Posted 6 months, 22 days ago in 
Loading ...
To all of you who have bought into the Global Warming theory: Please back off on the carbon credits for a few weeks and let it warm up a little!
PETE ROSS
Montrose
Recent Comments
- dc said, "Mr. Vronay, Your metaphor is childish and tasteless. But that is par..." more
- Classof52 said, "Duke: the first thing that happens to those enzymes when they..." more
- Classof52 said, "RM: “I have a question. When the first hard freeze..." more
- dc said, "The nutrition that is found in fruit and vegetables is found in their..." more
- Ash said, "P.S. Sure there are a number of unsound arguments coming from..." more
Who's online
- No Members around.
-
Popular Tags
Categories
- General (1244)
- Printed letters (157)
Archives
MOST RECENT
-
Posted 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
Balanced budget is required -
Posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
Golden Corral recognizes military -
Posted 1 day, 15 hours ago
Dems have gotten us into financial crisis -
Posted 1 day, 15 hours ago
Central High students were hard working -
Posted 1 day, 16 hours ago
What has Bush done to deserve punishment?
-
Posted 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
HIGHEST RATED
40 Responses to “Let it warm up”
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well said, Pete. I’d go for some nice warm weather and no more snow til next winter! I’m ready to fill the pool and break out the summer wear!
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have always had my doubts about radical environmentalists. I must now relent. I think they were 100% right regarding climate change. I’m referring to those who a few years back predicted a return of the ice age.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, please, bullish… say it ain’t so! Ice age = bad; global warming = good…
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hopefully y’all are in the process of building your walled & secure biosphere compound down there in Mont-rose or Olathe to ride out the coming storm with your like-minded brethren. Hope yesterday’s National Day of Prayer fulfilled all desires also. If not, maybe read some news from around the world. March 2008 - a new global temperature record! Warmest yet…
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, just kidding (well, partly). Chancho, tell that to the farmers in the Midwest who have not been able to plant due to cold and wet weather.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My letter may not get printed, so here’s my advice: Read Michael Crichton’s book - State of Fear. Lots of verifiable footnoted charts and a ton of references for individual research. While fiction, it raises all kinds of questions and offers a few facts. He’s a skeptic also.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I read it Creight. Good book.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
well, there you have it - a couple more recruits for the bunker down in Mont-rose. A celebrity author guy, to boot.
Likewise, I tend to get most of my information from romance novels, Tiger-Beat magazine, the bible, and other great works of FICTION.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, Chancho, not to sound critical… but I think I may understand why you love of romance novels.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh give me a break!
“State of Fear” is fiction! Is this how you get your “factual” information?
If you are interested in learning about the flaws in this book, it was critiqued by climate scientists here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
At the end of the main entry there is a link for further criticism on Crichton’s use of footnotes.
Come on. If you want to be taken seriously on scientific issues, don’t use a book of fiction as your reference!
(BTW, Crichton is NOT a skeptic. He’s a denier. Big difference. Deniers start with their ideological position and then look for anything that supports this. Skeptics start with looking at the factual evidence and draw conclusions from it. Scientists have been studying the evidence for global warming for several decades. Their true skepticism prevented them from making really strong statements until the IPCC report that came out last year.)
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Chancho, I would like to know why you refer to yourself as such?
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86
The book may be fiction, but the references are real. Just because the sources don’t agree with the globular worming doesn’t mean there is no validity to the arguement.
One other book that will scare you to death is “Untintended Consequences” by John Ross. So scary, they don’t carry it at the library.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jen - following virgin birth, I heard voices chosing me as Santo Chancho de Ciudad de Shale (in english - Saint Chancho of Shale City). I tried living in Colorado City, Utah for a spell - but the teenage wife selction was limited, and the food was rather bland (plus they wouldn’t let me smoke OR drink).
Then I moved to Wichita, but was terribly afraid of the tornados and all those white people sporting both cross (or fish) AND American flag lapel pins. So, I founded my own tax-exempt religious outreach/intervention office to help spare the children from terrible afflictions. Please send cash or money orders to PO Box 666, Shale City, CO. Muchas Gracias.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Chancho,
Do you take checks?
