Re: Chrysler sells all 6400 Dodge Challenger muscle cars

Chad wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:8sudnSnf__wMlKnVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Chad wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:cK6dnei-2YsrZqzVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Gary DeWaay wrote:
>>>>> In article <0badnX11qIoKQq3VnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
>>>>> cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Michael Johnson wisdom.. .
>>>>>> The video doesn't ignore other factors that effect climate change. 
We 
>>>>>> are seeing the beginning of the end of the global warming movement.

>>>>>> You loonies can't ignore empirical data forever.  Another couple of

>>>>>> years and you and your cronies will go the way of the Dodo bird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain why you think this will happen when six of the seven warmest

>>>>> years on record has been since 2000?
>>>> Explain why we are in the midst of a downward trend in temperature
data? 
>>>> Why hasn't actual temperatures matched the computer models of the 
>>>> enviro-nazi that say we should be baking like a cake right now?  How 
>>>> much sea ice is there right now in the Artic Ocean?
>>>>
>>>>> I think Rush (or someone) is playing you for a fool.  He was trying
to 
>>>>> claim that since there was a aberrational warm year in 1998, and the

>>>>> years now are about as warm as 1998, this is somehow meaningful.
>>>> If anyone is being played a fool it is you global warming wackos
being 
>>>> played by Al Gore.  He is laughing all the way to the bank.
>>>>
>>> You talk like a brainwashed lemming referencing Al Gore in every post.
>>>
>>> Have you ever stopped to consider the vast majority of scientists who 
>>> disagree agree with the head in the sand cor****ate apologist agenda
you 
>>> have been sucked in to.... or they only "in it for the money" too now?
>>>
>>> You are just parroting the minority opinion of a scientist taking a 
>>> sensational stance using simplistic evidence.
>> I'm using common sense and logic.  If I am parroting the right then you

>> must be parroting the left.  Why isn't the planet warming like the 
>> computer models of the global warming side has claimed for almost a 
>> decade?  Why is the empirical data showing a reduction of temperatures?
> 
> I guess it could be for the same reason your scientist's graphs show
many 
> short term up and down spikes in his 'temp data' taken from ice cores.
> 
> But who's computer models are you claiming aren't correct anyway? Or do
you 
> just assume recognised scientific theory does not take into account the
ice 
> core temp data your man is claiming as the only im****tant evidence
maybe.

Ice cores aren't the only source of temperature data.  Ocean sediments 
are another.  IMO, even the scientists on the other side may be wrong 
but at least they still have open minds about what causes climate 
change.  The global warming nuts have latched on to CO2 as a cause of 
warming when there are many, many factors that effect global climate. 
Too many global warming alarmists keyed on CO2 because then they could 
tie it into other environmental issues like burning fossil fuels, polar 
bears' survival etc.  Then the liberal politicians jumped on board 
because it allowed them to tax the hell out of us, redistribute wealth 
on a global scale and gain more control of our day to day lives.