-
RSS Subscribe
-
It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming)
“There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’” Who said this? It is none other than Reid Bryson, known as the Father of Scientific Climatology and University of Wisconsin Madison Professor Emeritus. But no one has more to gain financially on this than Algore whose companies are now positioned to profit in the “trading” of “Energy Offset Credits” which is expected to become an industry of $68 Billion soon. As I said in my post “The Carbon Credit Scam” this is a gimmick that has the potential to make Enron look like child’s play.
Dr. Bryson has correctly identified the fact that this left wing orthodoxy has managed (or is trying to manage) to squelch legitimate debate in this area. This is for various reasons depending on which moldy corner of the left you are emerging from. Many are simply anarchists that want to bring the United States to its knees because of their world political view. The left in this country have made the Kyoto Protocol an acolyte for Global Warming, the modern Messiah of the left without regards to the fact that practically none of the signatories of the treaty are in compliance and it exempts two of the largest contributors China and India. The United States is smart not to be brow beaten into this nonsense in the name of Political Correctness.
If you want to know about a “REAL” threat to us, just consider the massive unemployment, recession and possible depression if the U.S. were to sign and comply with this leftist litmus test. Those of you that support the signing of the protocol and buy into the “man made Global Warming” theory need to take a couple of steps back and breath in a bag (too much oxygen and not enough carbon dioxide going to your head). After that I recommend you read this article concerning Reid Bryson’s views HERE from The Capital Times - Madison, Wisconsin. It is interesting that Algore continues to boast that virtually every major scientist agrees with him, but Dr. Bryson has mused more about this topic over a single breakfast than Algore knows period. Right here at Next Stop Lauderdale alone we continue to discover more and more of the leaders in the scientific community that take exception to that perpetuated lie. Have they managed to pull it over your eyes?
UPDATE 6/21/2007: Dr. R. Timothy Patterson professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University in an article in the Financial Post insists that even though advocates of the global warming theory such as Al Gore are insisting that the “the science is settled,” that is far from being the case. “Don’t blame rising levels of carbon dioxide (C02) for whatever global warming is now taking place; put the blame on “old sol” — the sun may be getting ready to put the world into the deep freezer.” Full story HERE
comments
29 Responses to “It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming)”
Leave a Reply
If he is known as the “father of scientific climatology” (says who?) it’s because he got his Ph.D. in meteorology in 1948 & he’s 87 years old. The guy & his ilk are dinosaurs Steve… C’mon.
I think you’re hanging your hat in the wrong dug-out on this one but I know it’s now commonplace for the ultra cons to feel this way so have at it.
I personally would trade our current dependencies for alternative ones no matter who stands to make a profit. It would be cool if big oil lead the way but I’m guessing they won’t (kind of like Detriot didn’t with autos)…
I say we act responsibly regardless & I think your post is somewhat irresponsible when considering how many people you speak to & influence with your authoritative tone.
“It’s the left wings religion” so we should all run the other way seems like yet another polarizing tactic. well done…
Mike, It is only irresponsible if you disagree with the conclusions (and vice versa) and we agree to disagree. The scare tactics are coming from as you say “ultra” in my opinion left and they have leveled the first blows by squelching debate. I’d like to be free from petroleum based energy dependency, but ozone depletion would not be high on my list of reasons, maybe pollution in general. What I think is irresponsible is when the left would jeopardize our economy (that would hit the poor the hardest by far) in order to evoke a genufleck to their political litmus test.
87 years old is to old to know what he is talking about? Don’t you think your judgement is a bit rash not really knowing who he is. I wonder why they let him teach at UW if so (of all places, since he is essentially doing it out of retirement not tenure). Father of ……… Says Who? Try a Google search on “father of scientific climatology” and see what 90,000 hits suggest.
Interestingly there is an increasing drum beat from highly reputable scientists that disagree with your conclusions. The problem here is the left has chilled the debate so now it is more a matter of a political litmus test. This is not a cost free piece of insurance we should pick up. They claim (especially algore) that their position is a universal conclusion of scientists and that is a lie and they know it so they explain it away by saying that they mean all worthy scientists. A bit self serving.