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I actually was looking for the short version of why you call yourself “hog” since that is what chancho means, but wth, we can go with your answer!
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is much reference to “references.” Unfortunately, most individuals forget to check how reliable are the references they cite. A classic case is one where a University student completely made up a document and posted it on the internet. It was in “denial” of global warming. Many “perpetual deniers” began citing it as a source. How foolish they felt when the it was revealed that the document was a complete fabrication, having no basis in fact, we will never know. It may not have been very “nice” or even appropriate for the individual to have done what he did, but it did prove a point. That is that people will accept and believe things, not because their is any truth in it, but merely because they want to.
The internet is a great tool, and we can greatly benefit from it. But, we must be very careful to remember that while not everything that is spoken or written is true, not everything posted on the internet is true and that it also contains a great deal of garbage and is all too frequently used for other than worthwhile purposes, or promote a particular agenda.
It is always necessary to look at several things. First, what is the source of the information; Second, is the source reliable in the sense that it is authoritative; Third, does the source have, or is it promoting a particular agenda; Fourth, who is “behind” the source; i.e. financing, etc.
Those are all important considerations in determining the reliability of any source. It is difficult, I know. But, if one’s own viewpoints are to have any validity whatever, the work must be done.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
“Complete fabrication”, to support an agenda. You mean like Al Gore and global warming?
But then Juan must do what Juan must do or something like that.
PS Did you ever see the movie, Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In her post grandmasix asks if I have seen movies about nuclear weapons. The answer is yes, I have seen both but have not merely seen movies about nuclear weapons, I was trained to work on a strategic nuclear weapons system and have stood with one of those bombs several feet away. And, they are not abstract at all, but very real.
Those working on them do not “love them” at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true, if they have any type of conscience they have nightmares about them, because they know that if one is fired millions of people will die. Grandma might exercise much greater care in her posts, never assuming that the knowledge of others is less than hers.
For grandma’s edification, I might also mention that might first paper in AFROTC, and for which I received a very high mark, had to do with the necessity of maintaining a proper balance in strategic weaponry (nuclear), during a period of conventional conflict (Vietnam). That was over four (4) decades ago.
Some of us, when dealing with such issues are not speaking from what we have gleaned from movies, but from study and life experience, and while we may be able to speak in abstract terms, do not live in an abstract world.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why is it that you just don’t get it, Robert? The reference about the movie was about the man, not the bomb. That was just the name of the movie. Each time I read your writings, it becomes clearer to me that you take yourself entirely too seriously. For your edification, also referenced in the movie were statements about precious bodily fluids. Unfortunately, each time I read your writing, these references come to mind.
I won’t lecture you on the beneficial health aspects of laughing at “Juanself”. Judging by what you write and the experiences you claim to have, and the places you claim to have been. You have obviously attained the age of 156 without ever having to laugh at yourself, and my experience could never compare with yours, but just for laughs, does A. O. “Nickle Steel” or the “Rock Pile” mean anything to you? Probably not, but I am sure you will recognize the call sign “Arc Light” Try not to take life so seriously, none of us will ever get out of it alive. Oops, now I understand. There’s been a misspelling. It’s Gunny, not Granny. Anyway, try to have a nice day. And try not to act so superior to others. You might come up with a more harmonious outcome.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Life is serious and considering this space as entertainment and a place to belittle others ideas is not terribly productive. Granny seems to be approaching things from an adversarial point of view rather than considering what is actually written. Just one of my clues? What was the mention of San Francisco in another post in relation to? Her “opponent’s” ideas that of one of the favorite whipping boys of conservatives, San Francisco liberals? You’ll have to do better than that to prove the superiority you seem to imply you have over Mr. Laitres. Condescending comments won’t get it.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B.,
Clue: San Francisco is (according the the city manager and mayor) a sanctuary city. Thus, the mention of the “special place”.
