This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

I have never been taught anything different than what was in your acquittal of CO2. Everyone knows the natural CO2 cycle in the Vostok ice core was driven by the oceans. Yes, CO2 correlated to warmer temperatures over the last several hundred thousand years. That has nothing to do with GCC, let alone discounts it. No one is saying all past climate change was driven by CO2 alone. It was a positive feedback mechanism. The difference is now we are augmenting the natural feedback mechanism, and more warming is and will be the result. I am not talking ten degrees and 30 feet sea rise, but I am talking about enough to be a problem.
 
I have never been taught anything different than what was in your acquittal of CO2. Everyone knows the natural CO2 cycle in the Vostok ice core was driven by the oceans. Yes, CO2 correlated to warmer temperatures over the last several hundred thousand years. That has nothing to do with GCC, let alone discounts it. No one is saying all past climate change was driven by CO2 alone. It was a positive feedback mechanism. The difference is now we are augmenting the natural feedback mechanism, and more warming is and will be the result. I am not talking ten degrees and 30 feet sea rise, but I am talking about enough to be a problem.

So we aren't that far apart after all.

I don't agree that; "more warming is and will be the result."

The thing is that for as far as we can tell, and that's a very very long time, CO2 levels have followed warming and cooling on Earth and we have no reason to believe this will change except by conjecture of a few people with a political/economic agenda.

So what if sea levels rise or fall, we do nothing about it by attacking human CO2 emmissions and as costly as that kind of policy is, even the most avid of CO2 wannabe regulators admit that cap and trade will do little if anything to limit CO2 emmissions. (even though it will cost people like you and me a ton of money.)

Atmospheric CO2 levels is, always has been and will continue to be in the future, secondary to the primary drivers of golbal temperature, ie; solar and cosmic activity.

(there are several other factors but it takes several factors all coming together in time to make the problem really serious.)
 
While we disagree on the warming stuff, I am also not in favor of cap and trade type regulation. The free market and building wealth would best deal with the issue, as well as education. Taxing us into a depression will greatly increase emissions eventually, when the political and social blow back that is inevitable from such a damaging policy comes.
 
While we disagree on the warming stuff, I am also not in favor of cap and trade type regulation. The free market and building wealth would best deal with the issue, as well as education. Taxing us into a depression will greatly increase emissions eventually, when the political and social blow back that is inevitable from such a damaging policy comes.

You are trying to talk sense to the nonsensical.

The enviro/climate change/animal rights/wacko jobbers are just using such issues to promote their radical views so as to create a super state over which they will rule with an iron hand. (same goes for the UN World Health Organization [WHO] and their scary scenarios of swine flu, etc.)

Let's take Obozo's science and technology czar John Holdren for instance.

(I'm not all that big on being impoverished for my own good, I'd rather shoot John Holdren between the eyes which looks like what is going to have to happen if we are to survive as a nation.)

This sort of thinking can lead to more nazi-like death camps.

Jay Rockefeller says Holdren can 'walk on water?', what a load of utter wealthy elitist BS!!!

And guess what, the USA now has a new Orwelian style 'Climate Service'.

BTW, Teresa Heinz Kerry funded Holdren before he became an obambi puppet.

Ayn Rand and George Orwell among others have predicted this sort of insanity being sold to the public, don't buy any of it for one second.


Today During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency
budget in today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer - the chair of the committee - and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. (Which doesn't give them a leg to stand on other that BS articles in the NY Slimes, aka Izvestia on the east river and the Washington Post, aka Pravda on the Potomac!.)

Senator Inhofe has called for a criminal investigation into climategate principles and their actions. This might really shake something loose if it comes to pass. Threatened with jail time, some of the small fry might start to sing and bring down the whole rotten edifice.

AGWers are in deep denial.

And the man who’s been right all along about the AGW hoax also reminded madam chair and company of the $300-400 billion a year cap-and-tax would cost regardless of whether legislated or regulated. As well as the insanity of imposing such a job-killing price tag on an already shaky economy and job-market based on reports springing new holes in their facts nearly every day.

Boxer just shook her head and mumbled something about extreme weather and droughts.

