You people have your blinders on there is global warming it is caused by the magnetic affect Nibiru is forcing the earths magnetic poles to change ever so slowly!
Meanwhile Lucifer is laughing at your ignorance! Read this it will help explain what is taking place!!
>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he >>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically >> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking >> about.
>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to >conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual >studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on >the internet's word for it.
Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an Argument through Creative Insults?
>>>2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who >>>advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never >>>in >>>fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would >>>certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
>> Of course, Anthony Watts has never represented himself as a doctor, >> or >> even a PhD in anything.
>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25 >> years.
>How is someone without a science degree a meteorologist? I think what >he meant to say is he's a TV weatherman, and apparently one who either >can't read or is a bald faced liar. But keep reading your oil company >funded, pretend-scientist written blogs. It will reinforce everything >you want to believe, and that's the whole point, right?
Hah. You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you? You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole qualification for knowing something?
You know what I always say, don't you? The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
"... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that shopworn old chestnut?
I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite "overwhelming consensus" ?
Puhleeze, don't do it. I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.” -Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law,” The MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.
> You people have your blinders on there is global warming it is > caused > by the magnetic affect Nibiru is forcing the earths magnetic poles > to > change ever so slowly!
> Meanwhile Lucifer is laughing at your ignorance! Read this it will > help explain what is taking place!!
>>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he >>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically >>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking >>> about.
>>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to >>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual >>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on >>the internet's word for it.
> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I > could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? > He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
> Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an > Argument through Creative Insults?
Please. I don't just insult you. I insult you, then prove you wrong.
>>>>2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who >>>>advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never >>>>in >>>>fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would >>>>certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
>>> Of course, Anthony Watts has never represented himself as a doctor, >>> or >>> even a PhD in anything.
>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25 >>> years.
>>How is someone without a science degree a meteorologist? I think what >>he meant to say is he's a TV weatherman, and apparently one who either >>can't read or is a bald faced liar. But keep reading your oil company >>funded, pretend-scientist written blogs. It will reinforce everything >>you want to believe, and that's the whole point, right?
> Hah. > You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you? > You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole > qualification for knowing something?
It's a requirement to prove it to someone.
> You know what I always say, don't you? > The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an > ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
Education is always a good thing.
> "... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
> Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that shopworn > old chestnut?
It isn't a chestnut.
> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite "overwhelming > consensus" ?
Neither is that. Why is your brain too addled to understand that you don't have close to the scientific understanding to discuss the data itself and must instead, like the rest of us, fall back on the opinion of experts, who overwhelmingly are on one side of this issue? Bill O'Reilly gets this Why don't you?
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:58:55 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>"joeturn" <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:c4c8b59f-fb17-4554-93fa-370dc680430f@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> You people have your blinders on there is global warming it is >> caused >> by the magnetic affect Nibiru is forcing the earths magnetic poles >> to >> change ever so slowly!
>> Meanwhile Lucifer is laughing at your ignorance! Read this it will >> help explain what is taking place!!
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:58:55 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> >"joeturn" <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:c4c8b59f-fb17-4554-93fa-370dc680430f@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> You people have your blinders on there is global warming it is > >> caused > >> by the magnetic affect Nibiru is forcing the earths magnetic poles > >> to > >> change ever so slowly!
> >> Meanwhile Lucifer is laughing at your ignorance! Read this it will > >> help explain what is taking place!!
> >Is this a joke, Joe? Even Turbo wouldn't fall for that crap.
> Heehe
> I often wonder if Joe even knows what planet he's on.
Nibiru has a lot more to do with it, along with the fact that we are almost at the peak gravitational force applied upon us by all bodies in our galaxy
ALL, get it ? The greatest gravitation force is applied by all galactic bodies upon us within a 25 Thousand year cycle.
Venus is hotter The sun is hotter The earth is hotter
>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with >>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to >>>> believe
>And the lefties? >What do they want to believe?
>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it >>>was based on science and facts.
>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to >>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole >source of knowledge, the lefties?
>Shocking! >Shocking, I say!
>Can't we all just think alike?
The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from petroleum industry-funded studies. -- ~ Seth Jackson
> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, > I > could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as > you?
No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility for yourself.
> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? > He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
My understanding is one needs credentials to call oneself a meteorologist. If I am wrong about that, then fuck it, I'm a meteorologist too. Do you really not understand the difference between a TV weatherman and a meteorologist?
>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25 >>> years.
Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a box of Cracker Jacks?
> Hah. > You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you? > You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole > qualification for knowing something?
Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I want my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have science degrees.
> You know what I always say, don't you? > The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an > ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
And it's as hackneyed this time as it was the first time you said it.
> "... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
> Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that > shopworn > old chestnut?
No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and 2) objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite > "overwhelming > consensus" ?
> Puhleeze, don't do it. > I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next week
Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific organization in the world:
Synthesis reports Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of knowledge of a given subject.[2]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]
The New York Times reported: The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[4] The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[5] The Associated Press summarized the position on sea level rise:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent polar ice sheet melt continues.[6] U.S. Global Change Research Program formerly the Climate Change Science Program
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[7] that: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:
Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures,reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment[8]:
Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[9]
Statements by concurring organizations Academies of Science European Academy of Sciences and Arts In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:
Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind's future. [10] InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering academies,[11][12] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14] [edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[15]
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
Joint science academies' statements Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[16] 2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[17], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science
...
