Global Gore and secular fundamentalists

Cal Thomas's picture

One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. And so it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom, according to the Washington Times, “are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis.”

In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a “scientific consensus” that global warming caused by humans endangers the planet.

Like most cultists, the true believers struck back, not by debating science, but by charging that a small number of the scientists mentioned in the report have taken money from the petroleum industry.

A spokeswoman for Al Gore said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying, “the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.”

The pro-global warming cultists enjoy a huge money advantage. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion (US) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison.

Also included in the Republican report are comments by Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes: “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore’s claim that the “debate is over.”

In fact, the debate hasn’t even begun because the global warming cultists won’t debate. Despite numerous challenges, Al Gore has refused to debate the issue with any credible scientist who is a skeptic.

Shouldn’t the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize be willing to debate such an important issue? What does he have to fear?

If his theory cannot stand up to scientific inquiry and skepticism, it needs to be exposed as a false religion and himself as a false prophet before he and his followers force us to change the way we live and alter the prosperous society that generations of Americans have built.

Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot’s, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World. But hypocrisy is just one of many traits displayed by secular fundamentalists like Gore.

Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples, should be considered. Gore and company are big government liberals who think government is the answer to all of our problems, including problems they create. In fact, as Ronald Reagan often said, in too many cases government is the problem.

The secular fundamentalists who believe in Al Gore as a prophet and global warming as a religious doctrine are being challenged by scientists and others who disbelieve and who think we ought to be spending more time on developing new technology and energy sources for the future and not preaching gloom, doom and retreat. Let them debate the issue. If they won’t, we can only conclude that all they are spewing is hot air.

[Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2007 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

login to post comments | Cal Thomas's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 4:16pm.

What I'm trying to figure out is why a matter-of-fact question of whether human activity is altering the earth's climate tends to divide people along political--and even religious--fault lines. Are you a conservative? Then you probably either don't believe that the earth's climate is undergoing change, or that it isn't caused by human activity. Are you a liberal? Then you likely believe it.

What should political, religious or philosophical affiliation have to do with it?

Will it rain tomorrow? Well, as a an advocate of a Kantian respect-for-persons theory, I must say yes. Is maple harder than oak? Well, as a Marxist, I must deny it.

One might have thought that such commitments are just indifferent to the findings of science on such matters.

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


Christian's picture
Submitted by Christian on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 10:33pm.

This difference is essentially due to the fact that most conservatives believe in the omnipotent God of the Bible and most liberals don't (e.g., they reject traditional belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Liberals thus advocate for reductions in the global human population, and the concurrent elevation of the importance of nature (e.g., South American rain forests, rare Apalachicola mussels and other endangered species, etc.). Instead of worshiping the Creator of Nature (as most political conservatives do), it could be argued that many liberals end up "worshiping" the actual creation.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 8:08am.

I'm not too sure that's Pete.

I mean, I'm not too sure that's right.

One needn't be a pantheist to be concerned about the impact that our actions are having on the natural world Consider a line from a forthcoming essay:

"One might imagine a group of three attempting to rescue a beached whale. Subsequent interviews reveal that one is a Deep Ecologist whose primary concern is the preservation of biological diversity, and this whale is a specimen of an endangered species. Her collaborators include an animal rights activist who is acting from a direct concern for the welfare of the animal itself, and a theist who views the rescue as a duty of stewardship to God. Almost certainly, we could find other issues where the entailments of these respective views clash, but here they are in agreement. As they say, philosophy makes for strange bedfellows."

I am an environmentalist because I am a theist. In fact, without some point of reference that is either theistic or anthropocentric or perhaps both, it is hard to see how one can get environmentalism up and running. How would one define ecological "damage" or "dysfunction" apart from some frame of reference that values one natural state over others? Glaciation radically transformed the landscape, wiping out prior biotic communities and replacing them, eventually, with others. Is there any objective sense in which we may say that the new landscape is "better" or "worse" than the old?

And one needn't worship nature to love it. Consider what our friend, GKC, said:

"Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate. This gives to the typically Christian pleasure in this earth a strange touch of lightness that is almost frivolity. Nature was a solemn mother to the worshippers of Isis and Cybele. Nature was a solemn mother to Wordsworth or to Emerson. But Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi or to George Herbert. To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved."

Good sons and daughters look out for their siblings.

_______________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 11:00pm.

come on... you don't really believe that do you?

"If you want to know why Republicans don’t buy into global warming, read Joseph Romm’s excellent book, Hell and High Water…. Romm has it right. It’s not the problem they hate — it’s the solution. They hate international treaties and crucial government-led efforts like carbon regulations and clean technology programs."

A very timely book that is out now. It may answer some of our questions regarding the political divide created by global warming/climate change.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 5:15pm.