And profits……you know I suspect that this Carbon Trading game is a scam not to mention that it is unregulated, and ineffective. It is a “safe harbor” for the energy hogs with big mouths on the left to hang their liberalism on while they complain about the rest of us abusing the environment. None other than algore stand to make the most $ out of this of all. Profits don’t scare me a bit either, but it is his motivies that is driving this in my opinion. Funny how he became a “true believer” after his administration.
Here is what the Financial Times of London had to say about Carbon Trading:
BTW, were you around for the Ice Age theory from this same crowd in the 1960’s? …..steve
What I mean by “the left wings religion” being used by the right is that it’s an attempt to prey on the right wings faith in God (specifically Jesus) thus making people feel as if the left intends to replace God with environmentalism. It’s just ridiculous… but you know that already.
I do agree that the greenies (& left in general) are using scare tactics & I’m personally trying to figure out how scared to be.
I do love this part of the piece…
Bryson didn’t see Al Gore’s movie about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
“Don’t make me throw up,” he said. “It is not science. It is not true.”
C’mon Bryson, at least go see what movie you’re arguing against…
I actually think claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are somewhat unfounded or at least need to be explored further. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. A modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually (MIT study) and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience shows us that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs pretty significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, (according to the EPA) the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated.
So lets think… a mandatory cap on emissions might just spur technological innovation that could actually create jobs and wealth.
Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis (you know how good we’ve been at that) would disrupt and probably severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now. If in fact you are a person that feels like we need to act?
I gotta run but I’ll jump back in later because I do wanna hash a litle of this out. Like anything complex, this dialogue could go a hundred different directions.
I do think you’re hung up on Gore a bit (maybe for fear that the dems can run this up the flagpole for at least a few elections the way repubs lean on RVW & gays?)…
TBC
Mike,
An expert wouldn’t need to see the Hollywood version to comprehend the argument like you and I might. He personally knew the mentor of Al Gore that he cites in the movie. That mentor of Gore’s (name escapes me just now) claimed in his later years that people are drawing excessive conclusions from his work and he distanced himself from them.
Well you know that the left (largely) doesn’t put a lot in religious faith and this reference is to invoke what they do put faith in on the same level of intensity of the religiously faithful. I think the implied analogy is valid.
The point here is not “global warming” but the lefts iconic remedy of the Kyoto Protocol. I am sorry but a couple hundred thousand jobs is a gross understatement. You’ll have to forgive me I no longer have a reference to a study some years ago that was available to me that claims that the full literal implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, especially in view of the exemptions for some of our largest competitors, would have a devastating affect on our economy. Remember a recession is defined by and dip in the GDP ever so little for two consecutive quarters. Even seemingly level economic activity would have the effect of displacing jobs in the 7 figures by demographical growth alone. I know I am out on a limb here because I don’t have the reference, but believe me it is there. This same study suggests that only a minor dip in the economy is by no means an assurance nor a probability. (But at least I guess we could get another round of tax cuts out of it to remedy) I’ll try and search the net for it again soon, but I first had this data some 6 or 7 years ago.
A mandatory cap might well spur R&D and innovation, but the point where the demand and supply lines cross from that are purely hypothetical and most certainly at a point in the future if ever and after most if not all the bad effects occur. Also, I think it is hilarious how every time a problem occurs the governments first solution is a Tax. A tax will only result in lower demand for energy by the impact the aggregate amount the tax has in slowing the economy (back to my primary point). Almost every time a tax is envisioned to fix a problem it has larger unintended consequences. It is as ridiculous as the Carbon Credit Trading Shell Game. Tastes great but less filling.
