=> The Final Holdout... <=

This guy asks a good question.

"They are now for more skeptical about their messages and far more
hesitant to believe anything George W. Bush tells them in his speeches
and press conferences.

But they still will not consider for a moment that the official story of
9/11 as told by this lying government may also be a lie. Ergo, the
illogic I cannot understand.."


http://www.prisonplanet.com/print.php


And Then There Was One, The Final Holdout: 9-11
Reggie, Contributing Editor
TvNewsLIES.org
Monday July 30, 2007

Not to worry, this is not about truth seekers or conspiracy theories.
It’s not about the long list of anomalies and discrepancies in the
official story of 9/11. It’s not even about the undeniable fact that the
events of 9/11 gave George Bush and his handlers the keys to the neocon
kingdom of empire. It really is not.

What it’s about is the strangest phenomenon I can recall in my entire
adult life. It’s about what I perceive to be an extraordinary lapse in
the logic of millions of otherwise sensible Americans. And it’s about
something I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how I try. Maybe
someone out there can help me understand what’s going on.

In preface, let me also say that this is not about being uninformed.
Granted, the corporate media have suppressed any discussion, debate or
investigative reporting about the attacks on the United States that
purportedly ‘changed everything.’ That reality aside, even the most
fawn-like pundits on the airwaves understand that the ship of state is
sinking, and that it is time to challenge the lies of this
administration. But, it seems that lie after lie has become fair game
for disclosure, or at least for some discussion at this point. As a
result, each day, the American people in larger and larger numbers
understand that they have been taken for a terrible and costly ride by
the lies they were told by this President and his cohorts.


That is, every lie but one.

Finally, nearly seven years after a stolen election that was itself
based on lies, greater numbers of Americans are no longer blindly
accepting the talking points emanating from the White House as the
Gospel truth. In more and more media outlets the Bush lies are openly
being identified as such, - rather than by every other euphemism meant
to soften the ugliness of a government lying to its people. If people
are not totally convinced, at least they hear debates and discussions
and competing viewpoints. If nothing else, they are beginning to have
doubts about the daily mantras that had them mesmerized for so long.

So let’s take a look at just the short list of these lies, so as better
to understand my dilemma about the lone holdout: 9/11. Bear with me:

At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and
women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them,
both by omission and commission about:

- The Bush connection to the bin Laden family.

- Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11

- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11

- The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars

- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror

- Regular, politically timed terror alerts

- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11

- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe

- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General

- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD

- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda

- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors

- Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the
peace

- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform

- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time

- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq

- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue

- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch

- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire

- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens

- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan

- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture

- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative

- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…

There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.

Am I wrong to believe that in any other life situation there would be a
different reaction to a series of important lies? If you became aware
that your plumber or your neighbor or your doctor, or anyone at all in
your life lied to you over and over and over about issues that were
relevant to your well being, would you ever again believe ANYTHING that
person said to you? I really don’t think so.

So, after becoming aware of lie after lie after lie by Bushco, why would
anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT
HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the
United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most
important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true?

Help me out here, please.

It makes no sense to me at all. Especially, since the most telling part
of all this illogic is this: NONE OF THE LIES ON THE ABOVE LIST WOULD
HAVE BEEN NECESSARY OR EVEN POSSIBLE WERE IT NOT FOR AN UNSWERVING
ACCEPTANCE BY MOST AMERICANS OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11.

Bottom line: I fully understand how difficult it is to believe anything
other than the official government story of 9/11. The editor of
TvNewsLIES.org has examined the reasons behind the refusal of so many
Americans to believe the mounds of evidence that challenge the
credibility of the story we have been told. Fine and good.

But, frankly, for the purpose of this article, your personal opinion
about who was responsible for 9/11 is irrelevant. It makes no difference
at all. What matters is that we examine the strange illogic that stops
millions of Americans from questioning a possible lie – one that may
matter more than any other. These same Americans now seem willing to
openly question many of the lies that are told and repeated ad nauseam
by the President and his clan. They are now for more skeptical about
their messages and far more hesitant to believe anything George W. Bush
tells them in his speeches and press conferences.

But they still will not consider for a moment that the official story of
9/11 as told by this lying government may also be a lie. Ergo, the
illogic I cannot understand..

The official story of 9/11 has been told by professional, experienced,
and successful liars.