Rene Descartes walked into a saloon and went up to stand by the bar. The bartender asked him if he would like a drink. Descartes responded, “I think not!” and promptly vanished.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 6:32pm.

My son gave his younger brother a copy of the recently published Plato and a Platypus, which discusses basic philosophical issues by means of jokes. Some of them are hysterically funny.

Here's one:

Alvin is working in his store when he hears a booming voice from above that says, “Alvin, sell your business!” He ignores it.

The voice goes on for days saying, ”Alvin sell your business for three million dollars.” After weeks of this he relents and sells his store. The voice says, “Alvin, go to Las Vegas.”

Alvin asks why.

“Alvin, just take the three million dollars and go to Las Vegas.” Alvin obeys, goes to Las Vegas and visits a casino.

The voice says, ”Alvin, go to a blackjack table and put it all down on one hand.” Alvin hesitates but gives in. He’s dealt an eighteen. The dealer has a six showing.

”Alvin, take a card!”

“What? The dealer has…”

“Take a card!”

Alvin tells the dealer to hit him, and gets an ace. Nineteen. He breathes easy.

”Alvin, take another card.”

“What?!”

“TAKE ANOTHER CARD!”

Alvin asks for another card. It’s another ace. He has twenty.

”Alvin, take another card!” the voice commands.”

“I have TWENTY!” Alvin shouts.

“TAKE ANOTHER CARD!” booms the voice.

“Hit me!”

Alvin says. He gets another ace. Twenty-one!

And the booming voice says, “Un-f***ing-believable!”

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 8:37pm.

I'm going to New Orleans this weekend, and I might partake of some time at Harrahs. Last time there, I sat at a table that had a bad beat and won 500 for just sitting there.

I've been reading Aristole and Socrates a bit more of late, and this little tidbit of ironic philosphical wisdom hit me right in the gut, so thanks.

Now to get back to reading about Schadenfreude and Envy. I have a hard time with Schadenfreude, since of course, I enjoy politics so very much, but I try my best to keep it in that arena only, but I often fail.

So again, thanks for this jovial response. I am still chuckling, while my kids are wondering whats wrong with me.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 9:41pm.

Another one:

Al: What's green, hangs on the wall and whistles?

Sol: I don't know. What?

Al: A herring.

Sol: But a herring isn;t green.

Al: It is if you paint it green.

Sol: But a herring doesn't hang on a wall.

Al: It does if you drive a nail through it.

Sol: But herrings don't whistle.

Al: So it doesn't whistle.

_______________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 7:16pm.

a department of philosophy less than a department of mathematics? The math department needs money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. The philosophy department only needs pencils and paper."


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 8:34pm.

I'll have to remember this one.

The point, of course, is that philosophers tend to get it right the first time.

_______________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 11:51am.

George Berkeley died?
His girl friend stopped seeing him.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 1:55pm.

The Unemployed Philosophers Guild sells a "Disappearing Descartes" mug which my daughter bought me for Christmas a year or two ago. When it is empty, it has a picture of Descartes with the phrase, "I think, therefore I am." Pour hot coffee into it and he disappears and the phrase "I think not, therefore I am not" shows up.

(The Guild also sells a Van Gogh doll with detachable velcro ear.)

The first time I heard the Descartes joke ("I think not") was from one of my students in a TA section at UW-Madison. She concluded with "...'I think not.' And poof! he disappeared." The 20 or so in that section (as opposed to the full hundred or so in the entire class) got a kick out of it.

A few days later in the full lecture the professor was asked some question, to which the prof replied, "I think not."

One of the students from the section erupted with "POOF!" to which about 21 of us laughed.

_______________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 2:14pm.

But it's for a very select audience. I was leery of the "I think not" joke, it being not only predictable but old. On the other hand there aren't that many philosophy jokes and now I'm down to: How many Godelians does it take to change a light bulb? which I am loath to put up since this crowd may very well start a series of light bulb joke blogs.

But I'm going out of town anyway so....

Three, but I can't prove it.

Sorry.


Submitted by d.smith700 on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 7:29pm.

they don't need waste baskets, they print everything, however they do need a bull pasture nearby!
All the greatest philosophers who ever lived in Greece couldn't save the place! Germany either!
We are not far behind---using old "how to" ideas hundreds and hundreds of years old.

other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 5:02pm.

Thanks for making it. Because people's ANSWERs to "simple matter-of- fact questions" like global climate change are informed by their belief systems. And their belief systems are influenced by political bias. Or is it their politics are influence their belief systems? Chicken or the egg. You pick. Either way, they all play a role. And the reason Global Warming Alarmists recently changed from "global warming" to "global climate change" is tantamount to admitting they are WRONG. Bottom line: no one can PROVE without a doubt that our current human activity creates global warming. So the Global Warming Alarmists have gone to their fallback position. That the climate DOES Change. Gets hotter sometines. Gets colder sometimes. Whoop – whoop. So what. Everybody know that the climate changes. No proof needed.
What Cal and I are saying (and unmasking) is that there is a political agenda within the global climate change debate that is informed by peoples' basic belief systems.
And the fact that Al Gore refuses to debate the issue publicly should tell you how much confidence he has in winning that debate. Gore (the great debater) knows he will lose.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 8:46pm.

