Al's Latest Global-Warming Whopper

algore-pollution-money-200By Alan Reynolds

Al Gore’s defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday’s New York Times has many flaws, but I’ll focus on just one whopper — where the “Inconvenient Truth” man states the opposite of scientific fact.Gore wrote, “The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States.”

It’s an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

According to “State of the Climate” from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average.” And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America’s East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.

Read the rest of this piece at New York Post.

Read Al Gore’s OpEd at New York Times.

62 Responses to Al's Latest Global-Warming Whopper

  1. Tony, the geologist March 2, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    The climate prediction models at GISS and NOAA previously indicated that with increased global warming there would be LESS precipitation and droughts would be more prevalent. Also, increased temperature due to man would be carried out through all seasons of the Northern Hemisphere, therefore if the upper atmosphere and troposphere were warmer in the winter, would not the precipitation be rain instead of snow? Also, these are record breaking snows for earliest, most and latest up and down the East Coast that were set for the most part in the late 1890’s. What was the reason for so much evaporation from the oceans back then? I guess AL should go consult the marine biologists in the Florida Keys where there is significant reef loss/bleaching due to….cold water! No evaporation occurring there!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

      Oh, come on now Tony. It’s everything. If it storms, it’s global warming. If there’s a drought, it’s global warming. If it rains, it’s global warming. If it snows, it’s global warming. If the sky is blue, it’s global warming. If there’s a full moon, it’s global warming. If gravity pulls down, it’s global warming. If I have to blow my nose, it’s global warming.
      Come on man, they threw science under the bus 20 years ago. What do you expect? Honesty, and integrety? You’ll be waiting a while.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 9, 2010 at 8:04 am #

        Maybe you took my reply as antagonistic. It was not meant to be. I agree with you Tony, and hope to see you post some more.

  2. Paul Wenum March 2, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    This man is really in denial. Suggest AA?

  3. Hal Groar March 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Par for the course for Ol’ Al. Can’t wait to see what Rob has to say.

  4. paul wenum March 2, 2010 at 11:20 pm #

    My heart beats “pitter patter in anticipation.” Do I care? No. Facts are facts unless you listen to Al Gore. As Inhoff said, bring him in front of the Senate as he did before. I would love to hear 12 hours of “It’s settled!” Yeah right.

  5. Cubanshamoo March 3, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    Hey Guys, Al Gore is not as bad as he seems, the true bad one was the midwife that did not strangle him when being born!!!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 3, 2010 at 6:47 am #

      Oooh, that’s a little harsh. As much as I disagree with Ol’ Al, I do not think that he should have been strangled by the midwife. Humiliation, rejection by society, and complete failure is what I hope for him. Not death.

  6. Troy March 3, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    I’m sorry, but isn’t it the water content in the atmosphere the determining factor of how quickly pooled water (ocean) gets evaporated? We all know that when the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor, pooled water doesn’t get evaporated as quickly as if the atmosphere was dry. How does this correlate with heat?!?

    While Al Bore is concerned about rising temperatures, the rest of us are trying to survive the extreme cold for the last two years. Could you imagine if we attempted to “cool” the planet and were successful? Instead of seeing 18 degrees in Jacksonville Florida this year, we’d see, what – 14?!?

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 3, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

      Troy, don’t let a silly little thing like science get in the way of saving the planet man. It’s happening man and you better just shut up, lest you offend Fred, and Futbol. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chum………………………..p.
      Seriously, you have an good point there, but I think there are a lot more forces at work than simple evaporation. There are factors such as the salinity, and the temperature of the water, and probably a lot more than I know of. But I do think that when the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor, it tends to fall as some sort of precipitation, rain, fog, snow, ect. Atmospheric pressure has a lot to do with it as well, so there are many factors. But you’re thinking! I like that.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 10:55 am #

      Troy I came across this a few moments ago, this might interest you.

  7. futbol March 3, 2010 at 10:09 am #

    thanks for the link to the very interesting and accurate article provided by Al Gore and the Times. I take my hat off to both for trying to relay the truth to such a simple minded and ignorant world.

  8. Hal Groar March 3, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Yea, the midwife thing is a little much. Just once like to see Ol’ Al get into the debate, without his minions to shut-down the questions. Just once!

  9. Paul Wenum March 3, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Gore refuses to debate. What does that say about the man? According to him “it’s settled.” Case closed. Now the Univerity of Tennessee is giving him a Degree as one on the greatest people of Tennessee! Just like Dolly Parton received. Well I quess “two boobs” are warranted this prestigious award!! I could not help it!

