Comments on: Open Letter Of The Day http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:23:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: MissJean http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32524 MissJean Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:44:50 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32524 I think that the Midwest and Canada should form a coalition to DEMAND global warming! (It's raining again and the high will be in the 60s... not good for the crops.) I think that the Midwest and Canada should form a coalition to DEMAND global warming! (It’s raining again and the high will be in the 60s… not good for the crops.)

]]> By: Hoss http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32517 Hoss Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:28:35 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32517 Environmentalists = watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Funny, isn't it, how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just seems to continually find evidence to support their existence. Never let a good crisis go to waste, real or imagined, if it keeps you from having to find a real job. Environmentalists = watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Funny, isn’t it, how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just seems to continually find evidence to support their existence. Never let a good crisis go to waste, real or imagined, if it keeps you from having to find a real job.

]]> By: PB-in-AL http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32500 PB-in-AL Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:10:42 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32500 @Sayers - I think that was just one goal. I believe another was simply autocratic control, beyond the reach of silly old documents like the Constitution... phfeh. @Sayers – I think that was just one goal. I believe another was simply autocratic control, beyond the reach of silly old documents like the Constitution… phfeh.

]]> By: Sayers http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32496 Sayers Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:32:13 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32496 The problem is that saving the planet was never their goal anyway. Destroying the US economy is, and always has been, their goal. 'Climate change' is just what they use to dupe the masses into supporting this goal. The problem is that saving the planet was never their goal anyway. Destroying the US economy is, and always has been, their goal. ‘Climate change’ is just what they use to dupe the masses into supporting this goal.

]]> By: Ike http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32487 Ike Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:45:20 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32487 Bob, the "consensus" was a sham to begin with. The IPCC reports were based on piecemeal assignments. One example: a scientist was asked to calculate the effect on population and habitability of a string of Pacific islands, based on what would happen if there were a 20 foot rise in sea level. That was his task, and he complied. He was never asked whether he thought such a scenario was probable (or even POSSIBLE.) Yet his name was attached to the IPCC rolls as being a "supporter" of the documentation. Most of the researchers listed in the report were sucked into a giant "What If" game, and many resent how their participation was re-cast and taken out of context. (Have I mentioned how proud I am to be a part of the B&R online family?) Bob, the “consensus” was a sham to begin with. The IPCC reports were based on piecemeal assignments.

One example: a scientist was asked to calculate the effect on population and habitability of a string of Pacific islands, based on what would happen if there were a 20 foot rise in sea level. That was his task, and he complied.

He was never asked whether he thought such a scenario was probable (or even POSSIBLE.) Yet his name was attached to the IPCC rolls as being a “supporter” of the documentation.

Most of the researchers listed in the report were sucked into a giant “What If” game, and many resent how their participation was re-cast and taken out of context.

(Have I mentioned how proud I am to be a part of the B&R online family?)

]]> By: n.n http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32486 n.n Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:20:37 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32486 To "Big Green" and the lemmings that unquestioningly follow you, I have just word: M - o - r - o - n - s! To “Big Green” and the lemmings that unquestioningly follow you, I have just word:

M – o – r – o – n – s!

]]> By: n.n http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32485 n.n Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:18:23 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32485 I am sure these "deniers" have some link, some where, to "Big Oil" and therefore their evidence should be considered null and void. Any evidence offered by anyone not affiliated with "Big Green" is irrelevant and illegitimate. Funny how political agendas work. I have always wondered what makes people cynical and leaves them jaded. Is it nature, nurture, or something else. Now I know with the utmost confidence, that it is nurture of the insane variety. I am sure these “deniers” have some link, some where, to “Big Oil” and therefore their evidence should be considered null and void. Any evidence offered by anyone not affiliated with “Big Green” is irrelevant and illegitimate.

Funny how political agendas work.

I have always wondered what makes people cynical and leaves them jaded. Is it nature, nurture, or something else. Now I know with the utmost confidence, that it is nurture of the insane variety.

]]> By: PB-in-AL http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/07/01/open-letter-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-32483 PB-in-AL Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:04:44 +0000 http://www.black-and-right.com/?p=23572#comment-32483 Deniers with serious creds, too. "Demand Proof, not Consesus" - Well that pretty much sums up why Algore, et alia aren't willing to actually debate, and why they claim the science has "been decided." Deniers with serious creds, too.

“Demand Proof, not Consesus” – Well that pretty much sums up why Algore, et alia aren’t willing to actually debate, and why they claim the science has “been decided.”

]]>