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

On Oct 2, 12:33*am, jr92 > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 5:27*pm, "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:59*am, PeterD > wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:08:37 +0200, "Major Debacle"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html
>
> > > >WASHINGTON -- A tiny car company backed by former Vice President
> > > >Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government
>
> > > Over half a billion dollars for another Gore scam... Gore, the
> > > environmental disastar beyond belief! And, no that half billion will
> > > never be repaid!
>
> > Gore is a partner in a firm which invested in Fisker. *Your rant about
> > Gore is stupid, and that's being polite.
>
> Gore is not stupid. He is GENIUS. And,alas, very CROOKED. . He has
> learned how to take an imaginery "event", global wamring,(

If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
world say it's real? Every scientific organization? Why do all the
articles in scientific journals say it's real?


>or in the
> year 2009, "climate change"),

A term a Bush pollster told the Bush people to use as it was less
"alarming."


>and turn it into a source of vast income
> for him. *Whether it is in recieving millions in government grants,
> raking in tens of millions in stocks of "green" companies, or the
> 200,000 dollars a pop he comands for speaking engagements, all the
> while jet-setting the planet in his evil, carbon spewing private
> plane, he just keeps getting richer and richer.

I thought you right-wingers admired greed. And I thought you
considered the rich to be harder-working and smarter than everybody
else.

>
> I only wish I were as smart as he.
>
> But glad I AM a little more honest.

wrote:

> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
> world say it's real?...

News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda.
Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
hard to find pages of their web site.

> Every scientific organization?...

News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda.
Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
hard to find pages of their web site.


Why do all the
> articles in scientific journals say it's real?

News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda.
Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
hard to find pages of their web site.

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

Bill Putney wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>> world say it's real?...
>
> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
> hard to find pages of their web site.

What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
And, what do the corrected data show?

>> Every scientific organization?...
>
> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
> hard to find pages of their web site.

So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from
NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?

> Why do all the
>> articles in scientific journals say it's real?
>
> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
> hard to find pages of their web site.

While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
little data that don't support that global warming is real.

Jeff

dr_jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>> world say it's real?...
>>
>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>
> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
> And, what do the corrected data show?
>
>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>
>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>
> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from
> NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>
>> Why do all the
>>> articles in scientific journals say it's real?
>>
>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>
> While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
> scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
> little data that don't support that global warming is real.
>
> Jeff


Most non-supportive "data" came out of the Bush/Cheney editing pool.

Speaking of which, why is it that no Bush/Cheney-backed car firm had an
idea good enough to be funded?

Any innovative ideas at all? Or did they put the 'no' in innovation.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:

>Bill Putney wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>> world say it's real?...
>>
>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
>> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
>> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
>> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
>> hard to find pages of their web site.
>
>What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
>And, what do the corrected data show?

This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
they covered up... Been well documented.

>
>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>
>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
>> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
>> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
>> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
>> hard to find pages of their web site.
>
>So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from
>NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?

Huh?

>
>> Why do all the
>>> articles in scientific journals say it's real?
>>
>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
>> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
>> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
>> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
>> hard to find pages of their web site.
>
>While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
>scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
>little data that don't support that global warming is real.
>

There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
to belive the sky is falling.


>Jeff

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
> While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
> scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
> little data that don't support that global warming is real.
>
> Jeff

There are those who will bend data and observations to try to promote
their agenda, for sure.

This issue is very complex. There is simultaneous damage by greenhouse
effect, and temporal cooling effects.

The wise bird never ****s in his nest.

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

Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.

>>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
>>> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
>>> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
>>> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
>>> hard to find pages of their web site.
>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those from
>> NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>
> Huh?

You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only data
that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor
are the data in question that only data that NASA has.

>>> Why do all the
>>>> articles in scientific journals say it's real?
>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just tend
>>> to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot agenda. Or
>>> you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and compiled
>>> before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently hid it in
>>> hard to find pages of their web site.
>> While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
>> scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
>> little data that don't support that global warming is real.
>>
>
> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
> to belive the sky is falling.

Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in
the world both say otherwise?

You say there is nothing happening at all. However, CO2 has been proven
to trap heat (infrared radiation) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
is going up. The question is how much is this going to affect global
climate in the future? Already, global average temperatures have risen
markedly, particularly in the last 15 or 20 years. In addition, large
amounts of artic and antartic ice have melted. The ice caps on mountains
all over the world are disappearing.

I chose to believe that global warming is true because all of the data
back up the theory.

Jeff

>> Jeff

hls wrote:
>
> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message
>> While there are those who argue that climate change is not real, the
>> scientific consensus is that global warming is real. There is very
>> little data that don't support that global warming is real.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> There are those who will bend data and observations to try to promote
> their agenda, for sure.
>
> This issue is very complex. There is simultaneous damage by greenhouse
> effect, and temporal cooling effects.
> The wise bird never ****s in his nest.

What are temporal cooling effects?

Yet, we're increasing greenhouse gases. Does this sound like the
intelligent choice?

jeff

PeterD wrote:

> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
> to belive the sky is falling.

Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest driver?
Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL!

(The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's
- 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. When you look at the false
NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when you look
at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk
about your inconvenient truth!)

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

Bill Putney wrote:
> PeterD wrote:
>
>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
>> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
>> to belive the sky is falling.
>
> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest driver?
> Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL!
>
> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's
> - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. When you look at the false
> NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when you look
> at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the 30's. Talk
> about your inconvenient truth!)

Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this.

Jeff