Think about that as you try to explain the need to believe it.

Maybe it will take another 9/11, as we’ve recently been warned may
happen very soon, to convince Americans that the most egregious and
damaging of all the lies told by the Bush administration must not remain
off limits.

We really have few choices left. We have to reach that logical moment
when we can openly discuss and debate and examine the available
information about 9/11, no matter what the outcome may be. We have to
retrieve our collective abilities to examine the events of that day.
Perhaps, then, we finally can say about the lies we have heard….:

…and then there were none.





--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

On Jul 30, 6:45 pm, Henry <trea...@bush.gov> wrote:

> What it's about is the strangest phenomenon I can recall in my entire
> adult life. It's about what I perceive to be an extraordinary lapse in
> the logic of millions of otherwise sensible Americans. And it's about
> something I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how I try.

I, too, find it entirely impossible to fathom how you got sucked into
your consipracy delusions.

But, Henry, you are in my prayers!

Henry wrote:
> This guy asks a good question.
>
> "They are now for more skeptical about their messages and far more
> hesitant to believe anything George W. Bush tells them in his speeches
> and press conferences.
>
> But they still will not consider for a moment that the official story of
> 9/11 as told by this lying government may also be a lie. Ergo, the
> illogic I cannot understand.."

<snip>

What does this have to do with motorcycles?

Henry wrote:
> This guy asks a good question.
>


Since i found four questions, you will have to pick the one you think
was 'good'.



> Am I wrong to believe that in any other life situation there would be a
> different reaction to a series of important lies?



Yes, this is politics and lies are to be expected.




> If you became aware
> that your plumber or your neighbor or your doctor, or anyone at all in
> your life lied to you over and over and over about issues that were
> relevant to your well being, would you ever again believe ANYTHING that
> person said to you?


No, and i would change my plumber, doctor, etc. Not so easy when the guy
you don't believe is your President! And even though I don't like the
guy, comparing the President of the USA to a plumber really is apples
and oranges.




>
> So, after becoming aware of lie after lie after lie by Bushco, why would
> anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT
> HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION?


(I ilke the BOLD for dramatic effect!)
I doubt many people 'fully embrace' the official version.......this does
not mean that they will auotmatically 'fully embrace' the 911 conspiracy
theories either.




> Why would anyone in the
> United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most
> important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true?
>


Simply because they can believe what they want. Free thought isn't
illegal (yet?).

"Henry" <treason@bush.gov> skrev i en meddelelse
news:46AE6A18.EB0E3C07@bush.gov...

> But they still will not consider for a moment that the official
> story of
> 9/11 as told by this lying government may also be a lie. Ergo,
> the
> illogic I cannot understand.."

The US likes having enemies. It's their identity.


--
/\ preben nielsen
\/\ prel@post.tele.dk

tomorrow@erols.com wrote:
> On Jul 30, 6:45 pm, Henry <trea...@bush.gov> wrote:
>
>> What it's about is the strangest phenomenon I can recall in my entire
>> adult life. It's about what I perceive to be an extraordinary lapse in
>> the logic of millions of otherwise sensible Americans. And it's about
>> something I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how I try.
>
> I, too, find it entirely impossible to fathom how you got sucked into
> your consipracy delusions.

Dude, how many times do I have to explain that I don't believe
in your thoroughly debunked and physically impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon kook conspiracy theory? No wonder
you believe in it - you can't comprehend what you read!

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...olition_20.pdf

The secrecy surrounding the events after 9/11 prevents public
investigation through normal channels. It is still possible
however to examine the surviving available evidence to see what
can be deduced. If it can be readily deduced that explosives
brought down the buildings then the official explanation for the
collapse, which avoids consideration of explosives, must be
reevaluated in an attempt to discover its purpose. What surviving
evidence is there and what can be deduced from it? In my view the
deductions based on videos may be regarded as virtually irrefutable.
Deductions based on photographs and statements by observers may be
weighed by considering the possibility of forgery and the
variability of witness reports.