If they really want innovation and R&D, they could create tax incentives, but that would be unpalatable to the left. Lets say they say all profits (income and capital) from creating an alternative energy for heating, transportation, and etc. would be tax free. You might get a lot of activity and venture capital in this area. But then the left would attach the word “Big” before it to discredit it. What ………… too expensive to the fiscal policy of the country? I thought we were talking about saving the planet. Want to save money, close the southern door and take away benefits to the illegals (oh, sorry Harry, Undocumented AMERICANS). I’m going to dinner. It is well past 6PM EDT…….steve
I have to jump in on this one…and guess what? I am on your side on this issue. I watched the Al Gore documentary and I was very convinced. I am man enough to admit that it impacted me enough to even change some things in my life. Then I watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, a BBC documentary that refutes Al Gores’ claims. It was tremendous and I highly recommend it. It radically changed my views on global warming. For part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
I am not a science guy and I don’t have much interest in digging much into this subject so I rely heavily on these types of documentaries. What I am able to clearly see is how the green agenda is like a religion for many people. In fact, I’ll recommend agian the Michael Crichton video on environmentalism as a religion. It is a short one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU
If the links don’t work this time, try searching for them on youtube.
Jim, I am glad you put these up on my blog here. I’ll watch them tomorrow and comment further…………..steve
I updated my links!..nice new name!
Angel, Thanks a lot……..steve
From the you couldn’t make this up if you tried/the truth is stranger than fiction file - The head of the UN says man-made Global Warming is behind killing in Darfur:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0
So, SUVs=dead children, right?
plodon, and I guess you could deduce that since the United States is the cause of Global Warming we are ipso facto responsible for the deaths in Darfur (not al Queda) and thus it is our responsibility to go there and fix the problem (you know fight and win the war for the people and throw out the Islamofacists) Oops, we can do it there but not in the Middle East. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction……….steve
I am so pleased with the gems of information you keep finding and blogging about. Thanks for the research and sharing it.
My views on this subject are:
God created this world and we are accountable on how we take care of it.
We have likely not done our very best.
Those who are behind this movement of global warming don’t seem to have a balance and I don’t trust them.
Of late, I don’t trust big business either, nor any one who seems to stand to make a ton of money over this movement. (This is reminding me of those who made money over the Y2K panic).
I am told God is in control, and trusting that He is, but will do my part, with what is available to me, as each of us should, to take care of his creation.
Barb…………. You are so kind. You’re right, there is a lot to sort out here to find what solutions we need. As I told M2 I agree we need to reduce dependency on petroleum (for a lot of reasons) but come to that quest from a different point of motivation……….steve
Steve,
Another great post. I’m all for the environment, but I cannot help but recognise that the earth’s climate has changed radically over millions of years. (I’m an evolutionist - you know, one of those people who thinks that the earth is really old. Why are my fellow evolutionists up in arms about global warming???) It used to be a snowball from pole to the equator. With that as your reference point, the Ice Ages were positively broiling.
As I’ve said before, the big problem with the global warming theory is that the entire earth will not resemble Malibu, California, if we reduce our carbon emissions.
Thanks Bridget, I am with you on this one whether it is due to long evloutionary or creation cycles. I am all for conservation and other reasons to gravitate away from what the establishment calls “fossil fuels” though maybe not limited to that source. This Ethanol thing (85%) is the next scam. It is doubtful that it saves much if any petroleum based fuels and one thing for sure is it will run up the cost of food and possibly cause world starvation in some poor countries. At that point you will see the move on the left for making food an entitlement. ….steve
Hi Steve,
Obviously you were not talking to me
Hi M2,
As to crippling the economy, it will. Perhaps not the initial changes, but they won’t stop there. Here’s a bit from an article I’m thinking about using on our blog:
“Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures,” the scientists say. Only intense efforts to curb man-made emissions of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases can keep the climate within or near the range of the past one million years, they add.
That is from, http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece
You should note the “intense efforts” reference. That, to make a rapid and significant difference, will do more than cripple the economy, but will totally destroy it. This, of course, is the goal of the rabid environmentalists behind the scheme, since they would be more than happy to see 90% of humanity die tomorrow, so the yellow tufted tit mouse doesn’t have to compete for survival.
the Grit
Hi Grit, nope I know you’ve been on board. Thanks for the comment……..steve
man, the comments on this post are great. ultra-informing. I hesitate (often) on speaking out on this because it seems so complex and confusing to me and therefore i have no strong opinions… but it is posts like this and others (brit & grit) that help me see the light. I’m glad that there are people that understand this very complex issue much more than i do!
