Is Michael Mann Seriously Off his Head?

John Sullivan

From the Climate Realists

By John O’Sullivan — The infamous Madoff Ponzi scheme cost $50 billion. Now put this into context with what the U.S. government has blown on policies related to climate change – over $79 billion since 1989. Madoff is in jail, Michael Mann isn’t-yet. So let’s look at the latest legal hullabaloo.

The Climategate scandal is a Ponzi scheme with far greater global ramifications for us all. But how are we dealing with the willfully corrupt acts of a few key individuals in the most senior posts?

The two lead scientists in this most grotesque scam, Michael Mann of Penn. State University and British Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research (CRU), discussed manipulation of data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures. Both men and their employers benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for their complicity in this scam.

Jones, rather than be convicted of fraud, stymied Freedom of Information requests then destroyed his data. He avoided criminal prosecution on a mere technicality- the British government conceded the statute of limitations had expired.
Jones is remorseful, broken and discredited; Mann stubbornly refuses to quit his shenanigans. His hubris remains intact. An expedient American government, just like the British, has stalled in implementing the most serious of fraud charges. Their likely embarrassment is just too great to even contemplate action.

The facts are well documented: according to Mann’s fudged graph, the hottest period in modern history was NOT the generally balmy era between 900 and 1300 but the late 20th century. The world’s skeptical community diligently sought access to Mann’s calculations to check how he came to his incongruous conclusions. His conclusions were swallowed whole by world leaders intent on pursuing an international cap and trade strategy. Almost overnight he had succeeded in re-writing a wealth of historical peer-reviewed studies.

Read the rest of the column at Climate Realists

  • Rob N. Hood

    Our entire economy, or at least a sizable portion, is based on illusion and larceny.

    If the casinos set their own rules and the government never checked in on them to see if they were cheating, only absolute suckers of the world would go to those casinos. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have right now in our financial sector.

    First, everyone understands regular derivatives that hedge your own assets or securities have a place in the financial world. They’re basically insurance and have been around a long time. Second, everyone understands that free markets are very good at certain things like setting prices in well-functioning markets. But we also understand that the government has a role, such as barring monopolies and making sure our food supply is safe. At least, most rational people understand that.

    The situation we have now in our top banks though is not normal market conditions with traditional derivatives. Most of the current staple of complex derivatives have no underlying assets. That means it’s just one guy betting against another in a deal where neither one of them has a stake in the original transaction. Some of these are called naked credit default swaps. And they are in fact naked gambling. I don’t know anyone who disputes that.

    The derivatives market is now valued at $605 trillion. Except no one really quite knows the real number because most of these transactions are done in secret. So, this is beyond a shadow of a doubt the largest casino in the history of the world. Except the government doesn’t check in on it all and most of the bets are done behind closed doors. That is a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The United States is fully aware of how socialized medicine, decent schools, and responsible worker-owned cooperatives can destroy the whole Ponzi scheme, the whole stinking pile.

    And as for the lies about it, Venezuela’s revolution is in its eleventh year and they’ve cut poverty by 49%. Not only are poor people not starving, but they aren’t as poor and there aren’t as many of them. You don’t have to worry about losing your pension when there’s a social safety net–it isn’t like here where if the corporation decides the tax benefits are better elsewhere, you end up homeless after a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice.

    Bucking the global elite will get you an economic blockade, sabotage, military invasions, and a few hundred assassination attempts–as Fidel Castro learned. The U.S. isn’t just a Ponzi scheme or an organized crime racket, it is the number one exporter of WAR–all of which are considered good for business.

    Remember when the Pentagon calmly explained that it had mislaid, lost, and simply couldn’t account for $2.3 trillion dollars? If I lost a five dollar bill, I’d notice it, but they have so much money that a few trillion isn’t worthy of their attention.

    When countries succeed in joining the Bolivarian Revolution, ousting their oligarchs, and establishing a democratic form of government, what they get is ethics, honesty, transparency, and accountability. The death squads are out of business, the torture, disappearances, and mass murders end, the Mafia goes back to Miami, the people get free health care and good schools for their kids, and the U.S. calls them a dirty, filthy, subversive, “Commie Che”–an enemy of business-as-usual who has to be killed so that the Ponzi corruption can continue.

