1500 Miles Of Freezing Cold Temperatures!

[jc456]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Interesting. Who told you that?

This guy --

​

You just missed him. He was just here, post 14.
I'm sure he'll be back though. He's the only thing holding this thread up.

-- ever look under an old house and find the whole thing's standing on a small pile of rocks?

I think you need a tuck!

 

[Pogo]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Gotta stop fawning over everything Rash Limpbag says, that's what.

David Viner, of the CRU (climate research unit) at East Anglia (climate gate) is the one who said children in England wouldn't know what snow was.

I don't think I have ever heard a RL quote on climate change. He is certainly not important to climate science. Why do you think he is?

I don't. Isn't that obvious?
The point is that the OP does -- witness his strawman premise, ludicrously oblivious in its muddled myopia to the difference between "climate" and "weather".

When I say Rash Limpjob I'm speaking globally-metaphorically, i.e. the kind of knuckledragger Archie Bunker mentality that Limblob represents. That means Sean Hannity doesn't get let off the hook. It means everybody of the DDI -- DumbDown Ilk.

And besides, Limpbag was already invoked in post 3.

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

 

[jc456]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Gotta stop fawning over everything Rash Limpbag says, that's what.

David Viner, of the CRU (climate research unit) at East Anglia (climate gate) is the one who said children in England wouldn't know what snow was.

I don't think I have ever heard a RL quote on climate change. He is certainly not important to climate science. Why do you think he is?

I don't. Isn't that obvious?
The point is that the OP does -- witness his strawman premise, ludicrously oblivious in its muddled myopia to the difference between "climate" and "weather".

When I say Rash Limpjob I'm speaking globally-metaphorically, i.e. the kind of knuckledragger Archie Bunker mentality that Limblob represents. That means Sean Hannity doesn't get let off the hook. It means everybody of the DDI -- DumbDown Ilk.

And besides, Limpbag was already invoked in post 3.

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

and then there's you!

 

[IanC]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Gotta stop fawning over everything Rash Limpbag says, that's what.

David Viner, of the CRU (climate research unit) at East Anglia (climate gate) is the one who said children in England wouldn't know what snow was.

I don't think I have ever heard a RL quote on climate change. He is certainly not important to climate science. Why do you think he is?

I don't. Isn't that obvious?
The point is that the OP does -- witness his strawman premise, ludicrously oblivious in its muddled myopia to the difference between "climate" and "weather".

When I say Rash Limpjob I'm speaking globally-metaphorically, i.e. the kind of knuckledragger Archie Bunker mentality that Limblob represents. That means Sean Hannity doesn't get let off the hook. It means everybody of the DDI -- DumbDown Ilk.

And besides, Limpbag was already invoked in post 3.

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

 

[Pogo]

Gotta stop fawning over everything Rash Limpbag says, that's what.

David Viner, of the CRU (climate research unit) at East Anglia (climate gate) is the one who said children in England wouldn't know what snow was.

I don't think I have ever heard a RL quote on climate change. He is certainly not important to climate science. Why do you think he is?

I don't. Isn't that obvious?
The point is that the OP does -- witness his strawman premise, ludicrously oblivious in its muddled myopia to the difference between "climate" and "weather".

When I say Rash Limpjob I'm speaking globally-metaphorically, i.e. the kind of knuckledragger Archie Bunker mentality that Limblob represents. That means Sean Hannity doesn't get let off the hook. It means everybody of the DDI -- DumbDown Ilk.

And besides, Limpbag was already invoked in post 3.

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

 

[IanC]

David Viner, of the CRU (climate research unit) at East Anglia (climate gate) is the one who said children in England wouldn't know what snow was.

I don't think I have ever heard a RL quote on climate change. He is certainly not important to climate science. Why do you think he is?

I don't. Isn't that obvious?
The point is that the OP does -- witness his strawman premise, ludicrously oblivious in its muddled myopia to the difference between "climate" and "weather".

When I say Rash Limpjob I'm speaking globally-metaphorically, i.e. the kind of knuckledragger Archie Bunker mentality that Limblob represents. That means Sean Hannity doesn't get let off the hook. It means everybody of the DDI -- DumbDown Ilk.

And besides, Limpbag was already invoked in post 3.

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

 

[Pogo]

I don't. Isn't that obvious?
The point is that the OP does -- witness his strawman premise, ludicrously oblivious in its muddled myopia to the difference between "climate" and "weather".

When I say Rash Limpjob I'm speaking globally-metaphorically, i.e. the kind of knuckledragger Archie Bunker mentality that Limblob represents. That means Sean Hannity doesn't get let off the hook. It means everybody of the DDI -- DumbDown Ilk.

And besides, Limpbag was already invoked in post 3.

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

 

[jc456]

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

so, you can't even answer the question Ian posed to you. Nice. You insult the right wing and then post how others are in your face. Seems like you haven't looked in a mirror lately eh?

 

[S.J.]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Interesting. Who told you that?

Every liberal sycophant in the country.

 

[jc456]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Interesting. Who told you that?

Every liberal sycophant in the country.

nice!!!

 

[S.J.]

Pogo is the one in the green.

 

[Pogo]

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

so, you can't even answer the question Ian posed to you. Nice. You insult the right wing and then post how others are in your face. Seems like you haven't looked in a mirror lately eh?

Where did I even make a reference to "the right wing"?? Or even to politics?

Read much?

 

[Pogo]

We were told that by now there would hardly be winters anymore. What happened?

Interesting. Who told you that?

Every liberal sycophant in the country.

ah, not just a strawman --- a blanket strawman.
Buy one fallacy, get one free. Such a deal.

 

[IanC]

OK, but what about the exaggerated or just plain wrong statements made by bona fide climate scientists? Seemingly you consider them out-of-bounds as soon as someone you don't like repeats them. It is the statement that counts, the idea that matters, not the news source that publicizes it.

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

I look forward to seeing your (skeptical) comments when AGW alarmists make ridiculous statements in the future.

 

[Pogo]

Lash Rumpjob and Sean Inanity are not "news sources". If they were, idiot threads like this wouldn't have parents.

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

I look forward to seeing your (skeptical) comments when AGW alarmists make ridiculous statements in the future.

Like the ones implicit here? If that ever happens, count on it.

The issue really isn't whether climactic evolution works this way or that way or some other way -- after all, we're in no position to know and it's absurd to pretend we are. The issue is declaring oneself to be the Oracle of Absolute Statements on it. I've only seen that sort of thing from the tobacco people.

 

[IanC]

are you saying that only Fox News has stories about the bad weather happening in the NE US right now? does the news
source actually affect the weather, or just the impression of it? over and over again we are told that this or that weather event is the worst in (x) years, only to find out that the story was incorrect. its funny how some people are for the exaggeration before they were against it. or vice versa

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

I look forward to seeing your (skeptical) comments when AGW alarmists make ridiculous statements in the future.

Like the ones implicit here? If that ever happens, count on it.

The issue really isn't whether climactic evolution works this way or that way or some other way -- after all, we're in no position to know and it's absurd to pretend we are. The issue is declaring oneself to be the Oracle of Absolute Statements on it. I've only seen that sort of thing from the tobacco people.

Interesting. What is your position on the dangers of smoking vs second hand smoke?

 

[Pogo]

No. My commentary is neither about Fox Noise nor Rust Limpjob specifically. It's about the mentality that enables an asshat like the OP to think he has a point deliberately conflating weather with climate.

I didn't even bring up Fox Noise; I brought up Sean Inanity. Because I've seen him personally engage in the same illogic -- "oh look it snowed, therefore there is no global warming".

That a hack like Hannity would float that turd is bad enough; that somebody actually ate it for dinner without a second thought is downright bizarre.

are you just as offended when weather is trotted out in support of AGW?

I thought the OP was saying, "climate science said winters would be milder with less snow, so why are we having harsh snowy winters?"

what is wrong with pointing that out? if winters really were milder with less snow the AGW side would be repeating their successful prediction over and over again.

we are supposed to forget about the failed predictions like increased hurricanes but every new prediction is treated like gold and is used to support AGW until it is proved wrong. rinse and repeat.

Because it's the height of hubris IMHO to declare that one knows it all, and the height of that height when the topic is to claim what the earth is doing, coming from a species that's been here no more than an eyeblink of that planet's existence. So pointing to a single year, or in the case of this sorry thread a single weather pattern, as any kind of evidence, or counterevidence, of anything beyond what the weather forecast is for the next few days is the height of stupidity.

And we've got wags all over this board -- skookersbil or whatever his name is comes to mind -- obsessed with posting this bullshit insisting it means something, followed of coarse by the relentless barrage of in-your-face emoticons. And they apparently think this makes a point.

Hubris, and bulllshit. And insulting readers' intelligence. Come winter, you're gonna have cold. Duh.

I look forward to seeing your (skeptical) comments when AGW alarmists make ridiculous statements in the future.

Like the ones implicit here? If that ever happens, count on it.

The issue really isn't whether climactic evolution works this way or that way or some other way -- after all, we're in no position to know and it's absurd to pretend we are. The issue is declaring oneself to be the Oracle of Absolute Statements on it. I've only seen that sort of thing from the tobacco people.

Interesting. What is your position on the dangers of smoking vs second hand smoke?

Before that gets misinterpreted, by "tobacco people" I'm referring to the way the same professional Denialists hired to naysay the tobacco-cancer links by the tobacco mongers were then hired by the Koch element for this purpose. So the term is not about tobacco per se but about denialism for the sake of denialism -- or, we should rather say, for the sake of money. Rhetorical prostitution if you will.

To the tangent directly - I'm a confessed ex-smoker, so my views on either will not be kind. As another poster in a relevant thread put it, having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. Except of course pee won't kill ya.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Must be because the Earth is warming at such an alarming rate. LOL

Arctic blast targets 1 500-mile-wide swath of US forecasters say Fox News

and as always, Al Gore is never around this time of year to explain all of this.

 

[S.J.]

Must be because the Earth is warming at such an alarming rate. LOL

Arctic blast targets 1 500-mile-wide swath of US forecasters say Fox News

and as always, Al Gore is never around this time of year to explain all of this.

Yep, he's either snuggled up in his mansion, burning unprecedented amounts of heating oil, or he's out jetting around the world in his private jet, burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel. But it's ok, he buys carbon credits, just like all the other limousine liberals who want the rest of us to turn our thermostats down 10 degrees so they can spend OUR money buying carbon credits for THEIR lavish lifestyles. You gotta love these environmentalists.

 

[rdean]

Record snow. Oh these liberals. So stupid. They think water is evaporating from a warming ocean. What does that have to do with snow? They don't even look the same.