Thanks MZ…….dad
Another great post. Keep it up.
John (TT) Thanks so much……….steve
i will admit ignorance on this issue. not to say that i don’t have an opinion…what ignorant loud mouth doesn’t?
but seriously, i think it’s like anything…we see a legitamite problem, jump to some rash conclusions, and want HUGE changes immediately. i think all of the discussion and arguementation will only serve to create the most practical solution.
is that vague enough for you?
love it when someone has a hot topic…and i’m not responsible for it.
Thanks Heidi, It has been a good thread and I have received some input offline via email that I think really adds a lot to this discussion; however, I am not at liberty to include it here and for good reason…….steve
Hey Steve,
Just wanted to say how proud I am of you for keeping the vigil on this topic. You and Grit have become my main source for info and links. Keep at it and keep kicking butt - if we don’t keep talking and making it loud, we’ll all be drowning in carbon credits and the evil prince will finally reign in hell with us at his feet.
WC
WC, thanks this topic is near and dear and has ramifications that could in my opinion devestate the economy (which hurts the least the most). I plan to post on this more and attack it from different angles. …….steve
Dad, you ought to write on bloomburg…. I’m infuriated at his new plan for such a long list of reasons. you are the numbers guy
Grit had a great post (that I saw you commented on) and my friend Missy did as well (at 3 olives). I would love to see what creativity you could come up with in demonstrating what a piss poor plan it is. I thought of doing it on my blog, but most my readers may be bored, especially because it would be a LONG post. Maybe i could take one point a day on why it is an absurd plan…. hmmm thoughts.
-motherhood is not a cussword- MZ
MZ, If Bloomberg poses a real threat at taking the Republican nomination or launches a 3rd party candidacy you can be sure I will elaborate on this guy a little more.
It is interesting that the conventional wisdom feels that a 3rd party candidacy by Bloomberg poses a threat against the Republican nominee (much like Perot and Nader have in past elections). I want to separate myself from that sentiment. I feel that a Bloomberg candidacy would have the opposite effect given that he is really a Democrat and has expoused Democratic ideals throughout his public life including this administration. This viewpoint becomes unimpeachable (in my humble opinion) if the ultimate nominee for the Democrats is Hillary.
As a 3rd party candidate he would drain more, much more from Hillary in New York than any likely Republican aspirant, especially if it is Guiliani. Giuliani puts New York in play and the addition of Bloomberg in the race makes it Giuliani’s to lose. Without New York I don’t believe the Democrats can win the Presidential election at all. I don’t think Bloomberg would have much if any appeal in other “Red” states. He may have enough money to run but not enough appeal to win. …….dad
The realm of science is way above my head. But I did view “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, it is quite damning to it’s leftie counterpart, “An Inconveinent Truth”. One part that sticks in my mind is the scientists they have listed as supporters of gore’s global warming craze. On the list there are many who say they did not agree with it and their names were used anyways. And since gore is positioned to make money off of the global warming scare, that taints the entire deal. IMHO
But as I have said I am no science expert. lol
I found this link at Bob Mc Carty’s place in a comment.
GLOBAL WARMING TEST
Test your knowledge and common sense in this simple 10-question test.
Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
What Carbon Trade a scheme? Hmm…
The EU’s Carbon Trade: A Scheme and a Failure - Maggie’s Notebook
“The EU’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases, it is claimed.”
http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/06/eus-carbon-trade-scheme-and-failure.html
VH……..I went and took this little test and guess what, I got 100%. I really liked this one explaination of how the “greenhouse effect” which is subordinate to Solar Activity as a cause is broken down…..
Who would have thunk that even this lesser source Global Warming is so dominated by wator vapor and not CO2. It is interesting to note that this evaluation also points to water vapor holding heat in the atmosphere. I recall often when the weather forcaster in the winter predicted extremely low temperatures being caused by very clear nights without a cloud cover (i.e. water vapor) to hold in the heat.