Observations and deductions from videos

1. WTC 7 collapsed straight down. This requires that, at the moment
of collapse, if caused by fires weakening the supports, not only did
the north and south pair of walls have to be of equal strength, but
also the east and west pair. Without such symmetry this tall
building would inevitably have toppled over. Even if the fires had been
intense and widespread this dual symmetry would have only a very low
probability of existence. Given the uneven distribution of the small
fires at the time of collapse the probability of the required symmetry
vanishes, hence fires did not cause the collapse.
2. The acceleration downwards of WTC 7 was 30 feet per second per
second. This is so close to the free fall acceleration of 32.2 feet
per second per second in a vacuum that virtually no resistance
throughout the fall can have existed. Also the acceleration of WTC
was constant right from the start. Steel softens slowly as it is heated
and, when just failing, still provides substantial resistance. There
was however no sign of the steel giving way gradually as its
temperature rose. These two observations, taken together, imply that
the support structures were instantly and completely severed.
3. A stream of molten metal, yellow-hot and flashing white-hot, was
observed running from WTC 2 near the plane impact region. Shortly after
this the building collapsed. When metal is white hot it is at a
temperature of at least 1200o C, and when yellow it is at about
1000o C, far hotter than possible from the burning of aircraft fuel
or office materials. The use of an oxidizing chemical reaction, such as
occurs with thermite, or something similar, is implied. The thermite
reaction achieves a temperature well in excess of 2000o C, and
produces molten iron as a by-product, melting point 1540o C. It is
used to cut steel, melting point about 1500o C.
4. During the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 vast clouds of dense dust and
portions of the steel columns were violently thrown out.5 The dust came
mainly from the pulverization of the concrete that was in the floors.
The dust cloud and steel were evident early in the collapse, before the
parts had picked up much speed, so cannot have come from component
impacts. For the pulverization of the concrete, and also to rapidly
expand the dust cloud against the pressure of the atmosphere, a very
substantial additional source of energy is required. The theory that
this energy could have come from the potential energy in the building
is clearly untenable as virtually all of the potential energy had to be
consumed in providing the kinetic energy for the high downward
acceleration, so close to free fall.9
5. Computer simulations by Lu and Jiang show that, for WTC 1 and WTC 2,
collapse in the fire damaged region would have been impossible at the
known temperature of the steel supports.
6. Calculations by Gordon Ross show that, if a floor near the plane
impact site instantly and totally disintegrated, the energy available
from the falling of the top portion would not be sufficient to provide
the energy needed to sustain the collapse through the undamaged
lower portion. Thus, in the absence of explosives, the top would have
decelerated and come to rest.

Deductions from observer statements and photographs
1. Weeks after 9/11 workers were still unearthing extremely hot
material. A photograph shows solid yellow-hot metal clamped in
the jaws of an excavator. The color shows this to be at least
1000o C. This cannot be aluminium, which melts at 660o C, and
therefore must be iron or steel. It is impossible for a fire without
a dense supply of fuel and forced draft to achieve such high
temperatures, hence another energy source must have been involved.
2. Molten metal was observed in the basement of all three buildings
and the high temperatures were confirmed by aerial infra-red imaging.
This observation can be readily explained by the use of thermite which
contains a chemical oxidant, so does not depend on an air supply. The
by-product of its reaction is molten iron. This would explain not only
the high temperatures achieved in a confined space but also the
presence of liquid metal, as described more fully in point 3 of the
list above.
3. Numerous eye witnesses reported hearing and feeling explosions. Some
were injured and some reported being blown off their feet.
4. A photograph of WTC 2 shortly after the collapse commenced shows the
falling top block distorting, though it was straight just before the
fall commenced. As there can be no force acting on the block during
free fall, this could not have occurred unless the block had already
lost its support structure.



--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

On Aug 1, 9:21 pm, Henry <trea...@bush.gov> wrote:
\
> Dude, how many times do I have to explain that I believe
> in a thoroughly debunked and physically impossible magic
> cartoon kook conspiracy theory?

I dunno. How many times have ya got?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:45:44 -0400, Henry <treason@bush.gov> wrote:


>Am I wrong to believe that in any other life situation there would be a
>different reaction to a series of important lies? If you became aware
>that your plumber or your neighbor or your doctor, or anyone at all in
>your life lied to you over and over and over about issues that were
>relevant to your well being, would you ever again believe ANYTHING that
>person said to you? I really don’t think so.
>

I don't believe anything Bush says. I simply don't find your
conspiracy story to be more convincing.

