Mountain Bikers' Alleged "Love of Nature"

[Mike Vandeman]

This is a good example of the attitude of the typical mountain biker:
they are ONLY interested in bike access to trails, NOT caring for the
park.

Mike


Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:18:26 -0700
From: pete fagerlin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Let's get dirty - Saturday, April 12 at Mt. Diablo State
Park

msrutzie wrote:
> Did you know the Mount Diablo State Park essentially gets no funding
> for trail maintenance?
Did you know that essentially the best riding in Mt. Diablo State Park
is off-limits to bikes?

Please let Caryn Kralovansky and Jeff Beach know that I will be there
when Mt. Diablo State Park needs help with trail maintenance on
Middle,
Bald, Back Creek, Heatherington, etc. when they are bike-legal trails.

Until then, let the wide track erode a bit, become a bit un-level and
let the debris stay. It makes some relatively tame trail slightly more
interesting...

Happy carpooling!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Siskuwihane]

This is a good example of the attitude of the typical envirotard(tm)
they are ONLY interested in their own comfort and convenience, NOT
caring for the
planet.

They FLY on commercial airlines to international conferences even
though they know jet engines release tons of chemicals and greenhouse
gasses directly into the upper atmosphere.

 

[Jens Müller]

Siskuwihane schrieb:
> This is a good example of the attitude of the typical envirotard(tm)
> they are ONLY interested in their own comfort and convenience, NOT
> caring for the
> planet.
>
> They FLY on commercial airlines to international conferences even
> though they know jet engines release tons of chemicals and greenhouse
> gasses directly into the upper atmosphere.
>

Well, if they plant a tree for every flight, they call it sustainable ...

 

[Mike Romain]

Siskuwihane wrote:
> This is a good example of the attitude of the typical envirotard(tm)
> they are ONLY interested in their own comfort and convenience, NOT
> caring for the
> planet.
>
> They FLY on commercial airlines to international conferences even
> though they know jet engines release tons of chemicals and greenhouse
> gasses directly into the upper atmosphere.
>

You know, it is really scary, but he actually might be contributing to
'saving' us from, or at least slowing down "global warming" by putting
up a sunshade. If it wasn't for our pollution sunshade, we might have
warmed up a bunch more like Mars has over the last few years in the
latest sun cycle.

Mike

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Siskuwihane wrote:
>> This is a good example of the attitude of the typical envirotard(tm)
>> they are ONLY interested in their own comfort and convenience, NOT
>> caring for the
>> planet.
>>
>> They FLY on commercial airlines to international conferences even
>> though they know jet engines release tons of chemicals and greenhouse
>> gasses directly into the upper atmosphere.
>>
>
> You know, it is really scary, but he actually might be contributing to
> 'saving' us from, or at least slowing down "global warming" by putting up
> a sunshade. If it wasn't for our pollution sunshade, we might have warmed
> up a bunch more like Mars has over the last few years in the latest sun
> cycle.
>


With all of the improvements in Martian climate patters, it's still not a
vacation hot spot like Hawaii, or Antartica.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Mike Romain wrote:
> Siskuwihane wrote:
>> This is a good example of the attitude of the typical envirotard(tm)
>> they are ONLY interested in their own comfort and convenience, NOT
>> caring for the
>> planet.
>>
>> They FLY on commercial airlines to international conferences even
>> though they know jet engines release tons of chemicals and greenhouse
>> gasses directly into the upper atmosphere.
>>
>
> You know, it is really scary, but he actually might be contributing to
> 'saving' us from, or at least slowing down "global warming" by putting
> up a sunshade. If it wasn't for our pollution sunshade, we might have
> warmed up a bunch more like Mars has over the last few years in the
> latest sun cycle.

You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't take
the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and projections.
(BTW, the earth has been cooling for at least ten years, as 1998 was the
warmest on record in recent times.
http://images.dailytech.com:80/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg)

Bill "so they'll just put the monitoring stations next to even bigger heat
generators now" S.

 

[Tom Sherman]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>> You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't
>> take the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and
>> projections.
>
> And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
>
Sorni is not a liar in this case, just brainwashed by right-wing talk radio.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Bill Sornson]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>> You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists)
>> don't take the sun into account at all in their so-called
>> calculations and projections.
>
> And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.

LOL Grow up, sonny.

 

[Bill Sornson]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
>
>
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>> LOL Grow up, sonny.
>
> Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
> claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a
>
> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>
> So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?
>
> Both perhaps.
>
> We await your decision.

I give. Your rapier wit and obvious knowledge on all matters meteorological
are too much. {pause} TOO MUCH ********, THAT IS! ROTFL LOL ROTFL

Out. BS

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MoncktononBali2007.doc

Plenty more out there...just ask.