  10. Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 3, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    Sorry, here I go being curious and inquisitive again. I know how you guys like Fred, and Futbol don’t like it when the supremecy of the consensus is questioned. But it’s just my nature, can’t help it.
    I was reading the op-ed from the prevaricating Mr. Gore, and I was curious to see what the official sea levels are, and what the projections are. I’m afraid that I have noticed something that just makes me rub my temples because my brain started to hurt and I would like to reach out to you, the readers of this website, for some help in understanding this:
    Sea levels are rising!
    But sea levels are falling at:
    Adak Island, AK. -2.75. (The mean sea level trend is mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1936 to 2006. this applys to all of the following as well.) Unalaska, AK. -5.72. Kodiak Island, AK. -10.42. Seldovia, AK.- 9.45. Nikiski, AK. -9.80. Seward, AK. -1.74. Valdez, AK. -2.52. Yakutat, AK. -6.44. Skagway, AK. -17.12. Juneau, AK. -12.92. Sitka, AK. -2.05. Ketchikan, AK. -0.19. Tofino, BC. -1.59. Neah Bay, WA. -1.63. Astoria, OR. -0.31. Crescent City, CA. -0.65. La Libertad, Ecuador. -1.22. Antofagasta, Chile. -0.75. Puerto Daseando, Argentina. -0.06. Point-Au-Pere, Can. -0.36. Quebec, Can. -0.17. Barentsburg, Norway. -2.99. Navik, Norway. -3.09. Heimsjo, Norway. -1.61. Bergen, Norway. -0.52. Oslo, Norway. -4.53. Hirtshals, Denmark. -0.20. Smogen, Sweden. -1.92. Goteborg, Sweden. -1.30. landsort, Sweden. -2.85. Stockholm, Sweden. -3.94. Degerby, Finland. -3.77. Tuku/Abo, Finland. -3.71. Mantylouto, Finland. -5.96. Kaskinen/Kasko, Finland. -6.54. Vaasa/Vasa, Finland. -7.36. Ratan, Sweden. -7.75. Pietarsaari/Jakobstad, Finland. -7.32. Furuogrund, Sweden. -8.17. Raahe/Brahesttad, Finland. -6.81. Oulu/Uleaborg, Finland. -6.38. Kemi, Finland. -7.01. Hanko/Hango, Finland. -2.76. helsinki, Finland. -2.41. Hamina, Finland. -1.03. Lo Lak, Thailand. -0.48. Hosojima, Japan. -0.53. Wajima, Japan. -0.80. Guam, Marianas Is. -1.05.

    This befuddles, confounds, and confuses me. I thought that level meant…..uh…..level? Or is this a simple case of post-glacial rebound, and volcanic upward forcings? How can sea level have a downward trend in one place, and a few miles away have an upward trend? Now remember this is based on monthly mean sea level data from 1936 to 2006, we are not talking about anomolies here. If this keeps up, the fishing boats at Furuogrund, Sweden will have to have wheels on em’ by the end of the century.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 9:02 am #

      “The mean sea level trend is mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1936 to 2006. this applys to all of the following as well”
      This is not accurate. It did not apply to all of the following numbers. Some had shorter time spans of data. I assumed that it applied to all of the numbers but it did not. It’s more accurate to look at the calculated rise or fall for the last 100 years, which they all have in the info bubble that pops up for each one when clicked.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

        Ok. I am not a math guy, so if this does not sound right let me know. There are 238 stations worldwide that measure the sea levels. 48 of those stations reported a drop in sea level. I used the calculated 100 year totals for each one. I added the 100 year totals for each and divided them for the number of stations reporting. So 48 stations reporting a negative number added together was -62 ft (all totals rounded). So the average sea level fall for all negative reporting stations was -62 ft/48= -1.3 ft
        There were 190 stations reporting a rise in sea level adding up to 136.7 ft. So the average is 136.7 ft/190=0.72 ft.
        Wow what a crisis!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Granted I don’t know all of the factors involved with determining total sea levels, but come on, this does not seem to be something to panic about. Does it?

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

          Sorry, that would be -1.3 ft in the last 100 years and 0.72 ft in the last 100 years, respectively.

  11. paul wenum March 3, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    Neil, Al’s a “Boob.” Trust me.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 6:54 am #

      Yes I agree. Gore is a boob.
      What do you think about the sea level data? Does that make any sense to you?