Inhofe smiled, recognizing his adversaries for what they were -- frantic shopkeepers trying desperately to market their hopelessly out-of-date wares.
 
Interesting

Losing Our Forests: NRDC Sues to Protect Iconic Whitebark Pine
Unique High Elevation Trees Threatened by Warming Climate

CHICAGO - February 25 - The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking federal action to protect the whitebark pine, an imperiled tree species critical to the health of the high elevation mountain country of the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest. The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a ninety-day finding on NRDC's petition to list the whitebark pine as an endangered species.

"Within the past few years, certain regions have seen an 80 percent die-off of whitebark pine trees," said Rebecca Riley, endangered species attorney with NRDC. "This unique and wide-ranging tree is iconic and critical to the American West and it is under attack. The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to move quickly to protect this vanishing species."

Whitebark pine is found at high elevations throughout western North America, but it is particularly important in the Northern Rockies and high Sierras of California. Threatening these trees is a "perfect storm" of problems, including an unprecedented outbreak of mountain pine beetles due to warming temperatures and the infestation of a non-native fungus, white pine blister rust.

Scientists regard the tree as a "foundation species" because it creates the conditions necessary for other plants and animals to get established in harsh alpine ecosystems. Whitebark pine supports the growth of other plant and tree species, providing habitat, food, and shelter for wildlife such as grizzly bears, squirrels, and many bird species. The tree's branches block wind and slow snowmelt, regulating spring runoff and providing a steady supply of water for rivers and streams in the critical late summer season.

"What happens to whitebark pine will have sweeping effects on the entire high mountain forest ecosystems of the Northern Rockies," said NRDC senior wildlife advocate Louisa Willcox. "Of particular concern is the future of Yellowstone's threatened grizzly population, which relies on the high-fat seeds of whitebark pine as a primary food source. Fewer whitebark pine seeds lead to higher numbers of grizzly bear deaths and lower reproductive success among females."

The rate of the whitebark pine tree's disappearance has increased significantly in recent years and raised concern from the scientific community. Fire suppression, white pine blister rust, and climate-driven mountain pine beetle outbreaks all threaten the ability of the tree to serve its important role in maintaining the health of the ecosystems where it lives.

"Growing at the highest elevations of any trees in the West, the whitebark pine has survived everything nature has to throw at it: lightening strikes, 80 mile an hour winds, rock and ice, and frigid winter temperatures," said NRDC senior wildlife advocate Louisa Willcox. "But the tragedy is that it may not be able to survive what we are throwing at it now: a warming climate and invasive disease."

Until recently, harsh winters have helped protect whitebark pine, by keeping mountain pine beetles (which are the size of a grain of rice) at lower elevations, where beetles have coevolved with other pine species such as lodgepole. North America's high elevation ecosystems are some of the fastest warming areas on the planet. Those warmer winter temperatures have allowed beetles to flourish at higher elevations and vigorously attack whitebark pine, which lack the defenses of lower elevation forests. Additionally, the extreme cold snaps that used to limit the insects' breeding have not been present for many years. Decades of drought, blister rust, and a non-native invasive fungus species have killed more than 50 percent of whitebark pines in the Northern Rockies over the last four decades. In certain areas, between 80-100 percent of the remaining trees are infected with blister rust or beetles and will die.
 
Interesting

Where's your link, who is the originator??

FWIW, certain well funded NGOs, such as World Wildlife Fund and many others use dubious scientific methods to promote their agenda, one of which is in the famous words of the head of Greenpeace; "just make them up on the spot.

The man who first started Greenpeace said of the present day organization; "I had no idea the Greenpeace would degenerate into a pack of scientific morons."
 
I have left this contentious thread alone, because it makes my head hurt.