>
>It makes no sense to me at all. Especially, since the most telling part
>of all this illogic is this: NONE OF THE LIES ON THE ABOVE LIST WOULD
>HAVE BEEN NECESSARY OR EVEN POSSIBLE WERE IT NOT FOR AN UNSWERVING
>ACCEPTANCE BY MOST AMERICANS OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11.

Phooey. Global warming is not dependant on the official version of
9/11.

"David Johnston"
SNIP

>
> Phooey. Global warming is not dependant on the official version of
> 9/11.

And that global warming is caused by humanity is an official lie accepted by
billions. That is FACT...Al Gore is lying again and again and so are his
supporters.

--
Keith Schiffner
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational
basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the
unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and
spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from
fiddling with it.
Robert Heinlein

"Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote

>> Phooey. Global warming is not dependant on the official version of
>> 9/11.
>
> And that global warming is caused by humanity is an official lie accepted
> by billions. That is FACT...Al Gore is lying again and again and so are
> his supporters.

Sorry, Keith, you're badly mistaken on this one.

I know several climatologists personally from my years working at the
University of California, and they, without exception, absolutely believe in
man-caused global warming.

Absolutely.

(And they've got the figures to back up that conclusion, too.)

Disbelieving in a simple fact just because you happen to hate Al Gore is no
more sensible than Hen3ry's turning his hatred of Bush into "proof" that the
CIA blew up the WTC.

Try to remember: personal isn't the same as important.

"proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote in message
news:13b5hit4s8i951d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote
>
>>> Phooey. Global warming is not dependant on the official version of
>>> 9/11.
>>
>> And that global warming is caused by humanity is an official lie accepted by
>> billions. That is FACT...Al Gore is lying again and again and so are his
>> supporters.
>
> Sorry, Keith, you're badly mistaken on this one.
>
> I know several climatologists personally from my years working at the
> University of California, and they, without exception, absolutely believe in
> man-caused global warming.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> (And they've got the figures to back up that conclusion, too.)
>
> Disbelieving in a simple fact just because you happen to hate Al Gore is no
> more sensible than Hen3ry's turning his hatred of Bush into "proof" that the
> CIA blew up the WTC.
>
> Try to remember: personal isn't the same as important.

Follow the money honey. It's all about the grant money...mankind is incapable of
putting out enough carbon to influence the weather PERIOD. In jus one measly DAY
a volcano puts out MORE carbon green house gasses than our pathetic species does
in a year and there is more than one volcano erupting year round. Day in and day
out, now PROVE to me we are spewing more into the air than just that. What about
the hydrocarbons that the forests release on a daily basis...let's not forget
the seas.

A pox on those thieves and liars, those manipulators of fact and twisters of
data to the point that there is no truth to be found.

--
Keith Schiffner
Reality is motorcycles all else is fantasy.
If you don't want to give her a hard ride you aren't a real man. Straight or gay
she gets your to grinning and acting like a fool kid.

"Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote

>> Try to remember: personal isn't the same as important.
>
> Follow the money honey. It's all about the grant money...mankind is
> incapable of putting out enough carbon to influence the weather PERIOD.

You quite simply don't know what you're talking about. PERIOD. And the idea
that you know more about climatology than the guys who've spent the last
twenty years studying it, or that they're all lying and on the take for
grant money is frankly laughable. It's a paranoid delusion makes people
doubt your grip on reality.

In reality, all you're doing is denying a fact that you wish weren't true.
(And I don't much care for Gore either, but even an idiot can guess right
occasionally.)

Personal *still* isn't the same as important.

In article <EdmdnV5DYugeXi7bnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
"Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote:

> "proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote in message
> news:13b5hit4s8i951d@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote
> >
> >>> Phooey. Global warming is not dependant on the official version
> >>> of 9/11.
> >>
> >> And that global warming is caused by humanity is an official lie
> >> accepted by billions. That is FACT...Al Gore is lying again and
> >> again and so are his supporters.
> >
> > Sorry, Keith, you're badly mistaken on this one.
> >
> > I know several climatologists personally from my years working at
> > the University of California, and they, without exception,
> > absolutely believe in man-caused global warming.
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > (And they've got the figures to back up that conclusion, too.)
> >
> > Disbelieving in a simple fact just because you happen to hate Al
> > Gore is no more sensible than Hen3ry's turning his hatred of Bush
> > into "proof" that the CIA blew up the WTC.
> >
> > Try to remember: personal isn't the same as important.
>
> Follow the money honey. It's all about the grant money...mankind is
> incapable of putting out enough carbon to influence the weather
> PERIOD. In jus one measly DAY a volcano puts out MORE carbon green
> house gasses than our pathetic species does in a year and there is
> more than one volcano erupting year round. Day in and day out, now
> PROVE to me we are spewing more into the air than just that. What
> about the hydrocarbons that the forests release on a daily
> basis...let's not forget the seas.

