On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:40:25 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:16:01 -0500, Poetic Justice
wrote:

On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)

Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.

It causes tipping.....


Is that what a liberal leftist thinks taxes are,
everybody but the leftist pays taxes willingly.

But warmer weather will reduce the carbon
taxes, win, win, win, let it get warm, please.

Seems the only thing that has no tipping point (in sight), are taxes.

On the contrary, too much tax, everybody
goes bankrupt, it looks like that day is near.

On Dec 24, 11:57*am, JohnM wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:53*am, Skipper wrote:



In article
,

JohnM wrote:
On Dec 24, 7:23*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were
liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - *December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this
post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And
thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and
will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh
in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination
the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check
back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote
several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and
defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to
thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier
foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for
global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of
global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming
alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global
warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by
top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in
their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that
it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do
you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the
manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the
global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how
much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed.. And
until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media
unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

* * * * But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Alas, no. The planet is obviously going to hell on a handcart. Failure
of politicians to take evasive action is due to a campaign of dis-
information that has sucked in people like you, with your heads in the
sand.

One person, usually below 4-years-old, is dying every 2 to 3 seconds.
Soon it will be one a second, and it will eventually overtake the
birth-rate of 4 per second. This is only made possible because of
environmental destruction wrought by humans.

Cite?

Lying scientists from East Anglia don't count. And don't quote Al
"Millions of Degrees inside the Earth" Gore, either.

WFP website

I presume you are now satisfied as to the correctness of the figure.

well, there's no science going on in this thread. Typical.

"slobeck" wrote in message
news:2009122611265975249-polymorphic@earthlinknet...
well, there's no science going on in this thread. Typical.




Just like there's no science in Scientology either - just a bunch of
unproven and unsubstantiated lies, rumor, innuendo and drivel, aka 'tech' .
.. .


--
Gregory Hall

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:47:42 -0800 (PST), JohnM
wrote:

On Dec 24, 11:57Â*am, JohnM wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:53Â*am, Skipper wrote:



In article
,

JohnM wrote:
On Dec 24, 7:23Â*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were
liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - Â*December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this
post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And
thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and
will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh
in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination
the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check
back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote
several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and
defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to
thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier
foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for
global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of
global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming
alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global
warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by
top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in
their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that
it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do
you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the
manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the
global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how
much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And
until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media
unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

Â* Â* Â* Â* But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Alas, no. The planet is obviously going to hell on a handcart. Failure
of politicians to take evasive action is due to a campaign of dis-
information that has sucked in people like you, with your heads in the
sand.

One person, usually below 4-years-old, is dying every 2 to 3 seconds.
Soon it will be one a second, and it will eventually overtake the
birth-rate of 4 per second. This is only made possible because of
environmental destruction wrought by humans.

Cite?

Lying scientists from East Anglia don't count. And don't quote Al
"Millions of Degrees inside the Earth" Gore, either.

WFP website

I presume you are now satisfied as to the correctness of the figure.


Talking to yourself will not help the UN do
what it is supposed to be doing with the food
distribution.

How can you possibly blame hunger and
disease on a couple of tenths of a degree warmer
temperatures?

The rebel wars are more associated with
socialism or central control, and they are the
other main cause of slaughter and hunger,
but food distribution and failure to build
potable water systems is the big cause of
death.

How long does it take for the Billions
going to the UN to just build decent water
systems and sewage treatment plants?

And you blame a couple of tenths..........

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:12:11 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:40:25 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:16:01 -0500, Poetic Justice
wrote:

On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009

UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.

It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.

I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.

My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.

Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.

Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?

Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.

But Bradley, they were saving the planet!

Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)

Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.

It causes tipping.....


Is that what a liberal leftist thinks taxes are,
everybody but the leftist pays taxes willingly.

But warmer weather will reduce the carbon
taxes, win, win, win, let it get warm, please.

Seems the only thing that has no tipping point (in sight), are taxes.

On the contrary, too much tax, everybody
goes bankrupt, it looks like that day is near.

Hmmm... I'm no lawyer, but AFAIR there is a paragraph in our Basic Law, that
it is everybody's right to refuse action on possible anticonstitutional
decisions.
I think, I'll precautionary write some letters to related institutions, that
I'll refuse to pay taxes based on this crap.
Let's see what will happen...