    And it is an accurate epithet, I think. Anyone who cares more about people than about profits is a “Commie,” to some extent. An enemy of our fascist hegemony (neoliberalism)–if not a Heracles tackling the Augean stables, at least someone who hasn’t sold their soul to Mammon.

  • Rob, clean your mouth, why you copy and paste comments about Venezuela poverty if you know that Chavez is bringing the whole country into the bigest economical (and political) crisis? Did you find in that text how much he spend in chinese and russian weaponry in the last 5 years? Did you get some infos about the destruction of forest to plant sugar cane and produce (not sugar) but ethanol? Stoooooooooooooooooooooooooop posting BS, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease

  • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

    The United States is an exceptional nation. Most Americans would not regard that as a controversial statement. And there is a good reason for that: it is true. The U.S. is the world’s oldest and most stable capitalist liberal democracy, older even than Great Britain, which did not become a mass democracy until the late nineteenth century.

    It was the first nation founded in an act of rebellion against a colonial power. It was the first nation founded on the belief that the rights of man are inherent and God-given, and that the powers of the government derive from the consent of the people. It was, therefore, the first nation to recognize that the state must be limited to the powers granted by the people, and to recognize explicitly that the state was founded to secure their rights. It was the first nation to be based on a separation of powers, and on the clear subordination of the military to civilian rule. And it was the first nation to state all of this in a constitution that was publicly debated and democratically accepted.

    Other nations – Britain, most notably – share in some of these traditions, and that is not surprisingly, because the United States was deeply influenced by ideas born in England in the 17th century. But precisely because the U.S. was founded – whereas Britain evolved – the U.S. exemplifies these virtues in their purest form. That is why it is exceptional. And that is a fact that has been recognized by Europeans for centuries.

    Many of the great works of American interpretation – from Crevecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, to Tocqueville’s great Democracy in America, to Lord James Bryce’s American Commonwealth, were written by foreigners who accepted that America was exceptional, and wanted to understand why. And hundreds of other eminent Europeans – from Charles Dickens to Charles Dilke – visited the U.S. for the same purpose: to understand a place that was like nothing else in the world.

    By and large, the conservatives disliked the U.S., and the liberals liked it. There was a good reason for that: the U.S. was founded on liberal values, and in its acceptance of modernity, its everyday equality of manners, the freedom of movement within it, its mix of immigrants, and the protections and praise it gave to property-holding by all classes, it was, in the terms of the nineteenth century, a profoundly liberal country. Of course, as European observers realized, it was also deeply conservative in its attachment to the order established in 1776 and 1787. But that core of conservatism, the more perceptive among them concluded, was precisely what made it possible for it to sustain its liberalism, what prevented it from breaking down as the traditionalist European conservatives hoped it would.

  • Rob N. Hood

    No arguments from me Neil. The above of course is historical, and is a nice warm and fuzzy, which we all need sometimes.

    The only thing I would add is- DEMOCRACY IS DEAD IN AMERICA.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

      There is a fundamental misunderstanding that you keep displaying Rob. That is this country never was a democracy at any time. I don’t understand how you seem to not understand that simple concept. This is a federation of states, and a representative republic. There is a large distinction between that and a democracy. It is very easy to say that democracy is dead, but it is meaningless because this never was one.

      • Rob N. Hood

        So- even when the past (and present) Presidents of the USA (not to mention all the other politicians) have used that term (Democracy) repeatedly and in direct reference to this country- they’ve all been LYING??!! AND I can’t even count how many times that word/term came up while I was growing up, mostly in school of course, but also on TV, newspapers, etc. etc. So all I have to say is – Really? Now THAT would be news to a LOT of people not just me, right? WE’VE ALL BEEN MILEDOR LIED TO ABOUT THE MOST BASIC ASPECT OF THIS COUNTRY???!!! Please enlighten me then, about the difference between a “Democracy” and a “Representative Republic.” Please…

  • Rob N. Hood

    Especially today, the commemoration of the first May Day, organized to demand the eight hour day, It’s too bad more people don’t know the history of the Socialist Party in this country and how its members fought and died for such things as the eight hour day, the minimum wage, workplace safety, the end of child labor in factories, what passes for a retirement plan when we get too old to work or become disabled.