>>>> If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the >>>> trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and >>>> change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities, >>>> slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence >>>> right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth >>>> and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night >>>> and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that >>>> reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen >>>> based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing >>>> huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great >>>> Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury?
> I noticed. > You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking > points into a single paragraph.
> You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
So you're just giving up, then? Let me remind you where you are. A few messages up, you said this, in response to my quoted paragraph above:
> You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
I have listed numerous obvious, indisputable changes in the biosphere brought on by the recent activities of man. They are not "talking points". I did expect you to at least understand what I was getting at; perhaps I expected to much. You manage only to wave your hand at all of them, without being able to explain why a single one is contrary to fact. You do not even make an attempt, yet you hold smugly to your claim that the recent, massive changes in nature may not be caused by man.
Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should just give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a rational argument for at least one of these two points:
(1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist (2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused by man
>>> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't >>> be around to see what happens next. >> Are you 100% sure?
> John, you seem to be "more sure" than Turbo about most of what you are > saying.
> What makes you better than he at making up his/your mind?
I am only pointing out that there is at least a debate in the scientific literature regarding the cause of the loss of ice on this mountain. It is Turbo who has claimed that the view (he thinks is) represented in some papers is correct, while the view represented in the more recent paper is incorrect. At no point in this thread have I claimed to know the answer to an ongoing scientific debate about which I am completely uninformed. At no point have I claimed to know more about the background of a scientific topic than the highly credentialed authors of the most recent study on said topic.
> The only thing wrong with generalizations is their lack of specificity.
If you're saying there wasn't much right about your "most of what you are saying" bit above, I'd agree.
"John the Savage" <savage0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should just > give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a rational > argument for at least one of these two points:
> (1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist > (2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused > by man
>> He is the only poster currently posting I will concede might be >> smarter than me. Well, Eleaticus also, of course.
> I think John would be the first to admit he has nowhere near a 200 IQ. > Since there are only likely to be about 6 people on planet Earth at any > given time with an adult 200+ IQ (99.9999999th percentile), the odds of > two or three of them showing up on RGP simultaneously would seem to be > astronomical, to say the very least.
My views of "200+ IQ" have been fleshed out here more than once.
I do not think it means anything to talk about an IQ that high among adults. I do not believe anyone on RGP has a 200 IQ. There is no IQ test which is competently designed to resolve differences at the top end of the top end of the distribution. There is no good theory on how to test or score IQs that high. There is no reason to assume the tails of the distribution perfectly resemble the predictions of a Gaussian distribution, either.
In my opinion there is only one credible, documented case of an IQ over 200. This guy:
He was reading four languages on his third birthday, and doing University physics before he was four. At that age, the traditional "quotient" interpretation of IQ can yield scores over 200 and if anybody deserves one, it is him. Once he is a grown up, however, there is no way to credibly reach this number again, and no way to tell if he is still that much smarter than everyone else, or was mostly a developmental anomaly.
> Yeah, you can say THAT again! Changes for the GOOD! I'm sure glad I wasn't > born 100 years ago. That would have really sucked.
pity this busy monster, manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease: your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness --- electrons deify one razorblade into a mountainrange; lenses extend unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish returns on its unself. A world of made is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go
> >>On Nov 2, 8:54 pm, "gtech1" <duanepritch...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding!! Remind me, what area is your > >>> degree in? > >>> On Nov 2 2009 7:17 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:53 -0800, "gtech1" > >>> > <duanepritch...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> > Oh no, not this Kilimanjaro rubbish again! > >>> > 2 11 2009
> >>> > Gore started this. > >>> > Note to journalists everywhere: IT’S THE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION STUPID!
> >>> > See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to > >>> > small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
> >>> > The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of > >>> > deforestation. > >>> > Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
> >>> > Don’t believe me? Here’s news of a recent study from Portsmouth > >>> > University Of Mt. Kilimanjaro ice waving us good-bye due to > >>> > deforestation. Here’s another peer reviewed study from UAH saying the > >>> > same thing.
> >>> > ========================= > >>> > ** There wasn’t organized farming near Kilimanjaro until the last > >>> > century. > >>> > Farming preparation clears trees, trees evapotranspirate mositure. > >>> > Less trees, less moisture.
> >>> > Image: Wikimedia
> >>> > No surprise then they don’t see it in the ice core record.
> >>> > It is simply bad science to not consider land use issues looking you > >>> > in the face while you drill ice cores on the slopes. > >>> > – Anthony (Watts) > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > BTW > >>> > While your looking at the site, take a good look at the World Climate > >>> > Widget on the sidebar.
> >>> > Among other things, it shows the satellite data for temperatures in > >>> > the lower troposphere.
> >>> --- > >>> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com-Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >>M.S. AE, Ga Tech > >>Busted
> Sorry, not good enough. > You aren't a certified AGW Scientist.
