calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 You cab try something else if you'd like Woodypeckerhead ********************** Hey, woodypeckerhead, you "cab" stfu, too ! Oh wait, one of your most intelligent posts: "lol". Meanwhile, the point is not that we have to prove anything about gw. It's that you mmgw alarmist extremists can't really prove it's man made. And all the phoney claims, and dire predictions have fallen to disgrace. 97 percent - bogus. tree ring - bogus hockey stick - bogus Al gore "earth has a fever" - bogus partisan email scandal by partisan scientist wonks.... real. N and S poles were supposed to have been completely melted by now. Bogus. Scientists can't explain the contradictions and failure of models to show this lull in warming. Real. CO2 going up, earth has been cooling for years... real. There never was any "consensus". The debate was NEVER "over". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Wow... Typos. You're really scraping now... One at a time Cal. What is your best denier talking point. I'll attempt to debunk it. I'm not sure what I have to prove when I'm on the same side as virtually all qualified scientists in the field and virtually all respected scientific organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 ah. You're learning to fidget, woodpecker. "qualified" ah. So all the scientists I've quoted, all the scientists who disagree with the jaded conclusion about mmgw being a crisis... they just aren't "qualified" If you were a duck hunter, you'd be out there shooting and shooting, and missing every time, and you'd be PO'd and screaming that the ducks should fall out of the sky because you "got them". If ducks could laugh, they'd ROW,LTTO at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 I think liberals root for it's existence because of the liberal reaction I've personally witnessed to stories like climate-gate. i admit, this is just a loose opinion. We are creatures that require things to survive. food. water. protection from other animals, diseases. Since we have had biological needs we have sought to fulfill them. We experience much more neotany than any other species which has allowed us to become vastly more intelligent. we have innovated for survival. and now, you want to blame to blame us for the results of our evolution. it's a typical liberal mindset, blame the victors. we evolved this way because we had to. people innovated to generate wealth to provide food, shelter, medicine. the cause is not the vessel my friend, it's the river. and im not a science guy, more of a philosophical one. So because we got to this point as a species because of evolution, we shouldn't do anything to limit the side effects of said continued evolution. Climate change, food shortage, causing species to become extinct. That's all alright because it was the result of a "natural" process. Yeah, I'm not buying it. I don't see the logic in there of why we shouldn't try to prevent or limit the negative effects of our continued advancement as a species. Regardless of whether it's natural or not. I'm also convinced now that the term "evolution" in this back and forth is being uses very loosely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 ah. You're learning to fidget, woodpecker. "qualified" ah. So all the scientists I've quoted, all the scientists who disagree with the jaded conclusion about mmgw being a crisis... they just aren't "qualified" If you were a duck hunter, you'd be out there shooting and shooting, and missing every time, and you'd be PO'd and screaming that the ducks should fall out of the sky because you "got them". If ducks could laugh, they'd ROW,LTTO at you. Yes Cal, a lot of the time the "experts" you post are not experts at all. Another tactic straight from that denier playbook. Now, would you like to try another point or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 liar. Here's some proof that you blow smoke out of your ass on the subject. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/PLS-HOLD-FOR-TUESDAY-9-17-AFTER-11AM-ET-Climate-Study-Evidence-Leans-Against-Human-Caused-Global-Warming Have a nice day, woodypeckerhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Here's the link... but hey, you won't read it anyways. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 “I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.” Kumar RainaFormer Deputy Director GeneralGeological Survey of India “I was glad to see that a new report was coming from the NIPCC. The work of this group of scientists to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal. Considering the recent evidence that climate models have failed to predict the flattening of the global temperature curve, and that global warming seems to have ended some 15 years ago, the work of the NIPCC is particularly important.” Ian ClarkDepartment of Earth SciencesUniversity of Ottawa, Canada “The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc. There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies.” S. Jeevananda ReddyFormer Chief Technical AdvisorUnited Nations World Meteorological Organization “NIPCC’s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC’s sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC’s CCR-II report.” M. I. BhatFormerly Professor and HeadDepartment of Geology and GeophysicsUniversity of Kashmir “The claim by the UN IPCC that ‘global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls’ does NOT agree with observational facts, and must hence be discarded as a serious disinformation. This is well taken in the CCR-II report.” Nils-Axel MörnerEmeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics,Stockholm University, Sweden “Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC’s CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. Itsorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed.” Chris de FreitasSchool of EnvironmentThe University of Auckland, New Zealand “Climate Change Reconsidered is simply the most comprehensive documentation of the case against climate alarmism ever produced. Basing policy on the scientifically incomplete and internally inconsistent reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no longer controversial – Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is absolutely foolhardy, and anyone doing so is risking humiliation. It is a must-read for anyone who is accountable to the public, and it needs to be taken very, very seriously.” Patrick J. MichaelsDirector, Center for the Study of ScienceCato Institute “CCR-II provides scientists, policy makers and other interested parties information related to the current state of knowledge in atmospheric studies. Rather than coming from a pre-determined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information. If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy. Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important. It is time to move away from politicized science back to science – this is what NIPCC is demonstrating by example.” Bruce BordersProfessor of Forest BiometricsWarnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Georgia “The NIPCC’s new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, fires a scientific cannon shot across the bow of the quasi-religious human-caused global warming movement by presenting data, facts, and scientific method constructs of climate change science. I only wish the IPCC would become as objective. A recent column by a nationally recognized writer recalled Syria outlawing yo-yos in 1933 because they thought that yo-yo motion caused drought. The NIPCC report documents that the AGW movement has created its own yo-yo rather than shedding light on how Earth dynamic systems change with time. I applaud the NIPCC for bringing the scientific method back into what should always have been a scientific debate. Lee C. GerhardSenior Scientist Emeritus, University of KansasPast Director and State GeologistKansas Geological Survey “I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several ‘schools of thought,’ in science and well as other disciplines , many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC.” Sonja A.Boehmer-ChristiansenReader Emeritus, Department of GeographyHull UniversityEditor, Energy&Environment “The NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered II is a crucial document to get science right: Billions of $$ are being spent in research based on the assumption that human emissions of CO2 drive dangerous climate change. Contemplating relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature, the CCR-II shows us why this basic assumption is wrong, turning irrelevant for society the results of a considerable part of the costly research carried out by the ‘consensus scientific community’ endorsing IPCC climate alarmism.” Albrecht GlatzleAgro-BiologistRetired Director of Research, INTTAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 So Woody, do you believe we, as a society, are trying and striving for more efficient and renewable forms of energy? Do you think we as a society are trying to conserve fossil fuel as time goes by? Yes or no. If yes, do you believe it's enough? If you do not believe it's enough how much more do you personally think should be done? On a 1 to 10 scale. 1 being very slight changes 10 being extreme global change. Just so nobody misunderstands what you are constantly babbling about. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Lead NIPCC Authors/EditorsIdso, Craig D. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change USA Carter, Robert M. Emeritus Fellow Institute of Public Affairs Australia Singer, S. Fred Science and Environmental Policy Project USAChapter Lead AuthorsBall, Timothy Research Fellow Frontier Centre for Public Policy Canada Carter, Robert M. Emeritus Fellow Institute of Public Affairs Australia Easterbrook, Don J. Professor Emeritus of Geology Western Washington University USA Idso, Craig D. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change USA Idso, Sherwood Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change USA Khandekar, Madhav Former Research Scientist Environment Canada Canada Kininmonth, William Science Advisor Australian Climate Science Coalition Australia de Lange, Willem Science and Engineering Department The University of Waikato New Zealand Lüning, Sebastian Geologist and Author Germany Lupo, Anthony School of Natural Resources University of Missouri USA Ollier, Cliff School of Earth and Geographical Sciences University of Western Australia Australia Soon, Willie Independent Scientist USAContributing AuthorsArmstrong, J. Scott Wharton School University of Pennsylvania USA D’Aleo, Joseph Co-chief Meteorologist Weatherbell Analytic USA Easterbrook, Don J. Professor Emeritus