It's a matter of balance. The Earth's ecosystem is used to a certain
amount of CO2 emissions from volcanoes and other sources. We're adding
to that. The yearly amount may not be that big, but over the decades it
adds up.

> A pox on those thieves and liars, those manipulators of fact and
> twisters of data to the point that there is no truth to be found.

I agree with you. Follow the money: Who's trying to deny the problem?
People with interests vested in the status quo.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

"proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote in message
news:13b7iku89kg5pb1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote
>
>>> Try to remember: personal isn't the same as important.
>>
>> Follow the money honey. It's all about the grant money...mankind is incapable
>> of putting out enough carbon to influence the weather PERIOD.
>
> You quite simply don't know what you're talking about. PERIOD. And the idea
> that you know more about climatology than the guys who've spent the last
> twenty years studying it, or that they're all lying and on the take for grant
> money is frankly laughable. It's a paranoid delusion makes people doubt your
> grip on reality.

I state my case poorly. (not to mention the piss poor proof reading...mea culpa)
The real issue is the apparant chauvanistic attitude that it is all mankinds
fault and that their math is correct. THAT is the problem that I have. The
sheer arrogance is nigh on to legendary! The presumptivness of it all
staggering.

> In reality, all you're doing is denying a fact that you wish weren't true.
> (And I don't much care for Gore either, but even an idiot can guess right
> occasionally.)

What facts? They cannot PROVE they are correct as they can't even trend
accurately a 10,000 year cycle for either hemisphere. <shrug> neither can I. BUT
I've gamed out many scenario with a couple of phd's and they all wondered how I
was as accurate as they were and in a couple of cases more accurate.

> Personal *still* isn't the same as important.

pardon a dumb moment. huh?

Oh and the analogy you were trying to remember is "even a stopped clock is right
twice a day"

Don't take me too serious this week, pain makes me meaner than a badger with
it's tail caught in a trap.
--
Keith Schiffner
Reality is motorcycles all else is fantasy.
If you don't want to give her a hard ride you aren't a real man. Straight or gay
she gets your to grinning and acting like a fool kid.

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote

> I agree with you. Follow the money: Who's trying to deny the problem?
> People with interests vested in the status quo.

Exactly. Thank you.

"Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote

>> Personal *still* isn't the same as important.
>
> pardon a dumb moment. huh?

If I understand your Gore rant correctly, you're letting your
intense -although understandable- personal dislike of the man influence what
should be an important decision made strictly on the best scientific
evidence available.

In fact, Gore has nothing to do with man-caused global warming, or with the
people who've done the serious research on it. He just picked it up as a
cause that might garner him a few votes.

When Gore says "Beware global warming" it means nothing.

But when circa 95% of the world's climatologists agree with him en masse, it
means a *LOT*!

It's often difficult to seperate gut feelings from rationality -for me as
much as anyone- but if you want to get an answer that's both rational and
moral, you have to try your best not to let yourself emotionally prejudge
the question.

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 00:38:20 -0700, "proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote:

>
>"Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote
>
>>> Personal *still* isn't the same as important.
>>
>> pardon a dumb moment. huh?
>
>If I understand your Gore rant correctly, you're letting your
>intense -although understandable- personal dislike of the man influence what
>should be an important decision made strictly on the best scientific
>evidence available.
>
>In fact, Gore has nothing to do with man-caused global warming, or with the
>people who've done the serious research on it. He just picked it up as a
>cause that might garner him a few votes.
>
>When Gore says "Beware global warming" it means nothing.
>
>But when circa 95% of the world's climatologists agree with him en masse, it
>means a *LOT*!

That's roughly the same percentage who claimed in the 1970s that we were entering an ICE AGE.
Made the front cover of "Time", even.