  12. Cubanshamoo March 4, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    Neil, Hal, sorry, but my English may be extremely bad. My phrase was pure humor. If I use humor against Kevin Costner it sounds terrible, if I use it against Al Gore is sounds harsh. If I write something serious on nuclear energy as usefull and save source of energy is deleted. I start to get the message after being so much edited, or missunderstood.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 6:50 am #

      Your English is better than my Spanish. But I don’t think it was a matter of language. I otherwise agree with you, and you have the same view I do on the AGW issue, but I just don’t think baby strangulation is funny. No matter who we’re talking about. I’ll let it slide this time because I like you. Just remember Death ain’t funny, baby death even less so.
      As far as your posts being deleted. I know from personal experience that there are two main reasons Dan will delete something. 1. personal attacks, and foul language. And 2. Length. I bet your posting was deleted for one of those two, probably length. Try posting it in a condensed form, or write a short introduction and provide some links to source material.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2010 at 11:33 am #

      Nobody deleted your posts! It actually has happened to me a couple of times where I will post something and it just disappears. I have actually gone back page on my browser to where my comments are still visible, and tried re-posting. What happens then is I get a message saying that “it looks like you have already posted this!” But the comments are just gone. I think it is a glitch in the system. What I do is wait a while to see if it posts. If it does not, I change some of the wording and post it again. That usually works. But Dan is the only person (I think) who can delete posts. So don’t go gettin all paranoid.

  13. Mara Earth March 4, 2010 at 5:34 am #

    So both sides are using irrelevant data to try to prove their points.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

      So, what is relevent?

      • Rob N. Hood March 5, 2010 at 7:36 am #

        This is perhaps relevant:

        National GOP leaders are doing damage control today after a Politico scoop lifted the curtain on the party’s plan to tap voters’ “fear” in the coming campaign season. The PR problem started when an absent-minded attendee at the Republican National Committee (RNC) confab on February 18 in Boca Grande, Florida, left a 72-page document from its 2010 strategizing session in a hotel room. Today, Politico reporter Ben Smith’s expose is making headlines.

        This document even pokes fun at some of the Republicans’ own big money contributors as being “ego driven” and implies their gullibility to fear tactics. The document also outlines how to use fear tactics to win supporters from the middle class.

        • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2010 at 9:24 am #

          You’re talking about this story:
          And this document:
          After looking at both, I think there is an over-reaction to it. I think it is a bit of an “inside baseball” thing, and if you read the story it does say that the DNC has used similar methods. I would say that the “damage control” that you are referring to is a reaction to the interperetation by the Democrat that gave it to Smith.
          At any rate, I really don’t see what the relevence is to my reply to Mara Earth’s point (?) about both sides using irrelevent data to prove their points.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2010 at 9:26 am #

            Wait, I do get it!!!!! This IS completely irrelevent, wow you really are a genius Rob.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2010 at 11:36 am #

            Dan can you check the spam filter? I have a post with a couple of URL’s that’s been awaiting moderation for a couple of days. Thanks

          • Dan McGrath March 8, 2010 at 11:43 am #

            Yeah. It wasn’t in the spam trap, just awaiting moderation because of the URLs and I didn’t login at all over the weekend.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

            Whatever the case, thanks just the same.

          • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

            Thanks Dan!

  14. paul wenum March 4, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    Neil, sea levels are not rising. Your point is on spot. (That’s a UK term)

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 5, 2010 at 12:07 am #

      Thanks Paul. I think it is interesting that we always hear that the sea levels are rising. But what does the data from the places that sea levels are falling tell us? Also, if you look at the map on the website in the link, you see that there are more places that have no data. There is nothing from Greenland, or Russia, or even the North sea, and one reading from Antarctica. I think it is a complete mess, and I don’t think anyone knows what is really happening.

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2010 at 11:38 am #

        And they never talk about isostatic movement of landmass either.

  15. Cubanshamoo March 5, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    Ok Neil, I got your point. Thanks.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 8:37 am #

      So, what is your Kevin Costner humor like?

  16. Hal Groar March 5, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    Does this type of information surprise you Neil? I mean, this whole mess has been thrown together with confusing data and contradictory evidence. The definition of a “fact” has been stretched to its limit. To find readings that fly in the face of the AGW theory has become commonplace. I appreciate the research you have done and will take a much closer look at it when I get more time, but don’t let the results blow your mind. Just another false claim. Know what I mean?

    Hey Rob, good to see your on topic post! Thanks!

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 8:54 am #

      Spot on Hal. Confusing data and contradictory evidence. That’s it exactly! It starts with computer model results that are trumpeted as unassailable. Oh sacred and gloriuos oracle of modeleling! Of course a short search on computer modeling will give you about 10,000 hits on the flaws of computer model projections. GIGO!!!!
      And this sea level data. Nowhere in the alarmist proclaimations of sea level rise does it mention that there are about (I forget exact number) 50-60 of those stations that track sea level report a DECLINE in sea level. Talk about cherry-picking the data!