of Geology Western Washington University USA Green, Kesten International Graduate School of Business University of South Australia Australia McKitrick, Ross Department of Economics University of Guelph Canada Ollier, Cliff School of Earth and Geographical Sciences University of Western Australia Australia Segalstad, Tom Resource and Environmental Geology University of Oslo Norway Singer, S. Fred Science and Environmental Policy Project USA Spencer, Roy Principal Research Scientist University of Alabama in Huntsville USAChapter ReviewersAbdussamatov, Habibullo Space Research Laboratory Pulkovo Observatory Russian Academy of Sciences Russia Bastardi, Joe Co-chief Meteorologist Weatherbell Analytic USA Battaglia, Franco Professor of Environmental Chemistry University of Modena Italy Bowen, David Q. Professor Emeritus, School of Earth & Ocean Sciences Cardiff University UK Clark, Roy Ventura Photonics USA Courtillot, Vincent Professor Emeritus University Paris Diderot and Institut de Physique du Globe France Essex, Christopher Department of Applied Mathematics University of Western Ontario Canada Evans, David Independent Scientist, Sciencespeak.com, and Former Carbon Modeller Australian Greenhouse Office Australia Floderus, Sören Consultant SF Bureau Denmark Franks, Stewart W. School of Engineering University of Newcastle Australia Friis-Christensen, Eigil Professor Emeritus National Space Institute Technical University of Denmark Denmark Goldberg, Fred Swedish Polar Institute Sweden Gould, Laurence Professor of Physics University of Hartford USA Gray, William Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University USA Gray, Vincent Richard Climate Consultant New Zealand Hayden, Howard Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Connecticut USA Hovland, Martin Professor Emeritus Centre for Geobiology University of Bergen Norway Kärner, Olavi Atmospheric Sensing Group Tartu Observatory Estonia O’Brien, James Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science Florida State University USA Paltridge, Garth Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow University of Tasmania Australia Rapp, Donald Senior Research Scientist and Division Chief Technologist (retired) Jet Propulsion Lab USA Ribbing, Carl Department of Engineering Sciences, Solid State Physics Uppsala University Sweden Scafetta, Nicola Department of Physics Duke University USA Shade, John Industrial Statistics Consultant UK Sharp, Gary Independent Consultant Center for Climate/ Ocean Resources Study USA Solheim, Jan-Erik Professor emeritus Department of Physics and Technology University of Tromsø Norway Uriarte Cantolla, Antón Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales Aranzadi Spain Weber, Gerd-Rainer Independent Meteorologist Germany Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 So is that your next point? All of these people? Do I really have to go through then all? I was hoping you'd post some kind of attempt at science. That's much less time consuming to debunk. Also, i never said 100%. It can't be that hard to find someone that disagrees with climate change and is in a reputable field. There are just countless more that disagree with that person. If I have time today, I'll start looking into that. I was hoping for something like the "Omg the ice us growing!" Point though. Would you like to try another one of those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 So Woody, do you believe we, as a society, are trying and striving for more efficient and renewable forms of energy? Do you think we as a society are trying to conserve fossil fuel as time goes by? Yes or no. If yes, do you believe it's enough? If you do not believe it's enough how much more do you personally think should be done? On a 1 to 10 scale. 1 being very slight changes 10 being extreme global change. Just so nobody misunderstands what you are constantly babbling about. WSS First I'm crying now I'm babbling? Geez. I get that you don't like what I'm saying but come on. Yes Yes No Low number on a personal level, ~2 Higher number on a govt/industry level, ~5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 So because we got to this point as a species because of evolution, we shouldn't do anything to limit the side effects of said continued evolution. Climate change, food shortage, causing species to become extinct. That's all alright because it was the result of a "natural" process. Yeah, I'm not buying it. I don't see the logic in there of why we shouldn't try to prevent or limit the negative effects of our continued advancement as a species. Regardless of whether it's natural or not. I'm also convinced now that the term "evolution" in this back and forth is being uses very loosely I never said we shouldn't. in fact, I said innovation was the only solution. I even provided where i believe said innovation should come from. no matter what we will still have to feed, shelter, protect ourselves. And yes, if you believe in nature being the ruling law. there is currently no way to prevent or limit the negative effects of our existence (in re: to GW) other than population control or innovation. if i'm wrong, what else is there? i'm also arguing innovation is part of the evolution process because it comes from our intellect. it seems you want to separate the two. I don't. A Ford mustang is as natural as a real one. (unless there is another