However, today I visited wattsupwiththat.com for the first time in about two weeks, and found a really good read by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech (well regarded climate scientist) that really hit on some of the points I was trying to make with TT and IP when I was in the thread.

here

There is also a response from Willis Eschenbach, who has long been a climate alarmism skeptic. His response held more of an edge than I would have liked, but he made some good points that Judith had seemed to ignore. I wish he had been more tactful in a response, especially with the grace that Judith wrote her piece. I guess that is part of the passion people on both sides of this have, coming out.

here

Finally, Judith responded to this article in the comments with a nice rebuttal.

here

I guess I just wanted to say, Judith has a lot of my feelings well written near the end of her article. She indicates:
... there is a large group of educated and evidence driven people (e.g. the libertarians, people that read the technical skeptic blogs, not to mention policy makers) who want to understand the risk and uncertainties associated with climate change, without being told what kinds of policies they should be supporting. More effective communication strategies can be devised by recognizing that there are two groups with different levels of base knowledge about the topic. But building trust through public communication on this topic requires that uncertainty be acknowledged. My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism).
You can't speak about this with certainties and alarmism... because there are still so many uncertainties in climate science... and it is important to acknowledge those to be credible.

Great stuff from both Judith and Willis... although I interestingly agree more with Judith in this line of conversation. :lol:
 
I have left this contentious thread alone, because it makes my head hurt.

However, today I visited wattsupwiththat.com for the first time in about two weeks, and found a really good read by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech (well regarded climate scientist) that really hit on some of the points I was trying to make with TT and IP when I was in the thread.

here

There is also a response from Willis Eschenbach, who has long been a climate alarmism skeptic. His response held more of an edge than I would have liked, but he made some good points that Judith had seemed to ignore. I wish he had been more tactful in a response, especially with the grace that Judith wrote her piece. I guess that is part of the passion people on both sides of this have, coming out.

here

Finally, Judith responded to this article in the comments with a nice rebuttal.

here

I guess I just wanted to say, Judith has a lot of my feelings well written near the end of her article. She indicates:

You can't speak about this with certainties and alarmism... because there are still so many uncertainties in climate science... and it is important to acknowledge those to be credible.

Great stuff from both Judith and Willis... although I interestingly agree more with Judith in this line of conversation. :lol:

You can't seriously be calling TT and I "alarmists," can you? If anything, it sounds like she and I are on the same page.
 
You can't seriously be calling TT and I "alarmists," can you? If anything, it sounds like she and I are on the same page.
Certainly not. But every time I tried to indicate that there are a bunch of unknowns, you always indicated you are firmly in the "I know AGW is a fact" camp.

I also got the impression that you support using current climate science to dictate policies, specifically to reduce CO2 emissions.

All I was ever trying to indicate was the high level of uncertainty, and I think the wait and see approach is currently appropriate. TT was with me on the admission of uncertainty... you never were. :p

Glad you feel you are on the same page as her. Maybe you even got something out of the rebuttal by Willis? Then again, you may have heard his rhetoric ad nauseum, since you said your dad is in the skeptic boat.
 
When I really began learning climate science, I took some classes from our Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences guys. A fair amount of time was spent discussing how uncertainty is handled in climate modeling and how temperature predictions (with error bars) are generated. So, I think that early on in my understanding of the issues I embraced the idea of uncertainty in the predictions. What I personally had some problems with is that monte carlo analysis is used to generated the probability of various temperature increases, but to do this, probability distribution functions are assigned each uncertain value in the climate models. Assigning the PDFs is an easy task for some variables, but can appear (to me) quite arbitrary for others. Good use of sensitivity analysis would help put to rest concern over the PDFs used for these variables - and I'm not certain if that is something that they do or not.

I find the actual scientists cranking through the data, taking measurements, making models, etc. to openly embrace and talk about the uncertainty in their work. With that said, they feel that even with the error bars that there will be problems if we continue down the business as usual case.
 
I find the actual scientists cranking through the data, taking measurements, making models, etc. to openly embrace and talk about the uncertainty in their work. With that said, they feel that even with the error bars that there will be problems if we continue down the business as usual case.
That's not necessarily true TT. The quotes that Eschenbach used in his article exemplify that... First from Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes when he asked for the data that supported his conclusions in a certain paper.
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
... and then the now famous quote from Stephen Schneider.
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Those tell a different story from a couple of high profile climate scientists. They have NO interest in discussing uncertainty and error.
 