I think that the test also makes a very good point about the necessity of C02 in our own life cycle and the production of plant life in the photosynthesis process and hence 02………..thanks, steve
Hi y’all,
Thanks for the many mentions!
As to the carbon trading scheme, even many environmentalists are against that blatant bit of indulgence fraud.
As to Global Warming in general, while it has been completely ignored by the news media, it was announced that the temperature data for 2006 have been corrected, to account for urbanization, weather stations that moved, and such, and the result is that 1998 is still the warmest year on record. This, obviously, means that for the last 8 years we have had Global Cooling.
At first glance, it would seem strange that much ado is not being made of this fact. That is, until one follows the money. Not much cash is going to exchange hands for carbon credits if there is no Warming, and a lot of research funding would shift to more important areas of investigation. It’s a scam, but, I have to admit, it’s a very well planned and implemented scam.
the Grit
Hi Grit, …… Global Cooling …? Yes, maybe so. I remember a comment I made at your site about Global Warming/Cooling where some current proponets of the GW threat commented on your blog that the decreased snow and snowcaps in the Alps (? I believe it was) was further evidence of warming. This too supports (if anything) the Global Cooling scenario more than the Global Warming threat.
Everyone knows that as temperatures drop that the molecules contract squeezing out room for all moisture in the air resulting in lower humidity (and greater static electricity). Hence there is less parcipitation during times of relatively lower temperatures. My personal experience in Ohio is that when the temperatures get very very cold in the winter there is little snow until it warms up (a bit) again and then the snow starts to engulf………….steve
Holy Kyotos Batman! China overtakes US as world’s biggest CO2 emitter, eh? (At least, according to the basically socialist and iffy-reliability [IMO] UK Guardian. However, there’s been a lot of ballyhoo about China/US/CO2 anyway, so it’s not like it’s a Guardian scoop or nuthin) Well, maybe they’ll let Al Gore hold an event in Tiananmen Square. That should do it. No sweat anyway, though, I’m sure China is more than willing to chopstick out several billion Yuan for Carbon Credits immediately. Right?
From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
China set to outstrip US as world’s largest CO2 emitter
Last Updated 19/04/2007
The International Energy Agency says China will overtake the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide either this year or next.
The estimate is much firmer than the IEA’s previous forecast, last November, that on current trends China would overtake the United States before 2010.
To meet demand from its rapidly growing economy, China is now said to be building a coal-fired power plant every four days.
The Paris-based agency also says the growth in Chinese emissions puts in perspective western efforts to fight climate change, describing their impact as “limited”.
“Limited.” Uh…yeah. That sorta gets the rice fryin’ in the ol’ noodle, eh? Maybe more like tilting at windpower?
When I first ran across this I thought it was a joke, but,as far as I can tell, it’s real. At least you’ll be able to rest secure in the knowledge that Fluffy is green.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21242016-951,00.html
Steve
Steve…………Couple of things here. I am sure glad to know that the heat is going to come off the USA over the CO2 issue. Not only is China going to be the new slug on the block, they are going to do it with about 1/6 the CO2 efficiency of the USA when measured by GDP output per unit of CO2 since our GDP is about 6X that of China and according to this report they are going to elipse us shortly meaning they have closely the same aggregate output of CO2 as the USA.
Also, that link is great. Can you believe “carbon neutral” pets. I don’t have any pets, but this is almost enough to start thinking about getting one and for only an extra 8$ per year. But………..here is another example of alleged carbon neutrality. I’ll ask the question again of these cats and dogs as I asked of Al Gore’s carbon credits to cover his houses, jets and hummers, etc. What good is carbon neutrality if we need carbon reduction to save the planet? ……..steve
Steve,
I came across this link on one of MyBlogLog contacts message’s, and the individual whom linked to it seems to believe that it helps to lend even less credence to the ‘global warming’ craze.