    There are a lot of really, really good books about labor’s battles with big corporations going back to the 1870s and the miners in Pennsylvania and Colorado. Still miners are dying in this country, in this century, working in non-union mines with fewer safety regulations, including the oil industry, obviously.

  • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

    The problem that liberal elites today have with American exceptionalism is simple to sum up. Before the mid-1960s, most liberals believed in it. But then 1968 happened, and the New Left took over the academy and the intellectual leadership of the Democratic Party. The New Left was not rebelling against American conservatism, which in the mid-1960s was still nascent. It was rebelling against American liberalism, and – among much else – against its belief in the basic goodness and exceptionalness of America. American conservatism is, really, a rebellion against that rebellion, fortified by the neo-conservatives who split away from American liberalism when they realized it was being taken over by the radicals.

    The more moderate Democratic leaders – Bill Clinton, preeminently – have resisted the New Left, but the tendencies of the party’s activists and elite are fundamentally opposed to American exceptionalism. It is in their hearts, and they can do no other. For the post-war liberals, the U.S. was liberal and modern. For the New Left, it is Europe that holds that crown: to believe in American exceptionalism is to believe that the U.S. should not be Europeanized.

    And it is from those activists and from that elite that Barack Obama springs. His dismissive treatment of American exceptionalism places him more quickly and accurately than anything else he has said. Bill Clinton was heralded as the first Baby Boomer President, but if the Baby Boomers were the Generation of 1968, that title more accurately belongs to Obama. The realities of governing, as he is painfully discovering, will pull Obama one way, but his instincts – as reflected in his nominations, and his public remarks – will pull him the other, in a direction that Truman and Kennedy would have scorned.

  • ron from Texas

    Neil hit the nail on the head. And, as part of this New Left, the move is to meld into Europe. The fantasy is that a one-world government is now necessary and probably inevitable but unobtainable if you leave it in the representative vote of the people to be governed. Hence, the need to govern from a central entity with no regard for the actual vote of the citizens. And one can only finance this by taking more from the citizens. So, how can you take from the citizens and have them feel good about it? Well, scare the crap out of them and tell them it’s their fault. Find a way to tax breathing. Define CO2 as a pollutant and a driver of climate and the job is done. All except for actually following the rules of science and emperical observation. For that, you need to throw lots of money at “studies and models” that prove this invisible, nearly neutral gas that comes out of our mouths is warming the planet. Now, you can tax everyone just because they exist and that gets more money to fund the foundations of world government, which will need to pay it’s employees enough to live on.

    And, in time, it will be overthrown, even if Emperor Obama decides to take away the vote. We were colonists, once, with our votes disregarded in Parliament and disregarded by King George. And look what happened. It can happen again. Just as socialism and other fiscally bankrupt ideologies resurface from time to time, usually among the people that don’t want to work for a living, so does the desire to live free of tyranny and determine your own destiny. Obama recently said that after a certain point, you don’t need to make any more money. He really did say that in public and on t.v. Well, I reject his definition of my destiny. And so do many others. But it doesn’t stop him from thinking he has the right to decide for everyone. There was another person who thought himself smart enough to decide for everyone. He came to power in a socialist party and was elected in a free election. And then did away with elections. That was Hitler. Now, someone can go ahead and latch on to me calling Obama Hitler.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

      Ron from Texas: Thank you very much. I am not thanking you for agreeing with what I posted. I am thanking you for illustrating a point I have been trying to make for a long time now, and that is the importance of crediting sources. I am flattered that you think I wrote that post, and I do agree with it, but I did not write it.
      Our friend Rob N’ Hood that posts here is constantly posting things that he copies and pastes and does not credit sources. I will sometimes do a search on portions of the text he posts, and usually I find the source. And more often than not they come from very far Left blogs, and socialist propaganda websites.
      Now this is not a knock against you, but you thought I was some kind of great thinker, or writer, to make the points that my above post makes. Correct?
      Our friend Rob likes to say, when I call him out on his plagerism, something like “it’s about what’s being said, not who says it” or some other such silliness.
      Now I posted the above paragraphs to kinda zing Rob, but I was also hoping that someone would do as you did and think it was me who wrote it. Nothing against you Ron, you have no way of knowing that I didn’t write it. In fact the only way that you could have known it is if you had already read it somewhere else, or if you were more familiar with my writing style you would know that I am not that good.
      But I think that, even though Rob would deny this, Rob is posting these things without crediting sources because he wants people to think that he came up with them! Which is my point entirely.
      So in the interest of fairness, and the fact that I feel icky not giving credit where credit is due, here is the source for what I posted. http://newledger.com/2009/05/american-exceptionalism-and-its-enemies/