Well, I'm talking about scientific uncertainty in data/results, not necessarily error in collection technique or method. I think that a fair number of climate scientists have become stand-offish when it comes to 'attacks' on their science by those who don't accept the notion of AGW. While I would like to say that they should be above that, I also know that you can get irritable. Depending on the context of the first quote, I'm not sure it demonstrates that he isn't willing to talk about the error bars on his data/results.

With that said, the second quote is troubling, right? This is a problem you get when you get an advocate scientist I guess. It is true that to capture public imagination, you need to offer 'big' scenarios...but why not qualify the low-probability of these events? Also, he is right that if you are talking to non-scientists and start talking about any uncertainties you have, then they will write you off in many cases, particularly if they are already pre-disposed to disbelieve aspects of what you are saying. This is a big problem, because there are ALWAYS uncertainties, or doubts, that one should have...otherwise you're not thinking hard enough. This quote is a reason why I don't advocate based on my own work, but rather scientific inquiry in general when I go to capitol hill with a group I started here....I don't want to put myself in the position he describes....I find that I can clearly communicate (usually) the uncertainty - I just want to make sure I remain 'honest' in my own work. I will also add that I have personally witnessed one Congressman and several staffers light up as if I have admitted that all AGW is junk when I have embraced the fact that there exist error bars on model results ... that's a bit disconcerting.

Edit: After a bit more thought on this, I should amend my statement about the scientists doing the work embracing the uncertainty. In a classroom or scientific conference, I think that it is the rule, in general. However, outside these 'confines', I can definitely believe there can be reluctance due to concern over how it would be perceived.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm talking about scientific uncertainty in data/results, not necessarily error in collection technique or method. I think that a fair number of climate scientists have become stand-offish when it comes to 'attacks' on their science by those who don't accept the notion of AGW. While I would like to say that they should be above that, I also know that you can get irritable. Depending on the context of the first quote, I'm not sure it demonstrates that he isn't willing to talk about the error bars on his data/results.
But isn't uncertainty and error in collection technique or method just as important, if not more so, than the statistics of results? If there has been error in collection or measurement, then the basis for the entire experiment is flawed!

With that said, the second quote is troubling, right? This is a problem you get when you get an advocate scientist I guess. It is true that to capture public imagination, you need to offer 'big' scenarios...but why not qualify the low-probability of these events? Also, he is right that if you are talking to non-scientists and start talking about any uncertainties you have, then they will write you off in many cases, particularly if they are already pre-disposed to disbelieve aspects of what you are saying.
I think at this point Americans as a whole have been conditioned to be pre-disposed to BELIEVE, and I find that just as troubling.
This is a big problem, because there are ALWAYS uncertainties, or doubts, that one should have...otherwise you're not thinking hard enough. This quote is a reason why I don't advocate based on my own work, but rather scientific inquiry in general when I go to capitol hill with a group I started here....I don't want to put myself in the position he describes....I find that I can clearly communicate (usually) the uncertainty - I just want to make sure I remain 'honest' in my own work. I will also add that I have personally witnessed one Congressman and several staffers light up as if I have admitted that all AGW is junk when I have embraced the fact that there exist error bars on model results ... that's a bit disconcerting.
From a policy standpoint, I would agree with said congressman. Not that all AGW is junk, but that to base policy decisions on the current state of climate science is dangerous.
Edit: After a bit more thought on this, I should amend my statement about the scientists doing the work embracing the uncertainty. In a classroom or scientific conference, I think that it is the rule, in general. However, outside these 'confines', I can definitely believe there can be reluctance due to concern over how it would be perceived.
I'm still not sure that it is properly portrayed in classrooms. Many have gotten so used to their public rhetoric, it leaks into the classroom, whether it is conscious or not. (Similar to personal political beliefs, but that is a different tirade)
 
But isn't uncertainty and error in collection technique or method just as important, if not more so, than the statistics of results? If there has been error in collection or measurement, then the basis for the entire experiment is flawed!

Yes, that can certainly be a problem! With that said, scientists tend to defend those methods quite vigorously, and if they think that someone (not in their field, let's say) is going to try to unfairly poke holes in it, they aren't going to bother. The problem with this is that this person might actually catch something important. This would be a good example of why level heads are so important when addressing these things, if someone gets heated the process breaks down fairly quickly. And, everyone is heated on this one by now.