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 8, 2010 at 11:56 am #

        Update: It’s 48 stations that report a decline. 190 report an increase. I’m not a math guy so I don’t know which numbers are the right ones, but the 48 stations reporting decline totals over the last 100 years are -62 ft. Divided by 48 that is -1.3 ft/100 years. The 190 stations report a rise of 136 ft divided by 190 that is 0.72/100 years. But if I put all of the stations together it is 74.7 ft/238=3.2 ft/100 years. Which is about 0.032 ft/year worldwide. Which still does not sound like a crisis to me especially considering the fact that at the height of the last glacial period the sea levels were about 333 ft lower than they are today.

  17. Rob N. Hood March 6, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    I can tell you guys don’t get it, or don’t want to. No surprise there.

    Hint: You guys are “afraid” of the “Liberal agenda” and especially in the case of this site, Al Gore’s liberal agenda… specifically global warming and the “Liberal elites” who plan to use the “hoax” to gain even more control and power over the lives the sweet little innocents like you.

    Why are you so “afraid”? Who or what groups (gosh, not this site!) help to achieve that fear?

    Yes, I know, certain scientists and Al Gore!!! But are there OTHER groups/people that do the same thing, only from a different angel? But surely they could not be using you for their own agendas could they? Oh, no…. that just cannot be true… !

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 6, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

      The reason I don’t “get” what you are saying most of the time is because I don’t accept the premise to begin with. I am not a conspiracy theory buff. I know there are secretive groups of rich elitists, of all different sorts, who have secret agendas. The difference between you and I is that I don’t think I know just what those agenda are. But you, you think you know everything about them. Like you’ve sat in on their meetings, and read their minutes. When in reality all you know is what speculation says they’re all about, what other people say about them. And not knowing any facts you lash out at us for not believing in what you think! You think we are all just marrianettes dancing around with the elitists pulling the strings.
      When I began to question AGW, I just thought something was fishy. I started looking around to find some answers and found Friends of Science. They were not saying anything about the Liberal agenda, or how the elites are trying to take over everything. No, what they were saying is “wait a minute, the science is not settled, and the debate is not over, and here is why”. And they had scientific studies and other scientific literature that spelled out what they thought, and it made sense to me. It was only through my own observations that I noticed that the main pushers of AGW, and the associated socio-economic changes, was the Left. Environmentalist groups all glommed on, and the vast majority of the members of those groups are on the Left. So the few times I have mentioned a Liberal conspiracy is about that, and only that.
      The Club of Rome is not conspiring to do anything because they have spelled it out in their books. It’s not a conspiracy if it is a matter of public record.
      So, I’m sorry if I don’t “get” what you are saying, but it’s only because I don’t pretend to know what all the evil rich elitists are up to. And if I ever really want to know, I’m not going to ask you.

  18. Hal Groar March 7, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Hey Rob, do these other fear pushers have a goal in mind? I mean, if their agenda is the truth, I guess you can count me as a member. If their goal is to QUESTION wild claims that require drastic action to the detriment of society, I for one am proud to be a pawn in that game. I guess I don’t see the down side of making science prove its case. I am part of the conspiracy. Wow, now I fear myself…

  19. Rob N. Hood March 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    Well, thanks, but I wouldn’t go that far…. well, maybe.

  20. Rob N. Hood March 7, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    Much of the reality that I claim to know about is right before everyones own eyes. Your inability to see any or some of it is what is amazing to me. Is it simple denial? Is it conscious or subconscious? I have no idea, but you guys miss much of reality due to it. Instead of getting angry about this, maybe you could try, even a little, to open up your minds. You don’t even have to tell anyone you are working on that. You are truly blinded by biases- we all are. But some people can clear some of that away enough to see what is going on. Not all of it of course- I’ve never really claimed that I know everything. So give it a shot- you’ve got nothing to lose, and perhaps much to gain by trying.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 9, 2010 at 9:01 am #

      The “reality” you claim to know about is your subjective reality. It is not objective reality. Your trouble is that you believe your subjective reality IS objective reality, which is why you just will not let it go. Why is it so important to you that we adopt your subjective reality?

      • Rob N. Hood March 11, 2010 at 7:47 am #

        But you don’t operate the same way? Are you somehow super-human and think totally objectively? What if your “skills” are not what you think they are? What if you are very subjective, so much so that you cannot even detect it, even if you tried…? Although I think you could try harder.

  21. paul wenum March 7, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    Neil, I think Rob saw to much Avatar and kept the glasses. Nothing makes sense to me in his constant ramblings.