> Your opinions are hereby rejected. > You could just as well be on the payroll of Big Oil.
> (If you had a sarcasm detector, it would be in full alarm mode.)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
It is.
One of the major alarmist "scientist" who has written several highly touted papers on the subject of AGW, a Mr Ammann, has a degree from divinity school. No science or math at all. Gore and his ilk don't seem to think he is unqualified. Mann's hockey stick graph, the centerpiece of the UN report that warns of impending doom, was thoroughly discredited due to math errors by Canadian mathmaticians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in 2003. At Ga Tech, you basically spend the first 2 years studying Math and Physics and Chemistry regardles of the degree you are pursuing. They are the basis of most all degrees given there. You don't take courses in your field until about junior year.
> Pity the poor slobs who trudged this Earth, before the invention of the > internal combustion engine. Of course, they're all dead!
Excellent ... but then, in the end ... aren't we all.
John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new is OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
Like someone else I know and enjoy, he presumes, assumes and has ultimate faith in whateveritisthatheissaying and then denounces anyone who might questions the original conglomeration.
There are no clear and unambiguous opinions given nor sought ... just the same old same old political rants.
At least he does not scream racism in every other post ... that is something to be thankful for.
Now, if he would just separate legitimate environmental concerns so they might be considered one by one with some sort of reasonable debate, progress might be made ... but that seems unlikely.
[Sorry, Paul, I know I have exceeded my word limit in this post.]
Delete above ... substitute ... Mankind is the only species that does not deserve to exist.
> > Pity the poor slobs who trudged this Earth, before the invention of the > > internal combustion engine. Of course, they're all dead!
> Excellent ... but then, in the end ... aren't we all.
> John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new is > OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
> Like someone else I know and enjoy, he presumes, assumes and has ultimate > faith in whateveritisthatheissaying and then denounces anyone who might > questions the original conglomeration.
> There are no clear and unambiguous opinions given nor sought ... just the > same old same old political rants.
> At least he does not scream racism in every other post ... that is something > to be thankful for.
> Now, if he would just separate legitimate environmental concerns so they > might be considered one by one with some sort of reasonable debate, progress > might be made ... but that seems unlikely.
> [Sorry, Paul, I know I have exceeded my word limit in this post.]
> Delete above ... substitute ... Mankind is the only species that does not > deserve to exist.
I like this last sentence! Americas story teller put it another way but all turns out the same as a deer friend of Nokio Tesla, MarkTwain not only bad mouthed him at his uligy but said "God surely made the Monkey because of his disappointment in Man"
People choose to acknowledge and express things they have been brainwashed into believing!
Use to you could tell if someone was smart by the degree it had attached to its nam and the horrible handwritting PHD ect,ect... Now a- days you can buy a degree and start out at the top pay level via the internet! Particularly the medical profession stands out like a sore thumb! Doctors that cant even speak your language are telling you what is best for you and you know they cant have even an inkling as to what they are pushing!!
For instance ole Doc Hainey learned several cures through out his years of practice! Now just rent a flick and you can pass a test that gives you the expectations your knowledge of a certain field demands your patients trust ,but bare in mind its still juat practice and you are still the guiney pig!
EXAMPLE: Doc Hainey told Chester to go over to the livery stable and souge his swollen cock into a shovel of fresh horse manure this would reduce the pain and swelling done by a sworm of yellow jackets Chester had waliked upon! Miss Kitty was just back from her morning ride after miles of excitement her horse's trott had put her through.Miss Kitty saw Chester standing there with a shovel full of horse manure his pants down and his cock was pulsating it felt as if it were going to explode before he could get the relief Doc had promised him.
Gazing down at Chesters huge abundance of discomfort She asked What was he going to do with that? Chester says well Doc told me to soug it into this Shovel to make the swelling go away!!
Miss Kitty says I have a better idea.She lifted her dress to expose her wetness and said Chester just souge it in here! Chester says oh no Miss Kitty not the whole shovel full!?
> The article says that the glaciers will be gone in a couple of > decades. I dunno. My objection is the weatherman can't tell me what > the weather will be like a few days from, let alone a few decades from > now.
Last year the global warming loons were in full blown hysteria screaming that the artic ice caps were melting. Then they admitted that they had "over looked" an ice flow the size of the state of Texas.
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced cookies.
Irish Mike
____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Taxation has always been a means of devilish persicution of the human race! Al Gore will expect to bask in the warm waters while everyone else boils! Even the fallen angles believes Lucifers deciet!Hypnotism wont save them from their torture!
Its a real game were living in and ignoring it wont make it go away! The wrath of God is Nibiru it is with in sight of earth already! It comes close enough every 3,500 years to change the face of the earth and all life there on!
Global warming is evident because of NIBIRUs affect and ole Al was chosen to steer the herd away from reality and say it was a human error that must be paid for$$$$$$.
Now most of the world has identified the space race as a way of keeping an eye out for the coming of Nibiru so the illuminati can wisk its chosen few into their bunkers for the duration and solar radiation to dwindle! This is Lucifers salution to beating the next wrath of god but it wont work either!
|