I think at this point Americans as a whole have been conditioned to be pre-disposed to BELIEVE, and I find that just as troubling.

I don't know. I guess it depends on where you are sampling. I hear both.

From a policy standpoint, I would agree with said congressman. Not that all AGW is junk, but that to base policy decisions on the current state of climate science is dangerous.

I don't get that. It is fine if you (or said congressman) think(s) that the uncertainty if too great to act; but, to act that because there exists uncertainty that the notion of AGW must be bull is way off base. I think you would agree with that.

I'm still not sure that it is properly portrayed in classrooms. Many have gotten so used to their public rhetoric, it leaks into the classroom, whether it is conscious or not. (Similar to personal political beliefs, but that is a different tirade)

Depends on the classroom, I guess. I really enjoyed my classes, even going into them fairly skeptical. I'm not a enviro-green-wacko, so I wasn't exactly sold by greenpeace telling me the earth was warming. I felt that the issue was handled well in the classes I took/listened to, and they won me over on most of the science.
 
I don't get that. It is fine if you (or said congressman) think(s) that the uncertainty if too great to act; but, to act that because there exists uncertainty that the notion of AGW must be bull is way off base. I think you would agree with that.
I can certainly agree with that. I'm saying that with the current status of the field, the fact remains that action can be just as damaging as not acting. The level of uncertainty is that great. Like I said earlier in the thread... for all we know, our actions could be keeping us out of another Ice Age just as easily as they could be damning us to a climactic hell.

Therefore, my action is to gain more knowledge before we act... especially by auditing each others' work to ensure that we are correct before we make any broad policy decisions. Due to the facts that have come to light about the state of the field over the last few months, the current 'climate' of climate science needs to change. :lol:

A willingness to accept criticism and different viewpoints and ideas... which I am afraid will never happen now.

An example... Steve McIntyre was denounced by Mann et al. for not being a climate expert. They were right, he's a statistician. However, he wasn't critiquing their use of climate science, he was critiquing the statistics they used in their research, and found GLARING errors in their math... which he most certainly IS an expert in. Instead of being accepting of the criticism, they attacked him publicly, and until the UAE e-mails came to light, had been quite successful in bringing him down publicly.
 
There is certainly a distinction between understanding what man's forcing will be on global average temperatures and understanding what these temperatures will actually be once all effects are taken into consideration. If the sun shuts down by 10% tomorrow, the predictions radically change, I would think. I'm not sure I take this as a complete reason not to act, but I can always listen to, understand, and accept to a reasonable extent the argument. I haven't settled on what action (if any) I want to see anyway.
 
There is certainly a distinction between understanding what man's forcing will be on global average temperatures and understanding what these temperatures will actually be once all effects are taken into consideration. If the sun shuts down by 10% tomorrow, the predictions radically change, I would think. I'm not sure I take this as a complete reason not to act, but I can always listen to, understand, and accept to a reasonable extent the argument. I haven't settled on what action (if any) I want to see anyway.
We're allowed to form our own opinions based on the information available... otherwise, there wouldn't be any debate. :)
 
There is certainly a distinction between understanding what man's forcing will be on global average temperatures and understanding what these temperatures will actually be once all effects are taken into consideration. If the sun shuts down by 10% tomorrow, the predictions radically change, I would think. I'm not sure I take this as a complete reason not to act, but I can always listen to, understand, and accept to a reasonable extent the argument. I haven't settled on what action (if any) I want to see anyway.

Funny, the Earth has fluctuated for millions of years in temperature, and even a lot in the past 5-10k years, but yet we are still here. It's an alarmist theory at best, as rwemyss put it. There isn't anything decided, there is no consensus, and there is nothing that we have, can, or will do to change the Earth's climate that much to where we all die. It's just not going to happen. As far as the data goes, I can make a data set that says anything I want. So, it's going to be years, probably 50 plus, before anything really solid is presented to the people. Until then, I'm going to go outside, where here in the Greater Nashville area we have had the 12th coldest winter on record this year. That's a fact. :)
 
I have left this contentious thread alone, because it makes my head hurt.