DUH DUH BIG RED TRUCK
It was Mr. Laitres who said he was superior to all of us out here. I was simply was pointing that fact out, but of course you always butt in and speak for others (who, I guess can’t speak for themselves) like “Dave” and “Robert”.
If everything we say has to be from your viewpoint, it will indeed be a boring world. We do have a two party system in our country which would seem to indicate that not everyone agrees on everything.
And try smiling or laughing once in a while. It really is good for the body and the soul.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OMG, I made a typo. Let me correct it quick before John and Robert catch it and use it to beat me over the head with.
It should read, according to the city manager and mayor
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I rest my case.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No grandmasix, the move was not about “the man”, it was about the views of the man and how some people view things. In other words, it was about how some, when in control of a force begin to worship the power it gives them, to the extent that the exercise of that power becomes paramount no matter what the cost, be that to themselves or others.
As to “taking myself too seriously.” That is not at all true. What is taken seriously are the ideas, not the person. And, it would seem, at least to this individual, that when one is discussing serious issues, one should be serious about them. Or, perhaps you believe differently? If so, then that may be the real difference between us, not the issues themselve.
As to a sense of being “superior.” Permit me to inquire, if I may. How do you define “superiority”? Do you consider someone who knows more about something than you do about a subject, and who expresses it, do you consider that and expression of “superiority”? Some of us look at it quite differently.
If someone knows more about a subject that we do, and we are interested, we ask them questions in order to learn more. We don’t consider them superior , or ourselves inferior. We simply recognize and accept the fact that they know more about the subject, no matter what it is, be it about digging a ditch, driving a truck, farming, ranching, business, etc. Everything becomes an opportunity to learn more.
As to the personal inuendos, let us drop them shall we. Why must everything become personal. That is not foolish but childish.
In that I refer to the personalization of all disagreements such as the constant reference to Al Gore and George Bush, as well as others.
Al Gore is not the one who came up with the conclusions about global warming. He is merely the spokesperson for those who did.
Some constantly say that they “hate” George Bush, yet they don’t personally know George Bush any more than I do. I don’t like his policies or those of his administration, as I consider them to have been a disaster for the country. But it is those policies and their effects on the country and its people that I despise, not the person himself.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry about this folks, but it is just a tad hypocritical.
M. Laitres;
” Grandma might exercise much greater care in her posts, never assuming that the knowledge of others is less than hers.”
You seem to know more about what I know than what you really know, and you keep belittling the knowledge and intelligence of others.
” I was trained to work on a strategic nuclear weapons system and have stood with one of those bombs several feet away. ”
Me too. And I have a conscience, I do not have nightmares, and if one is launched, it would probably be in the tens of thousands not millions.
” Some of us, when dealing with such issues are not speaking from what we have gleaned from movies, but from study and life experience,”
And some of us live in the real world where others have the same right to their HONEST opinion as you.
They also have the right to speak their opinion without worrying about your attempts at trying to destroy their credibility through untruths, and other negative nuances.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“OMG, I made a typo. Let me correct it quick before John and Robert catch it and use it to beat me over the head with.
It should read, according to the city manager and mayor”
grandmasix, don’t worry about a typo. Some of us “superior” people, as you like to label us, are not that petty. We are far more concerned with ideas and concepts than typing errors. We will leave that that to others more concerned with the “nit picking”, spelling whizzes, and gramarians. Sorry if that offends you.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bobbie from Delta;
” Do you consider someone who knows more about something than you do about a subject, and who expresses it, do you consider that and expression of “superiority”?”
This makes you an unmitigated ass.
Who declared YOU to be more educated in any subject?
So far, the best you have shown is your incessant use of words while trying to make yourself look to be smarter than you are capable of proving.
” As to the personal inuendos, let us drop them shall we. Why must everything become personal. That is not foolish but childish. ”
Very true, and we all keep hoping you will stop.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you seem to prefer this blog to be the property of the lowest common denominator. Is it about ideas or is just a game of gotcha? Your posts would seem to indicate the latter. Have fun. The dumbing down of America is alive and well in this space.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes JohnB, and you do such a fine job of proving it.