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

        PS Ron from Texas: I forgot to say that I agree with what you are saying 100%.

      • Rob N. Hood

        It didn’t fool me Neil. Again, I don’t think it matter who writes what- if you posted it for a reason, great, the info can be digested and commented on based upon it’s own merits. Whatever… it works for me either way. I never try and take credit for any of it. That is so obvioulsy not the point. To focus on that is a waste of time. But go ahead and have your fun. We don’t want you to feel “icky.”

        And you call me silly…?

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

          Rob: It does matter to credit a source, and here is why.
          1. It gives the reader a place to go to decide if what you post is in context, or if it is credible.
          2. It is a way to tell people that it is not your work. Weather or not it is you’re intention to mislead people into thinking that you wrote it, there will be someone that thinks you did and that is not fair to the original author.
          3. it gives the reader a chance to consider the source.
          For example:

          “In this case angry, old, white Republicans are showing up at tea parties who are upset at health care and taxes in Arizona.”

          Now who said that? Do you know? Do you agree with that? Do you have a comment based upon it’s own merits? Do you want to know who said it and why they said it? Was this even the whole statement? Did I edit it in any way?
          The truth is you don’t know. You have no idea.
          I want you to guess who said that. After you guess I will tell you. Not only that, but I will provide a link so you can read it yourself, in context.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Why would taking away the vote even matter if what Neil says is true… that we don’t live in a aDemocracy anyway. Please explain that to me.

      Also, to demonize only one side of a two-headed monster is beyond chidlish.

      • Rob N. Hood

        the above was for Ron

    • Rob N. Hood

      Your demonization of Obama is laughable- especially since he hasn’t done 1/1000 of the evil Bush did- and I mean to the Consititution and everything else for that matter. Just ONE example: Who did away with the Posse Comitus Act? Bush. Were you asleep all those years Rumplestiltskin?

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

        Posse Comitus? Do you mean Posse Comitatus?
        http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/brinkerhoffpossecomitatus.htm
        Before speculating on why this act is so misunderstood, it is useful to spell out exactly what the act as it is written does and does not do. The Posse Comitatus Act
        Applies only to the Army, and by extension the Air Force, which was formed out of the Army in 1947.
        Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine Corps should behave as if the act applied to them.
        Does not apply to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transportation and is both an armed force and a law enforcement agency with police powers.
        Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective governors.
        May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army. It is commonly believed, however, that National Guard units and personnel come under the Posse Comitatus Act when they are on federal active duty, and this interpretation is followed today.
        Does not apply to state guards or State Defense Forces under the command of the respective governors.
        Does not apply to military personnel assigned to military police, shore police, or security police duties. The military police have jurisdiction over military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also exercise police powers over military dependents and others on military installations. The history of the law makes it clear that it was not intended to prevent federal police (for example, marshals) from enforcing the law.
        Does not apply to civilian employees, including those who are sworn law enforcement officers. The origin and legislative history of the act make it clear that it applies only to military personnel. In those days, there were no civilian employees of the Army in the sense that there are today. In particular, no one envisioned that the Army would hire civilian police officers to enforce the laws at its facilities.
        Does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995. Most of these operations were to enforce the law, and many of them were to enforce state law rather than federal law. Nor does it prevent the military services from supporting local or federal law enforcement officials as long as the troops are not used to arrest citizens or investigate crimes.

        Ok. So, how, exactly…. did Bush “do away” with the Posse Comitatus Act? And please, be specific.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Very true… and yet the elections were “done away with” in 2000 and 2004. And so here we are today… blaming the person who inherited all that mess.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Then you should be calling our Supreme Court “Hitler”, because they are the ones who did away with that election and then themselves elected the worst President ever, in 2000. We are still paying the price to this day. Blame Obama… very childish and silly to the extreme.

  • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

    http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2010/05/01/desperately_looking_for_arctic_warming
    First American Ann Bancroft and Norwegian Liv Arnesen trekked off across the Arctic in the dead of the 2007 winter, “to raise awareness about global warming,” by showcasing the wide expanses of open water they were certain they would encounter. Instead, icy blasts drove temperatures inside their tent to -58 F, while outside the nighttime air plunged to -103 F.

    Open water is rare at those temperatures, the intrepid explorers discovered. Facing frostbite, amputated toes and even death, the two were airlifted out 18 miles into their 530-mile expedition.

    Next winter it was British swimmer and ecologist Lewis Gordon Pugh, who planned to breast-stroke across open Arctic seas. Same story. Then fellow Brit Pen Hadow gave it a go, but it was another no-go.

    This year Aussie Tom Smitheringale set off to demonstrate “the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps.” He was rescued and flown out, after coming “very close to the grave,” he confessed.

  • Hal Groar

    Nice one Neil! As I was reading your post I kept thinking to myself “Wow! Neil your are bringing your A-Game today!” Then I thought, I wonder if he’s trying to Robify Rob?!” I got a kick out of it!

  • paul wenum

    Let the case speak for itself under discovery. Interesting.

    • Rob N. Hood

      For once I will thank YOU Paul, at least for what I think it is you’re saying. All the rest is true silliness.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

        Silliness? You think it’s ok to walk up to someone and steal their watch, or their glasses, or their wallet? Cutting and pasting someone elses writing without giving credit is the same thing. It is unethical. It is not silly. You are.

  • Rob should run out of then boxing ring, or he will be KO in the next round of 3 minutes. Are you masoquist Rob?

  • paul wenum

    Let the truth come out is all I’m saying. Under oath that is. Doubt that will ever happen. We shall see won’t we.

  • Rob N. Hood

    I’m waiting for the Wall Street prosecutions. And Halliburton. Maybe Cheney will finally get to go to jail. One can dream…

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

      Dream on.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The company that owned the Louisiana oil rig that exploded last week, spent years battling federal regulators over how many layers of safeguards would be needed to prevent a deepwater well from this type of accident. One area of immediate concern, industry experts said, was the lack of a remote system that would have allowed workers to clamp shut Deepwater Horizon’s wellhead so it would not continue to gush oil. The rig is now spilling 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. In a letter sent last year to the Department of the Interior, BP objected to what it called ‘extensive, prescriptive regulations’ proposed in new rules to toughen safety standards. ‘We believe industry’s current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs…continue to be very successful.’

    BP presumably shared in the view of some trade group called the “Offshore Operators Committee,” which actually shared the following little missive with the Minerals and Management Service (MMS) of the Interior Department which was trying to get mandatory safety regulations instead of the Bush/industry “voluntary” ones in place (September 2, 2009): ” ‘What Do HURRICANES and New Rules Have in Common?’ Both are disruptive to Operations and are costly to Recover From’ .” Oh dear. Oh so costly. Forgetting about unimaginable costs to the environment, to animals, to the livelihoods of Gulf fishermen whose families have been at it for generations, think just of the costs to BP, which might just include bankruptcy. Can’t wait for the suits just between BP, Transocean Ltd., and Halliburton? Me neither.

  • Neil F. AGWD/BSD

    Rob, I disagree with most of the things you say, including blaming everything on Bush. This oil rig thing is something that I might actually agree with you on a lot of it. For instance, I had heard that there were safeguards in place to deal with this type of event, and that those safeguards were mandated. I have since found out that is not entirely accurate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_drilling_rig_explosion
    “In February 2009, BP filed a 52-page exploration and environmental impact plan with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well. The plan stated that it was “unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities”, and that “due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected”.

    The BP well did not have any remote-control or acoustically-activated blowout preventer switch for use in case of an emergency requiring a rig to be evacuated. The countries of Norway and Brazil require the device on all offshore rigs, but when the Minerals Management Service considered requiring the device, a report commissioned by the agency, as well as drilling companies, questioned its cost (approximately $500,000) and effectiveness. In 2003 the agency ultimately determined that the device would not be required because rigs had other back-up systems to cut off a well.”