However, today I visited wattsupwiththat.com for the first time in about two weeks, and found a really good read by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech (well regarded climate scientist) that really hit on some of the points I was trying to make with TT and IP when I was in the thread.

here

There is also a response from Willis Eschenbach, who has long been a climate alarmism skeptic. His response held more of an edge than I would have liked, but he made some good points that Judith had seemed to ignore. I wish he had been more tactful in a response, especially with the grace that Judith wrote her piece. I guess that is part of the passion people on both sides of this have, coming out.

here

Finally, Judith responded to this article in the comments with a nice rebuttal.

here

I guess I just wanted to say, Judith has a lot of my feelings well written near the end of her article. She indicates:

You can't speak about this with certainties and alarmism... because there are still so many uncertainties in climate science... and it is important to acknowledge those to be credible.

Great stuff from both Judith and Willis... although I interestingly agree more with Judith in this line of conversation. :lol:

We should even trust this UN wonk to beging with??

11pachuri.jpg


chance_of_fog.jpg


I don't agree it is or should be about trust, I've found the UN to be untrustworthy my whole life, from it's very inception. So if it were just about trust then the whole deal should be deep sixed.

What it should be about is the science of the matter.
 
Funny, the Earth has fluctuated for millions of years in temperature, and even a lot in the past 5-10k years, but yet we are still here. It's an alarmist theory at best, as rwemyss put it. There isn't anything decided, there is no consensus, and there is nothing that we have, can, or will do to change the Earth's climate that much to where we all die. It's just not going to happen. As far as the data goes, I can make a data set that says anything I want. So, it's going to be years, probably 50 plus, before anything really solid is presented to the people. Until then, I'm going to go outside, where here in the Greater Nashville area we have had the 12th coldest winter on record this year. That's a fact. :)

Well, you can count me among you in the group (and it is a large one) that doubts man will change climate enough to kill all of us.
 
There is certainly a distinction between understanding what man's forcing will be on global average temperatures and understanding what these temperatures will actually be once all effects are taken into consideration. If the sun shuts down by 10% tomorrow, the predictions radically change, I would think. I'm not sure I take this as a complete reason not to act, but I can always listen to, understand, and accept to a reasonable extent the argument. I haven't settled on what action (if any) I want to see anyway.

Take action???

We've been taking action for forty years.

Cap and Trade is like suicide though.
 
Well, you can count me among you in the group (and it is a large one) that doubts man will change climate enough to kill all of us.


Congress is behaving like crawfish in shallow water these days on cap and trade and EPA action as well!!!

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri want to veto the EPA’s finding in December that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Their resolution, co-sponsored by Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson, mirrors one drafted by Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and backed by 41 senators from both parties.

At least three states and a host of business groups also have challenged the EPA finding, which sets the stage for future rules restricting emissions from cars, power plants and factories.
 
Wiping out man and endangering public health and welfare are obviously quite different, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
Wiping out man and endangering public health and welfare are obviously quite different, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There will be no C&T bill passed this year.

Obama and company will charge ahead using the EPA as a battering ram but already suits are being filed in court and if any action is taken in congress, it will be to curb unilateral efforts by the EPA.

As the header for the topic of this thread suggests, things aren't going so well for the scare mongers.

For many years now the globalists have been trying to enhance the power of the UN WHO with SARs, swine flu etc scares and trying to tie global warming aka climate change to health issues without too much success.

Meanwhile the moronic ehtanol mandates will remain in effect although they should be repealed immediately.

Feed corn is running at about 2 1/2 the price it was selling for before the mandates and that is reflected at your friendly local meat counters while farmers still get about the same price when they sell out of the field.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Next up is obesity and other food related control measures proposed by these people who just can't live without trying to control all sorts of things.

Did I read where they are now thinking of legislating the shape and size of hot dogs???

What idiocy.

I believe the Dem governor of Colorado make this asinine, oxymoronic statement the other day; "Thousands of obese children are going to school hungry every day."

HUH? :banghead2:

Gore is still plugging global warming in today's the NY Slimes disinformation rag and lies about obelisty are still being pushed even though we've known it's mostly a load of bs for ages.
 

VN Store



Back
Top