http://www.mybloglog.com/buzz/members/Kristee/
“Another great PBS show to see if you’re intersted in the global warming discussion is Nova show on the Earth’s magnetic fields reversing. I wish more people saw this ( I would love all of those who watch Gore’s film to see this show). The reversal of our magnetic feilds is leaving our planet more vulnerable to solar radiation and heat. The thing with this is that it has been happening since before the Industrial Revolution (this jives more with the temperature spikes than the current definition of global warming). I still remember Ted Dansen(Cheers) telling eveyone in the 80’s that the earth had just 10 years left if we didn’t change… Give the Nova show a try and pass the word”
I have linked directly to the transcript. Instead of the main link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_magnetic.html
Thought you may be interested in checking it out.
VH, Thanks, I’m picking this up from the road with a little complementary WiFi. I read the direct transcript. It is very interesting. It seems to at least somewhat validate much of what I have discovered on the GW issue which is that Solar Activity is the cause. I guess the GW enthusiasts would say that this begs the question, but not really, especially when Solar Activity occurs in cycles and this might add something to the equation that said fluctuating solar activity meets an earth that is increasingly more prone to the solar consequences. I am going to pass this transcript along to some contacts in the scientific community that I have a lot of confidence in and see what the come up with on this……….steve
Great. I knew you would be the one I should give this info. to.
Looking forward to what they have to say regarding it.
Have a good day,
- VH
An interesting (well, IMO, of course) British site called “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
Swindle?
Say it aint so, Al, say it aint so!
http://WWW.greatglobalwarmingswindle.Com/
The Site “An Inconvenient Truth…Or A Convenient Fiction?”
http://WWW.aconvenientfiction.Com/
With bonus article (at no extra cost)!
http://WWW.weeklystandard.Com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/531zkcss.asp
More on climate charge…er…change
http://WWW.onenewsnow.Com/2007/04/durbin_hagel_says_global_warmi.php
The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’ -
Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
http://WWW.junkscience.Com/Greenhouse/
“Climate Change Denier” psychological labeling shenanigans
http://WWW.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen6/deny.HTML
http://pittsburghlive.Com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/S_489405.HTML
http://WWW.spiked-online.Com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
Can ya tell I’m not a big fan of the human-caused global warming thing?
Plodon……..thanks, glad to have these (and the one below) links up. It was hung up in my spam filter because it had multiple links. I got your email and deleted duplicate…….steve
carbon footprint cartoon
http://ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx
Hi Steve,
Yet another theory that discredits Global Warming as Gore and cohorts see it.
Global Warming - Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcncuRfIrTs
“Global warming has become the pet issue of politicians and entertainers, as Live Earth now demonstrates. Sheryl Crowe, Oprah Winfrey, and Al Gore have made absurd public appeals on behalf of global warming. Contrary to popular claims, there is a vigorous debate in the scientific community as to the cause of global warming. Despite other claims, skeptics are among some of the leading scientists and their work is published in journals. In fact, more scientists are finding a strong link between temperature and solar activity.”
Several references are cited on the linked YouTube page.
Thought I would share it here.
VH, I started to write you a comment but I have decided to convert my reply into a post on the front page HERE.
[…] post is a response to a comment on my post “It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming)” by Velvet Hammer who operates the Ironic Surrealism […]
Hello
Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!
G’night
govokinolij………….. hope you come back, found you in my spam file. Let us know more about you. Is that Russia your URL is in? ……….steve
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming) at Next Stop Lauderdale. Thanks for informative article
[…] additional support for Dr. Gray’s position see my post titled It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming) referencing work by Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin and widely know as the “Father of […]
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
Hi Sandra, thanks for the visit. I’m hoping to get more posts up soon. Feel free to surf around the site. If you twitter you can hook up with me.. @stevereenie
Thanks………steve
I love your site.
Love design!!! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that I?ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. Sign: ndsam
Sign: wdpad Hello!!! xpegr and 5204rvhthncvrm and 1312 : Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post! nice! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that Ive really enjoyed it.
Sign: zdbrw Hello!!! yegky and 8634wvgupsvynm and 4687 : Great!