dimension I'm unaware of) it's not like if you raise X amount of dollars all of this goes away. None of your politicians are offering solutions, what they're actually proposing is they want money. they want control. Global Warming has become the religion of the left. Leftist make fun of Christians for believing in zombies while they think they can win a staring contest with the sun. That's what I see anyway. I see Obama as a Sunday morning TV preacher asking for money for the lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Getting to get everybody on board with the advance of the liberal leftist agenda is their religion. they make up numbers faster that woodpecker does. Oops. NOAA had to quietly backtrack..... http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Cal I've never made up numbers... ...conversely though I've shown many of your numbers to be incorrrect or out of context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 I never said we shouldn't. in fact, I said innovation was the only solution. I even provided where i believe said innovation should come from. no matter what we will still have to feed, shelter, protect ourselves. And yes, if you believe in nature being the ruling law. there is currently no way to prevent or limit the negative effects of our existence (in re: to GW) other than population control or innovation. if i'm wrong, what else is there? i'm also arguing innovation is part of the evolution process because it comes from our intellect. it seems you want to separate the two. I don't. A Ford mustang is as natural as a real one. (unless there is another dimension I'm unaware of) it's not like if you raise X amount of dollars all of this goes away. None of your politicians are offering solutions, what they're actually proposing is they want money. they want control. Global Warming has become the religion of the left. Leftist make fun of Christians for believing in zombies while they think they can win a staring contest with the sun. That's what I see anyway. I see Obama as a Sunday morning TV preacher asking for money for the lord. Alright, I see more what you are saying now. Our evolution as a society through innovation and technology does not necessarily follow the same laws as natural evolution and natural selection though. Yes, we as a species need to innovate to keep a sustainable future. We live in a capitalist world though. Money makes the works go round. That is a major obstacle in continued innovation. The other big obstacle are those that wish to deny the current science and throw "anti mmgw" shit at the wall until something sticks. That pollutes the public mind and allows them to think there is doubt in the greater scientific community. This reduces funding and reduces our ability to further understand the issue and further develop solutions. We need that money to drive innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 So who thinks the world, the planet, the environment is better off environmentally today and it was a thousand years ago? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 not me ... not anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Alright, I see more what you are saying now. Our evolution as a society through innovation and technology does not necessarily follow the same laws as natural evolution and natural selection though. I agree in the traditional sense. I understand what I'm saying isn't mainstream but "only the strong survive" to me includes being able to develop a nuclear warhead. Yes, we as a species need to innovate to keep a sustainable future. We live in a capitalist world though. Money makes the works go round. That is a major obstacle in continued innovation. Money is a major motivator for innovation. The other big obstacle are those that wish to deny the current science and throw "anti mmgw" shit at the wall until something sticks. That pollutes the public mind and allows them to think there is doubt in the greater scientific community. 1. The burden of proof is on those who believe in mmgw. There is no direct evidence of its existence visible to the average man. Those who champion the issue fly private jets and are disingenuous about solutions.its incredibly lazy just to blame people you haven't been able to convince while the leaders of your campaign rape the earth. Maybe shaming the "deniers" is a waste of time, shame your leaders, they are killing your credibility. 2. I'm confused with this public mind thing, you don't want diverse thoughts challenging theories and ideas? Scientist are human, they are biased too, they can be corrupted too. Sorry but it wasn't even 100 years ago when scientist wanted to create a superior race. Science is just one side of the issue. This reduces funding and reduces our ability to further understand the issue and further develop solutions. We need that money to drive innovation. collective societies have under-innovated free ones, the native Americans never even invented the wheel. i don't think the use of force is justified to obtain resources to study a theory. and if we believe it is, we don't deserve to stay. of course this is where we fundamentally disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 So who thinks the world, the planet, the environment is better off environmentally today and it was a thousand years ago? WSS Who's perspective? I'm sitting in the A/C right now. Us humans do better in the built environment so I'm going to say I think the environment is better off today. We wear shoes on paved paths. I get what you're saying though, we need to find solutions to reduce our waste. It's a legit argument and partially why i would argue we don't deserve to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 TX, you have a really strange way of saying what you're saying! I think I understand what you're saying though. You haven't seen any evidence of global warming (cal's point of view)? To that, I say you're not looking hard enough, but then, why should you? If you're interested, check out the nasa website for the basics of the science. It sounds then like you're saying that we can't reverse the warming (if any is taking place), steve's viewpoint. So we need to adapt as a species to our new environment? That's an interesting take - it's not something that we can stop so we'd better learn to live with it. On top of that you're saying that the only thing we can do is innovate. So the only thing we can do is invent new ways of doing things? you've said that anyone claiming to need your money to combat global warming is a con artist, yet you've said above that 'money is a major motivator for innovation' - so where's the money coming from? Big business shouldn't be relied on to lead the charge. They'll make the decision that's best for them, and what's best for them is profits, and covering their building in solar panels (for example) isn't a money spinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Who's perspective? I'm sitting in the A/C right now. Us humans do better in the built environment so I'm going to say I think the environment is better off today. We wear shoes on paved paths. I get what you're saying though, we need to find solutions to reduce our waste. It's a legit argument and partially why i would argue we don't deserve to stay. actually tex my point was directed more towards the guys who's point it is that human beings are the ultimately advanced race in the universe and are much smarter than bacteria. You see bacteria, they say, reproduce without thinking of how they might harm the host. Ah but human beings we can make things better! Well we've been here for thousands of years and I would ask the environmentalists if the world itself is healthier and cleaner because of human habitation. That's much different than the human beings adapting to their surroundings.F'rinstance we could wear a spacesuit and hang out on the moon. That doesn't mean the moon is a more inviting place. I mean now we have global warming and pollution and dirty water and barren spots where the rainforest used to be and over populated hell holes in the third world... Mankind did all that right boys? so how are we smarter than the bacteria? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 We have pro football and gardens, and real marriage... chocolate covered peanuts, and green tea.. I mean, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 We have pro football and gardens, and real marriage... chocolate covered peanuts, and green tea.. I mean, really. I always preferred chocolate covered raisins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Can any lib on the board actually read the information by these scientists, and still say you believe in the absolute fact that mankind is creating global warming, based on inrefutable evidence, that "the debate is over"? This was the article about the report http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/PLS-HOLD-FOR-TUESDAY-9-17-AFTER-11AM-ET-Climate-Study-Evidence-Leans-Against-Human-Caused-Global-Warming This is the report: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Can any lib on the board actually read the information by these scientists, and still say you believe in the absolute fact that mankind is creating global warming, based on inrefutable evidence, that "the debate is over"? This was the article about the report http://www.breitbart...-Global-Warming This is the report: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ You keep politicising everything - it shouldn't be up to 'any lib' as you keep maintaining, rather 'any person with some kind of scientific knowledge' I'll take a look at them when I get a chance and get back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Your first link just redirects to this thread. Good start... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Posted Yesterday, 02:14 PM liar. Here's some proof that you blow smoke out of your ass on the subject. http://www.breitbart...-Global-Warming Have a nice day, woodypeckerhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 dang, Chris - you're right - the first link redirects back to the board. I even copied and pasted from the site, and... ??? But it works fine in the original post. So, I just copied and pasted the whole post, above, and it works fine. I have no idea what happened.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 dang, Chris - you're right - the first link redirects back to the board. I even copied and pasted from the site, and... ??? But it works fine in the original post. So, I just copied and pasted the whole post, above, and it works fine. I have no idea what happened.... Just remember next time you accuse me of not following links you post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.