There is something like that in the US,
but as long as the law is applied uniformly
it may be difficult to avoid.

I suspect there are millions of liberals
that don't pay taxes, but small business
must pay taxes because all transactions
by check or credit card are a matter of
record.

I don't think refusing to pay is the
way to go, as far as cap and trade goes,
if I was in better health I would get a
chain saw and log splitter and start
burning wood, there is so much wood
here from old tree removal, and it is
free.

I had an old sycamore about 100 years
old that I had cut down and the tree man
wanted $400 to haul the trunk away, so
I had him leave it and I bought an $80
16 inch electric chain saw and cut it in
pieces and gave it away, the diameter
was about 33 inches.

Things are different now, there is so
little money circulating nobody will be
able to afford any new taxes, that is why
I am prepared to reduce my heated area
from 500 square feet to 200 square feet
in the coldest months.

Without the 50 million on Social Security
and SSI and pensions, things would be worse
than the 1930s.

This is partly because things have been
so good since the third year of Reagan that
everybody has every device and gadget ever
invented, so they are not buying, China must
be wondering where all the consumers went.

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:12:11 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:40:25 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:16:01 -0500, Poetic Justice
wrote:

On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:
Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063
By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009
UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.
It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.
I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------
A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.
Boy, was I naive.
Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."
In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.
My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.
Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.
Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?
Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.
But Bradley, they were saving the planet!
Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)
Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.
It causes tipping.....

Is that what a liberal leftist thinks taxes are,
everybody but the leftist pays taxes willingly.

But warmer weather will reduce the carbon
taxes, win, win, win, let it get warm, please.
Seems the only thing that has no tipping point (in sight), are taxes.
On the contrary, too much tax, everybody
goes bankrupt, it looks like that day is near.
Hmmm... I'm no lawyer, but AFAIR there is a paragraph in our Basic Law, that
it is everybody's right to refuse action on possible anticonstitutional
decisions.
I think, I'll precautionary write some letters to related institutions, that
I'll refuse to pay taxes based on this crap.
Let's see what will happen...

There is something like that in the US,
but as long as the law is applied uniformly
it may be difficult to avoid.

I suspect there are millions of liberals
that don't pay taxes, but small business
must pay taxes because all transactions
by check or credit card are a matter of
record.

I don't think refusing to pay is the
way to go, as far as cap and trade goes,
if I was in better health I would get a
chain saw and log splitter and start
burning wood, there is so much wood
here from old tree removal, and it is
free.

I had an old sycamore about 100 years
old that I had cut down and the tree man
wanted $400 to haul the trunk away, so
I had him leave it and I bought an $80
16 inch electric chain saw and cut it in
pieces and gave it away, the diameter
was about 33 inches.

Things are different now, there is so
little money circulating nobody will be
able to afford any new taxes, that is why
I am prepared to reduce my heated area
from 500 square feet to 200 square feet
in the coldest months.

Without the 50 million on Social Security
and SSI and pensions, things would be worse
than the 1930s.

This is partly because things have been
so good since the third year of Reagan that
everybody has every device and gadget ever
invented, so they are not buying, China must
be wondering where all the consumers went.


And did you already find out how much extra tax per year you would need
to pay relative to your income? What would it be, maybe 1% extra?

And how much tax do you already lose by funding a war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, or by funding the car makers or the bankers? What would it be?

And how much of your income do you lose on unnecessary security measures
in society because everyone can carry a gun according to the second
amendment?

And how much because there is a manned space program that nobody needs?

And how much because infrastructure needs to be renewed or replaced
because it was systematically ignored the last 30 years.

And how much to fix the health care system because it was systematically
made impossible for the less fortunate?

And how much to pay back the depth built up during two administrations
chaired by G.W. Bush who paid lip service to right wing and religious
lobby groups?

Show us the full picture rather than whining about government
investments in renewable tech.

You AGW deniers are the biggest joke of the century.