  22. Rob N. Hood March 7, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    I knew you’d catch on sooner or later…!

    Programs such as Social Security and Medicare built the American middle class – and solutions such as health care reform, banking reform, consumer protection, and freeing our politics from the stranglehold of big money that will save us now.

    Instead of tearing down our country, we ought to be building it up.

    We should rebuild our manufacturing base, based on clean energy, high-speed trains, bio-medical research, and other 21st century endeavors. We should promote research and development. We should promote small business and American innovation.

    We must rebuild our infrastructure – not just our roads and bridges, but our schools and homes which need to become energy-efficient. We should end our addiction to oil and gas as soon as we can, with clean solar and wind energy.

    We need health care reform now. Having to stay in a bad job because you, your spouse or your kid needs medical care is a modern day form of slavery, not freedom!

    We need to promote lending by small and large banks – and break up the so-called “too big to fail” banks. We need a real Consumer Financial Productions Protection Agency. We need real, not fake, reform.

    The American Dream is under attack. And this is the fight of our generation. It is a fight Americans have been fighting since our Revolution – a fight to make equal opportunity a reality, not an empty slogan.

    Lose this fight, and we lose our country to a bunch of greedy plutocrats. We lose opportunities for ourselves and our children to succeed. Don’t let the military be the only Jobs Program for our young. Talk about Socialism- the military is the largest socialist program we have. And that of course is the road to hell.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

      Rob, I was in the Military for five years. And In the case of the military I can say without any question you have no clue what you’re talking about. Not one single clue. You really need to stop saying things that you don’t know the first thing about. I would attempt to explain why you are so wrong about that but Dan would edit it for length.

      • Rob N. Hood March 11, 2010 at 7:51 am #

        Oh boo hoo. Being in the military qualifies you for some special status of knowledge? Really? Grandiose/Narcissism anyone?

        The military is not socialist in nature? Is that what you are avoiding debating? Neil- you really need to back up and look at things from a clearer perspective. You and others seem to automatically disagree without any real thought. If you cannot see that this statement is technically true, then it is you, I’m afraid, who has no clue.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 9, 2010 at 9:09 am #

      Do you have any original thoughts Rob? Or do you just repeat what idiots say all the time?

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 9, 2010 at 9:11 am #

      I wonder what Susan S. Pastin thinks of you using her material?

      • Rob N. Hood March 11, 2010 at 7:56 am #

        You guys need to get a life.

  23. Paul Wenum March 7, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    Yes he is an alleged genious (in his own mind) in diverting attention to the core issue. Climate change is natural. I see he has his talking points down pat. Though I was hearing Obama reading a teleprompter on sicial change, or was it Chavez, Castro? I lose track.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD March 7, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

      The most irritating thing is that he swears up and down that he’s trying to make some kind of relevent point Paul.

      Rob, you know I think I just put my finger on it. Your points may be relevent to you, but they are not to me. My interest is with the AGW issue. Hal gets it right. If pointing out the truth about climate change defeats this kind of thing, what does it matter if I see it or not? I’m trying to defeat the lie of AGW here. When that is done, then I will look for another dragon to slay. Until then there are no other issues I’m interested in fighting. And you are not the one who gets to decide what issues I get interested in. Do you understand that? I really don’t think you do. Wheather or not it is your intent, what you do is a distraction. Do you understand that? I don’t think you do.

    • Rob N. Hood March 11, 2010 at 7:58 am #

      I guess Bush NEVER used a teleprompter, and even wrote all of his speeches hisself!! Golly gee, I miss that misunderestimated genius. He did such a good job running this country… into the ground.

  24. paul wenum March 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Neil, I agree 100%. Stay on point my friend on Global Warming issues. People like Rob have taken you away from your purpose as well as this group. Keep it up. I got sucked in as well. The old Alinski propaganda. (Chicago Style!) Change the subject at hand and keep your mind befuddled by other BS things. It seems to be an art lately.

  25. paul wenum March 8, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    Thanks Dan.

  26. Rob N. Hood March 11, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    Yes, be afraid of and avoid those different than you. Golly gee you just might learn something! Not Hope, just Nope.

    Keep up the closed mind-set and mutual stroking. That’ll help change the world… not.

  27. paul wenum March 14, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    Sorry Robbie Boy we learn nothing new from you other than Al Gore’s worn out BS that you constantly copy and paste. Do you ever have a thought? You are a waste of time.

  28. paul wenum March 14, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Dan, Sorry if I get cranked up and surely when confronted. I don’t like to back down. Sorry for the inconvenience that I may have caused.

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