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle
> of last year that made no practical difference in global temps
> (recant? Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer
>
> January 16, 2008
>
>
> The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this
> century, NASA
> scientists announced today.

Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
readings, too.

HTH (BKIW)

Tom Sherman

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
>> Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
>> readings, too.
>
> But you won't get high bore hole temperatures, melting ice caps, high
> ocean temperatures, high satellite derrived temperatures, changes in the
> time of onset of the seasons, melting glaciers world wide, and alterations
> in the global weather patterns amongst other visible changes.
>
> And not realizing this makes you a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOONNNN
>
Or a tool of the right-wing media.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

V-for-Vendicar

> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN


"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote
> How many months in a winter there Scotty?
> Socks

On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.

V-for-Vendicar

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
> Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
> readings, too.

But you won't get high bore hole temperatures, melting ice caps, high
ocean temperatures, high satellite derrived temperatures, changes in the
time of onset of the seasons, melting glaciers world wide, and alterations
in the global weather patterns amongst other visible changes.

And not realizing this makes you a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOONNNN

V-for-Vendicar

>> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
>> LiveScience Staff Writer


"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
> That's been debunked already, but that just proves the point.

It has? Someone should tell the scientific community.

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNN



"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
> Why is Al going to spend 300 million bucks promoting what "all the
> experts" say is "obvious"?
>
> It's a frigging scam.

Your absolutely right. And the Grey Aliens are behind it all.

The reality of the situation of course is that you have tied your
political ideology to a sinking ship and are too stupid to abandon your
failed ideology.

You will carry it to it's end - your end - and into the garbage heap of
history.

So long Suckerss..

Mike Romain

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed. It
>> was all over the news recently.
>
> Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>

Wrong.

>
> While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> proceed
> constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
>

They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.

The only theory I have heard on that is the sad fact our pollution might
actually be giving us a sunscreen slowing down 'global warming' in this
latest Solar cycle.

That is even one of the 'fixes' proposed, to add more junk to airplane
fuel to 'help' make more of this sunscreen. This is from a week long
special on the Discovery TV channel.

Mike

Lloyd

On Apr 14, 10:17 am, Mike Romain <roma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > "Mike Romain" <roma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed. It
> >> was all over the news recently.
>
> > Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> > year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> > Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> > Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
> > While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> > proceed
> > constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> > generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> > trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
>

Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?

> The only theory I have heard on that is the sad fact our pollution might
> actually be giving us a sunscreen slowing down 'global warming' in this
> latest Solar cycle.
>

The only theory you've heard is the earth is flat.

> That is even one of the 'fixes' proposed, to add more junk to airplane
> fuel to 'help' make more of this sunscreen. This is from a week long
> special on the Discovery TV channel.
>
> Mike

Siskuwihane

On Apr 14, 11:11*am, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:17 am, Mike Romain <roma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > > "Mike Romain" <roma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > >> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed.. It
> > >> was all over the news recently.
>
> > > * Nope, sorry. *You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> > > year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> > > Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> > > * Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > > While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> > > proceed
> > > constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> > > generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> > > trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> > They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> > warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
>
> Idiot. *They have. *Ever try Google?

Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.

Vandeman has been using that same method for years with great
success.

Mike Romain

Siskuwihane wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:11 am, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>> Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
>
> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> Vandeman has been using that same method for years with great
> success.
>

You have to consider the source, good ol' Lloyd is a Usenet Troll from
way back. He is also a pretend scientist just like Vandeman.

Why anyone would be stupid enough to send a kid to a school that Foole
'teaches' at, amazes me.

I thought they took him off line years ago for foolishness, guess not.

Mike

Puppet_Sock

On Apr 13, 5:45*am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > How many months in a winter there Scotty?
> > Socks
>
> * On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.

On Mar 16, 9:13 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Winter is 4 months long.

So you are down to claiming 2.5 months now?

Yes Scotty, you are a moron.
Socks

Mike Romain

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Siskuwihane" <Siskuwihane1@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> Google. 2 seconds
> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
> Kate Ravilious
> for National Geographic News
>
> April 4, 2007
> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
> the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>
> ...
>

Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
years, hmm...

Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
cycle now would it.

Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
feeds them.

Mike