Q

--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:32:11 +0100, Rav1ng rabbit
wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:12:11 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:40:25 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:16:01 -0500, Poetic Justice
wrote:

On 12/24/2009 5:27 PM, chemist wrote:
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:
Anyone else left the cult of Climatology since the CRU emails were liberated a month ago?
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063
By: Bradley Fikes - December 21st, 2009
UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring
of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your
patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to
keep the conversation going.
It's good to see science-minded people from outside climate science weigh in on this topic. The
climate science priesthood is at last getting that skeptical examination the unethical and
fraudulent Climategate gang has tried to avoid.
I've blogged a lot about Climategate and will do more. So please check back often.
--------------------
A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this
paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate
scientists.
Boy, was I naive.
Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even
outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those
columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science
without the political spin."
In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists,
concerned more with politics than with science.
My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming
the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can
also exploit their agenda for profit.
Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming
scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so
shamelessly.
Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn't taint the
massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you
investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and
fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist
claims was unfairly suppressed?
Until all this is known, it's not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming
theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is
cleaned up, it doesn't deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted
practitioners.
But Bradley, they were saving the planet!
Yes, and they don't give up whatsoever after the tipping point
(how many are they now?)
Does the tipping point cause global cooling?I thought it
caused enhanced warming.
It causes tipping.....

Is that what a liberal leftist thinks taxes are,
everybody but the leftist pays taxes willingly.

But warmer weather will reduce the carbon
taxes, win, win, win, let it get warm, please.
Seems the only thing that has no tipping point (in sight), are taxes.
On the contrary, too much tax, everybody
goes bankrupt, it looks like that day is near.
Hmmm... I'm no lawyer, but AFAIR there is a paragraph in our Basic Law, that
it is everybody's right to refuse action on possible anticonstitutional
decisions.
I think, I'll precautionary write some letters to related institutions, that
I'll refuse to pay taxes based on this crap.
Let's see what will happen...

There is something like that in the US,
but as long as the law is applied uniformly
it may be difficult to avoid.

I suspect there are millions of liberals
that don't pay taxes, but small business
must pay taxes because all transactions
by check or credit card are a matter of
record.

I don't think refusing to pay is the
way to go, as far as cap and trade goes,
if I was in better health I would get a
chain saw and log splitter and start
burning wood, there is so much wood
here from old tree removal, and it is
free.

I had an old sycamore about 100 years
old that I had cut down and the tree man
wanted $400 to haul the trunk away, so
I had him leave it and I bought an $80
16 inch electric chain saw and cut it in
pieces and gave it away, the diameter
was about 33 inches.

Things are different now, there is so
little money circulating nobody will be
able to afford any new taxes, that is why
I am prepared to reduce my heated area
from 500 square feet to 200 square feet
in the coldest months.

Without the 50 million on Social Security
and SSI and pensions, things would be worse
than the 1930s.

This is partly because things have been
so good since the third year of Reagan that
everybody has every device and gadget ever
invented, so they are not buying, China must
be wondering where all the consumers went.


And did you already find out how much extra tax per year you would need
to pay relative to your income? What would it be, maybe 1% extra?


No, it will be zero, my utility bill will be half
what it was before the scam begins.


And how much tax do you already lose by funding a war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, or by funding the car makers or the bankers? What would it be?


Jerk, you would prefer the terrorists have
safe haven to rest, plan attacks, train, and
head to the west to homicide bomb?


And how much of your income do you lose on unnecessary security measures
in society because everyone can carry a gun according to the second
amendment?


None, not everyone dummy, unless you
mean a long barrel over their shoulder or a
side arm on their hip in plain sight.
But guns are not allowed in most buildings,
and crooks and nuts do not usually carry long
barrel guns.


And how much because there is a manned space program that nobody needs?


You are really clueless, did your funding
get cut and it affected your mental reasoning?


And how much because infrastructure needs to be renewed or replaced
because it was systematically ignored the last 30 years.


It's only money, with the present computer
banking, real money isn't needed.


And how much to fix the health care system because it was systematically
made impossible for the less fortunate?


What? Wait till the fines start Nellie, odd
the liberal left likes the insurance company and
hospital refunding on the back of people that
don't want to buy insurance or lack the funds.


And how much to pay back the depth built up during two administrations
chaired by G.W. Bush who paid lip service to right wing and religious
lobby groups?


Give me a week at the right computer
terminal and it will be clear.


Show us the full picture rather than whining about government
investments in renewable tech.


Name a government investment in renewable tech.


You AGW deniers are the biggest joke of the century.

Q


There are no AGW deniers because there is
no AGW to deny, how could something that does
no exist be denied? You are confused, or ?

But thanks for laying out the complaints
of the liberal left, maybe your leader will read
it and pat you on the head.