"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.
Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always wanted to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is and always has been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that looking at a 20 year period of the earth's history and proclaiming you've found a pattern demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've come to expect from Asher and his ideals.
You know, I don't mean to insult Henry, but if I wanted a blow job from a guy, I could probably do better than him.
-- Bill Asher
p.s. You're still losing the intellectual part of this argument as well.
In article <[email hidden]>, William Asher <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Asher is correct - the studies have shown that the frequency of the storms isn't increasing but the amplitude is.
Dumbass - maybe you ought to go give Asher that blowjob you've always wanted to give him. That still won't change the fact that weather is and always has been cyclical and the supremely ignorant claim that looking at a 20 year period of the earth's history and proclaiming you've found a pattern demonstrates the sort of intellectualism we've come to expect from Asher and his ideals.
You know, I don't mean to insult Henry, but if I wanted a blow job from a guy, I could probably do better than him.
p.s. You're still losing the intellectual part of this argument as well.
Consider the source, Bill. Calling you names and insinuating you're teh gay *is* the intellectual part of his argument.
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
I don't see Tom as violent.
I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.
Hmm, so are all the threats of "disconnecting [someone] from reality", lynching fantasies and other threats you've made just empty chest beating? Or are you sort of forgetting about a few other events, like smacking your girlfriend or knocking down members of your "Toms" club?
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
On Oct 30, 1:43 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
I don't see Tom as violent.
I punched a guy about 20 years ago and he fell over and hit his head against the edge of a car door. Luckily he had a head like a stone and wasn't really hurt but I haven't hit anyone since. Wouldn't have hit him then if he wasn't about to throw up on me.
Quoted message said:
Neither are us lefties. But we ain't going away.
Wanna bet? The younger generation has gone through the schools with all of the super leftists teaching in them. My guess is that sooner or later they'll come into power and there'll be a pogrom. Let's remember that Jack Kennedy would be declared an extreme right wing nut these days.
That's pretty funny.
Tom is one of those people who thinks Kennedy's views would be static if he was alive (er, if JFK was alive, not if , oh you know what I mean). I laugh at the idea of a "pogrom" here. That gets back to good old "Two Guns" and TK's assertion that if "Liberals get power they'll have their own Final Solution." Wee bit of catastrophising there, no?
-- tanx, Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
in 556897 20071031 030322 'Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:
"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more than a small fortune.
They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be able to cope with rising tides!
That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been decommissioned.
Wherever you read that, it was totally wrong. The barrier is working well and is closed more and more frequently. However it is not expected to be able to meet future water levels and planning for a larger version is already well-advanced.
"Before 1990, the number of barrier closures was one to two per year on average. Since 1990, the number of barrier closures has increased to an average of about four per year. In 2003 the Barrier was closed on 14 consecutive tides."
"Dan Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more than a small fortune.
They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be able to cope with rising tides!
That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been decommissioned.
Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more than a small fortune.
They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be able to cope with rising tides!
That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been decommissioned.
Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!). Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the (rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you notice this pretty quickly.
BTW, I enjoy reading your posts even though I disagree with your ideas.
Thank you very much, but know that Bob S will be unhappy with that. He'll think I feel somehow encouraged to let loose with my ascii. If I could get control of that personal issue, as much as I wish the guvmint could get itself under control, well then I think I could support a few more primates with all the newly found time. I might even have time to ride/train!
The decision of how many primates you'll be supporting isn't up to you. It's up to Chung, if he makes any more primates.
> Did you notice that those locks that they built on the Thames to keep > out the 20 foot change in ocean level were quietly turned off a couple > of years ago having never been needed and having cost the Brits more > than a small fortune. They are being used more and more often and are no longer expected to be able to cope with rising tides!
Quoted message said:
That's curious since I read and article a couple of years ago that said that the Thames Barrier locks had never worked properly and had been decommissioned.
Not true: they get used fairly frequently. If you spent much time on the Thames in London (I do) you'd notice the effects on the tidal flow. Barrier down = it matches the tide predictions, give or take some landwater (sometimes this year there's been a lot of that!). Barrier up = totally different flow changes. Sometimes when the barrier is raised around the turn of the tide you even see the tide flowing out, change to flowing in, change to flowing out again, change yet again to coming in, all in the space of an hour or so. Since the (rowing) navigation rules depend on the direction of the tide, you notice this pretty quickly.
Pete-
Well, I did see it in a major newspaper so it didn't just come out of the air. I'm rather surprised since the article went into great detail about how the barrier gates seldom worked properly with one or two of them sticking when the barrier was tested.
The point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort to lies.
Tom:
You said:
"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists."
Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay Area, it seemed mild"?
Could you please elaborate on the benefits we'd receive from cutting back on carbon emissions even if it doesn't affect climate in any way?
Quoted message said:
Cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses.
Thanks for being clear and concise. It's an area I've got to work on.
Steve, you're supposed to have some medical training. Why would you believe that less air polution equates to less respiratory illness? Some of the oldest Americans live in the Great Smokies which are called that because of the extremely high particulate matter injected into the air by the trees and other plants in that area.
On Oct 30, 10:32 pm, William Asher <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The point being that most people like Kunich harp over and over that there were no major hurricanes (or typhoons) in 2007.
Quoted message said:
There you have it - when you don't have any truth on your side resort to lies.
Tom:
You said:
"I suppose that the last two seasons which have been exceptionally mild ought to demonstrate the scientific basis for their beliefs. That is - absolutely nothing at all aside from the blind following of their beloved leftists."
Do you still claim it was mild, with two cat 5 storms out of a total of 4, or do you want to amend that to "for people like me, living in the Bay Area, it seemed mild"?
Bill, you can pretend that 4 are more dangerous than 11 if you wish.
* "Mark Fennell" <[email hidden]> a écrit profondement: | | Over my expected lifetime, the world population will triple, from ~3 billion | to ~9 billion. That just blows me away. We're pooping too much in our petri | dish to sustain it. |
* "Mark Fennell" <[email hidden]> a écrit profondement: | | Over my expected lifetime, the world population will triple, from ~3 billion | to ~9 billion. That just blows me away. We're pooping too much in our petri | dish to sustain it. |
Too easy: overpopulation. But your scenario will take care of that eventually, right?
Hah! We're pretty much past peak birthrate now. Global peak birthrate.
True that--birth rates are lower now than in decades past. But globally we're still replacing ourselves at a rate greater than 1:1 and will continue to do so well into this century. And as I'm sure you know, many of the places where growth is the greatest are (arguably) the least able to handle it.
Over my expected lifetime, the world population will triple, from ~3 billion to ~9 billion. That just blows me away. We're pooping too much in our petri dish to sustain it.
But more significant to you Ryan, your liquor-cabinet hero Mark P-G upgraded to cat 2 this season! I hear he's a legit field sprinter.
