XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: Trueno@e86.GTS   
      
   On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:48:27 -0600, 5813 Dead, 956 since 1/20/09 wrote:   
      
   > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:39:29 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:   
   >   
   >> or yOn Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:08:04 -0600, 5813 Dead, 956 since 1/20/09   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:24:11 -0600, Jane_Galt wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> "5813 Dead, 956 since 1/20/09"   wrote :   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:46:57 -0600, "Jane_Galt"   
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle"   
   >>>>>>  wrote :   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:13 am, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 01:14:43 -0600, Jane_Galt wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> > Being "Man Made Global Warming" falls more into the realm of   
   >>>>>>>> > religioon than science, only those with political agendas of   
   >>>>>>>> > socialist style redistribution of wealth tend to "believe in"   
   >>>>>>>> > it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Hey. I just said something similar to that...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So the OVERWHELMING number of scientists are ALL part of a   
   >>>>>>> CONSPIRACY to fool the general populace,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Overwhelming? Does the number of people who say something make it   
   >>>>>>RIGHT?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If they happen to have the data backing them, then yes, it does.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Would that be the manipulated data that they were telling each other   
   >>>> to propagate in the ClimateGate emails?   
   >>>   
   >>> The "Climategate" that was long ago discredited, bubbles?  That   
   >>> Climategate?   
   >>   
   >> Who 'discredited' it? Did you read the emails for yourself?   
   >   
   > Yes, actually, I did.  And they were discredited by no less than three   
   > independent commissions, two by the British government, and one by the UN.   
   >  All three concluded that there was nothing to indicate any malfeasance of   
   > any sort by the people involved who wrote the stolen emails.   
      
      
   Yeah. They don't have anything to lose if the emails stand as written.   
      
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Wow.  You really are an ignorant whack job, aren't you?   
   >>   
   >> Um, yeah. Sure. Guess you didn't hear what the second in command at the   
   >> IPCC  said the other day, that "it's not about the environment" but the   
   >> redistribution of wealth.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> I love Delingpole:   
   >>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064075/how-the-   
   >>>> climategate-weasels-wriggled-free/   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm sure you do.  And look how that crafty ACORN escaped being forever   
   >>> smeared by James O'Keefe, too!   
   >>>   
   >>> I guess Harry has you all riled up because of all the data he's been   
   >>> posting--the 99.9% that had now bearing in your long-discredited little   
   >>> scandal.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)