    I think this is absolutely outrageous! I’m not saying I completely agree with you on this, but I can’t say that you are completely wrong either. I still want to wait for the results of the various investigations, but I hope they investigate why the Minerals Management Agency ultimately determined that the device would not be required. So what if the thing costs half a mil, look how much they’re going to have to pay now! What a bunch of idiots!

  • paul wenum

    BP got a pass by the Obama administration. Enough. It was an “Accident.” Get over it and quit pointing fingers at people and companies that had no involvement. Even if the companies did, I assume the trial lawyers are salivating as I type! Life goes on. Deal with it.

    • Rob N. Hood

      YES !! It MUST be Obama’s fault… cuz we can’t blame Bill Clinton anymore…!!

      How intelligent… NOT.

  • Obama is responsable for not protecting the American people: here is his Katrina.
    I am sorry for the local business, but happy for the black soup received by all those who vote for him.
    The real face of Obama is a little bit more black, more shinny, and more oily. He is the more incompetent president ever.
    On another side, the accident is not as bad as pictured and BP is assuming their responsability (exactly the oposite done by the administration)

  • paul wenum

    Cubanshammo, I agree with you quite often, but let’s not lower ourselves to their level, OK? It was an accident that you and I both agree. Let’s keep “our feet on the ground” when pointing at others. Now Cubanshammo when are you going to be in America to vote for the first time? Cap N Trade must be voted down, by our reps that is. Let’s just let Pres. Obama’s record speak for itself OK? So far, it’s as you say, the worst of all first time Presidents. My God, will we catch hell for that statement!

  • Paul, in Cuba we say: those who don’t want a coffee are usually forced to drink three cups later. The black soup dosen’r mean oil, literally, mean one of these cups of coffee they were never expecting to receive from Obama. My direct allution to the oil goes for Obama’s face, because it is symbolic that this accident happened exactly in the same area where Katrina touch US territory. Today, the man in charge of the cleaning operations in the Gulf of Mexico is Grand Canyon in holidays with his wife. Another typical Obama “helper”
    It will take 11 years before I move definitevely to USA. I have a great job and I am making as much money as I can to quit at the age of 60. Then I will have enough to build my house, my pool, to buy a American pick-up, a small Cessna, or a Powered parachute, and a little boat for diving. I want to spend the rest of my years in the sunshine, diving in the Gulf of Mexico, hunting in the Southern States and enjoying my daughter’s freedom in America.

    • Rob N. Hood

      Please, don’t rush… also, the longer you wait the better the Gulf will be after this tragedy. Like, say, a few decades.

  • paul wenum

    Cubansnammo, Kudo’s to you! As my 90+ year old neighbor always says, “Work is Good!” He came from Germany with nothing and he still works because he loves it. By the way he’s a Doctor. Both him and his wife. Hard workers with a simple life. That will change shortly.

  • Rob N. Hood

    You guys are strange birds. Birds of a feather flock together…

  • paul wenum

    Yes, that’s a true statement. Thank you, that’s a compliment!

  • I am ornithologist and I enjoy being a warbler than a Balck Vulture :-))))

  • paul wenum

    Cubanshammo, when you come to America you will be able to “Soar like an Eagle.” We may have problems now, but you know me, I have PMA (Positive mental attitude). Things will change and people like Rob that disagree will always be around. That’s what is wonderful about this country. The Eagles fly with the “Crows.” Eating “Crow” is not fun by the way. Been there done that! I mean literally eating the bird! My lean days. Don’t even entertain the idea. Trust me.

  • Oh I am sure, Rob’s pesimism don’t even give me a light nightmare. On another side, my spirit is lighter than that of John Denver lyrics.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Remember this Three Stooges routine?:

    “I can’t see! I can’t see!”
    “Why not kid?”
    “I’ve got my eyes closed”

    You guys…totally.

  • paul wenum

    I thinks you are “Curly.” Love the Three Stooges!!

  • Rob N. Hood

    No- I’m just an audience member.

  • paul wenum

    Yes you are.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.