 

[V-for-Vendicar]

"Jens Müller" <[email protected]> wrote
> Well, if they plant a tree for every flight, they call it sustainable ...

At least until the tree is cut down or dies.

 

[DI]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>>> And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
>>
>>
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> LOL Grow up, sonny.
>>
>> Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
>> claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a
>>
>> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>>
>> So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?
>>
>> Both perhaps.
>>
>> We await your decision.
>
> I give. Your rapier wit and obvious knowledge on all matters
> meteorological are too much. {pause} TOO MUCH ********, THAT IS! ROTFL
> LOL ROTFL
>
> Out. BS
>
> http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
>
> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MoncktononBali2007.doc
>
> Plenty more out there...just ask.
>

How dare you to offer some proof. They won't accept it because they have
their minds made up already.

 

[Puppet_Sock]

On Apr 7, 2:35 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN

How many months in a winter there Scotty?
Socks

 

[Bill Sornson]

DI wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>>>> And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> LOL Grow up, sonny.
>>>
>>> Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense
>>> and claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a
>>>
>>> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>>>
>>> So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?
>>>
>>> Both perhaps.
>>>
>>> We await your decision.
>>
>> I give. Your rapier wit and obvious knowledge on all matters
>> meteorological are too much. {pause} TOO MUCH ********, THAT IS! ROTFL
>> LOL ROTFL
>>
>> Out. BS
>>
>> http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf
>>
>> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
>>
>> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MoncktononBali2007.doc
>>
>> Plenty more out there...just ask.


> How dare you to offer some proof. They won't accept it because
> they have their minds made up already.

Kind of makes you wonder why Al Gore is going to spend $300M on GW
propaganda now that it's the "consensus" view.

He and the environment would be better off if he spent it on a new private
jet instead of that '70s era Gulfspew on which he's flying around today.

Bill "inconvenient facts" S.

 

[V-for-Vendicar]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
> You'll note, of course, that the GWAs (Global Warming Alarmists) don't
> take the sun into account at all in their so-called calculations and
> projections.

And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.

IPCC Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

Mann et al. (1998, 2000) used a multi-correlation technique and found
significant correlations with solar and, less so, with the volcanic forcing
over parts of the palaeo-record. The authors concluded that natural forcings
have been important on decadal-to-century time-scales, but that the dramatic
warming of the 20th century correlates best and very significantly with
greenhouse gas forcing. The use of multiple correlations avoids the
possibility of spuriously high correlations due to the common trend in the
solar and temperature time-series (Laut and Gunderman, 1998). Attempts to
estimate the contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcing to 20th
century temperature evolution simultaneously are discussed in Section 12.4.

 

[V-for-Vendicar]

>> And that makes Bill Sornson a LIAR.


"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
> LOL Grow up, sonny.

Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a

MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN

So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?

Both perhaps.

We await your decision.

 

[V-for-Vendicar]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> Well Billy, there are a couple here who have come to your defense and
>> claimed that you aren't necessarily a LIAR, you might just be a
>>
>> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>>
>> So which is it John Boy? Are you a Liar or are you a Moron?
>>
>> Both perhaps.
>>
>> We await your decision.


"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
> I give. Your rapier wit and obvious knowledge on all matters
> meteorological are too much.

You still haven't answered the question.

If you don't decide, I will decide for you.

 

[Mike Romain]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "DI" <[email protected]> wrote
>> How dare you to offer some proof. They won't accept it because they
>> have their minds made up already.
>
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer
>
> January 16, 2008
>
>
> The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
> NASA
> scientists announced today.

OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed.
It was all over the news recently.

Mike

 

[Bill Sornson]

V-for-Vendicar wrote, after removing all context (of course):
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote

>> Kind of makes you wonder why Al Gore is going to spend $300M on GW
>> propaganda now that it's the "consensus" view.

> No need to wonder. Here is the explanation....
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer

That's been debunked already, but that just proves the point. Why is Al
going to spend 300 million bucks promoting what "all the experts" say is
"obvious"?

It's a frigging scam.

BS (not)

 

[Bill Sornson]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was
>> skewed. It was all over the news recently.
>
> Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle
> of last year that made no practical difference in global temps
> (recant? Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer
>
> January 16, 2008
>
>
> The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this
> century, NASA
> scientists announced today.

Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
readings, too.

HTH (BKIW)

 

[Tom Sherman]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
>> readings, too.
>
> But you won't get high bore hole temperatures, melting ice caps, high
> ocean temperatures, high satellite derrived temperatures, changes in the
> time of onset of the seasons, melting glaciers world wide, and alterations
> in the global weather patterns amongst other visible changes.
>
> And not realizing this makes you a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOONNNN
>
Or a tool of the right-wing media.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful