As I was scrapping the ice off my windshield this morning....

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Scalawag

Politicians like Inhofe are getting larger political contributions from oil & gas, coal, utilities & the auto industry

indeed.

and a majority of politicians (at least in this country) are global warming deniers and the vast majority of scientists worldwide affirm the fact of global warming, the green house effect & human activity in causing it.

Working to confirm it only perpetuates the income. Denial or even minimization would send that money elsewhere. These are not scientists in the purest sense. They are capitalizing on fear and it is certainly not a "vast" majority affirming anything. However, some of the world's "most important research scientists" have been exposed through email archives at the Climate Research Center at East Anglia University. They conspired to use false information to support their conclusions!!!


As columnist Michael Barone wrote in Sunday's Washington Examiner, "The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-ro...the-facts.html

Why? That is my question!!!

Yes, I was skeptical before this but until this question is answered I don't trust anything the scientific GW Community has to say. Fool me once .....You know the saying!

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

Fool me once .....You know the saying!

sure "..y'don't git fooled again" (at least that's how Bush-43 remembered it)

so...when were you fooled first the first time?

when scientists linked smoking with lung cancer?

when scientists linked coal burning to acid rain?

when scientists linked stilbestrol to birth defects?

there's another saying that starts "none so blind,..."

[dearhunter]

Follow the money.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Scalawag

sure "..y'don't git fooled again" (at least that's how Bush-43 remembered it)

so...when were you fooled first the first time?

when scientists linked smoking with lung cancer?

when scientists linked coal burning to acid rain?

when scientists linked stilbestrol to birth defects?

there's another saying that starts "none so blind,..."

Bush?..........Really?

You didn't answer the question.

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

You didn't answer the question.

which one? when you asked "why?"

sorry you'll have to be less rhetorical and more specific in order to merit a response.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Scalawag

which one? when you asked "why?"

sorry you'll have to be less rhetorical and more specific in order to merit a response.

Yes, it was the only question in the post.

Rhetorical? I suppose it is if you don't answer.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I was wondering if there was anyone left who still buys into man made Global Warming.

TDL, Your question has obviously been answered!

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

Rhetorical? I suppose it is if you don't answer.

How? (That's my the question!!!)

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

TDL, Your question has obviously been answered!

Well it was certainly more than saying "why" and allegedly expecting a response.

[Guest021010-2]

[Guest021010-2]

Originally Posted by Scalawag

I know for damn sure RR LTGTR last tuesday w/ Miss Olivia!

This is a rumor started by a jealous provider whom I saw BCD on Wed. for two hours.

But see the review [ame="http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=8858"]Review: Olivia Howard showed me how - ECCIE - Your source for escort reviews[/ame] for accurate information.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by randyrogue

This is a rumor started by a jealous provider whom I saw BCD on Wed. for two hours.

But see the review Review: Olivia Howard showed me how - ECCIE - Your source for escort reviews for accurate information.

Shameless self promotion!!!

[Guest021010-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

Yes, it was the only question in the post.

Rhetorical? I suppose it is if you don't answer.

It is a method of argumentation and by definition, rhetorical questions do not require an answer. But properly stated, they presume to elicit an obvious answer, either YES or NO. It is a method of persuasion towards one's viewpoint, or as a point of clarification.

Such as one question spoken by a provider to me, "So, you don't want me to squirt in your face when I cum?" The obvious answer need not be spoken aloud.
For I do not enjoy the prospect of receiving a urine facial. (Despite all the exchanges of the recent thread I initiated, I remain unconvinced that the fluid a woman squirts during orgasm is anything other than urine. Please, will you pardon me for the propaganda?)

Back to the playground.

LTGTRL!

rr

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by randyrogue

Back to the playground.

LTGTRL!

rr

who's next?

Aidan or Kara?

[Guest021010-2]

Originally Posted by Scalawag

who's next?

Aidan or Kara?

It is like the NFL draft: the best player available.

Aiden. Ah! Aiden.


Aiden has the mature body of a naughty goddess waiting to be adored and ravished, and the imagination of the nymph if I read her eyes correctly. I hope to see Aiden soon.

I might have seen her Tuesday if there had not been so many others trying to get a place on her dance card. Don't you all have jobs to do or something? (LOL)