Neither yourself, not the illustrious mr laitres are nearly as smart as you would have the rest of us believe.
I’m not the smartest on here either, but, then again, I don’t claim to be either.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for the help, Willis, but I am sure the majority of America and most of the world, in fact, could understand what we are saying. So let them rave on. They only show how much of life they are not enjoying. I will pray for them to GET A LIFE.
PS I didn’t work on nukes, even though I tried out for it. My failure had something to do with the scatological, hermetical significance of the vast imaginatorium of human anatomy.
Can we just go back to the one liners, discuss things in general and have a little fun now?
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The question I have for Mr. Johnson. Is the real problem that you disagree with the opinion of another, or is it merely the fact that your opinion, or those with whose opinions you agree, are challenged that really bothers you?
From your responses, it would appear to be the latter, and it would also appear that you are seeking to be offended. That is fine, just as long as we both recognize that fact.
Seems to me that, like another poster on this board, any disagreement with you is viewed by yourself as an attack on your person. Now, we have no problem with that, and having no wish to offend you, we can henceforth ingnore you. Perhaps we should.
However, if you wish to converse about issues, ideas and concepts , and about serious subujects, we certainly can engage. But in order to do that, the practice of inuendo, questioning anothers veracity, motivation, or sincerity cannot be part of the discourse.
If discourse is what is what is desired, then that must be respected by all partys. However, if yelling back and forth is what you desire, then perhaps you may be happier on an AOL board where that is standard fare. On this local board, and while you may do as you wish, if you persist with the same tone of posts, this individual at least will ignore you, considering you merely “static on the line.” The choice is entirely up to you.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow!I’ve been blindsided by Willis. Who could have imagined that kind of response from Willis. Talk about predictability! And Granny, back to one liners and have some fun? Like I said, I rest my case. Get a video game so you can really blast away and take out your aggression without the need for actual thought.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ll bet Pete never dreamed of the controversy he would stir up by posting something that was meant to be humorous!!
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh boy, if Willis is “static on the line”, can I be “White noise”?
Huh, can I? Please, oh please.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Your choice. Be whatever you want to be and the “audience” will make their own judgement.I’m curious, though, of your mention of “Dave”. Is it possible that Granny is a new identity of someone who was obsessed to distraction with a certain candidate named Dave? Sort of a return through the back door? The rhetoric has a familiar ring to it.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, John, I am not a cross dresser. I really am a Grandma and I really have opinions and am able to express them, though I am sure I do not meet your high standards. It may come as a shock to you, but some of us can read. I resent that my comment, which was meant to make someone smile, is considered by someone like you to be rhetoric. From the posts that I have read in both papers, it would seem that you are the one “obsessed to distraction with a certain candidate named Dave”.
And, by the way, I am not playing to an “audience”, nor do I spend all my time trying to show my superior intellect. This ____ sells itself.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Again, I rest my case.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks so much John, for going back to the one liners, something I can keep up with (since I am not on your intellectual scale).
I rest my case, again
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s amazing how those who have ideas, express them, and try to explain why they have those ideas are assumed to be “superior”. Is there an inferioity complex at play here? I wonder what label is appropriate for those who sit on the sidelines sniping with inane doctinaire comments and treating serious subjects related to a badly-needed national dialog taking place as entertainment for lame one-upmanship with one-liners. Sorry for the multi-sentence comment. As an old broken-down granpa myself, I’ve forgotten what the case was you’re resting on but I’m sure it could be covered with a one-liner.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B: One has to remember that some people simply “believe”, as I have noted in a previous letter that appeared on this forum. Their effort is not spent in questioning, but in only in “reinfocing” what they already believe. That is why, when referring to “authorities”, they consistently go only to those with similar views. Others, as my mother used to say, think that “bothering others” makes them important. Some are merely “looking for attention.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.