My alma mater has Cal Thomas speaking for some event in a few months. I'm not sure what I think about that.

Call me ignorant and you may be right. But I have seen no evidence that what motivates an Al Gore is political/philosophical. (I remember reading Rush Limbaugh's claim that such environmental challenges have filled the void left by the communist challenge to capitalism. Huh?) There is compelling evidence that there are climatological changes in the works, and, if memory serves, the changes themselves were once denied by conservatives. Now that the evidence is in and has been made public, it seems to me that there has been something of a strategic retreat: we are experiencing climate change, but we've no reason to think that it is anthropogenic.

Again, why are both the assertion and the objection so impassioned? What really is at stake here?

_______________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 10:22am.

Agree we need to get past the philosphical, emotional, and political agenda based nonsense and return to a reasoned debate based on hard science. Also admit there is compelling evidence of current climate change. However, if you look back thousands of years, you will find even more compelling evidence of climate change. SO WHAT. The climate changes. It is a classic sine wave of change. The pendulum swings. Currently, there is evidence that we are in a "warm" period. Predictable science. However, there is NO compelling evidence that proves that humans are the BIGGEST cause of it. Instead, compelling historical evidence suggests that our own impact (human) on climate change is negligible. So all the brouhaha about reducing our carbon footprint is both laughable and disingenuous. If you stick to hard science, it is easy to see the global warming craze for what it is. A fad. Here today. Gone tomorrow. Just like the alarmists who told us that eggs caused high Cholesterol levels, hardening of the arteries, and heart attacks. False. In time, the global warming myth, like many other myths before it, will also be proven false.

In the meantime, we must continue to be responsible stewards of what God has given us. So, I remain in favor of doing everything we can to preserve and protect our environment. But I refuse to do it in the name of (the false god) of global warming.

From the other side of the tracks


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 10:35am.

In the meantime, we must continue to be responsible stewards of what God has given us. So, I remain in favor of doing everything we can to preserve and protect our environment. But I refuse to do it in the name of (the false god) of global warming.

Whether the climate is changing, and whether it is doing so because of our own contributions, matters only against certain background assumptions about what is valuable and why. Apart from some context of valuation that picks out some natural states over others, then we might suppose that no matter what happens--climate change, extinctions, etc.--we are only in a position to say that things are "different"--not "worse." (My daughter and her family lived in Missoula for several years. "Lake Missoula" has filled that valley many times over in the natural history of that region, usually releasing with catastrophic consequences for whatever was downstream once the ice dams melted. It is "good" that the valley is not a lake only on the condition that someone or something has an interest in its present state. I think that the average environmentalist, who rejects both theism and anthropocentrism, lacks the foundations for talk about environmental duties.)

As for "hard science," what sorts of controlled experiments have been done to demonstrate that the rise in average temperature is anthropogenic? Is the claim in principle falsifiable? And, for that matter, is the "natural fluctuation" theory something that may be verified/falsified? I just don't know.

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 11:05am.

Pretty hard to do a controlled experiment on the enitre earth. So, we must rely on history. Like the ice age. Most scientists agree we had one. Was it anthropogenic in origin? Most scientists would say no.

I believe the current anthropogenic global warming claim is (and was) falsified. I believe they started with the conclusion (that humans are responsible for global warming) and then looked for evidence to support their own pre-ordained conclusion. Why did they do this? For political agenda based reasons we have already covered.

The natural fluctuation theory has been scientifically proven. Just as the enthalpy and entropy are accepted, scientifically based measurements of energy or lack thereof.

From the other side of the tracks


Submitted by Nitpickers on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 9:25pm.

Might your college try to throw a pie in Cal Thomas' face as they did Ann Coulter somewhere? She was agile enough to side-step her pie.
Please don't quote Limbaugh about anything! He would be wrong if he sounded right!
None of our climate, heat, cold, air quality, or plant problems are caused by humans, huh? None! Rip on Greece!

Submitted by Nitpickers on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 4:57pm.

So that I will know what you think about global warming, tell me: are you a conservative or a liberal?

other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 3:15pm.

Cal Thomas is right on target. Self-righteous secularists rail at religion, but jump at the notion of creating their own false god of GLOBAL WARMING (themselves). That’s because secularists believe they are masters of their own destiny. Oh, the infinite power of the human being! Spare me. While the feats of man are arguably impressive, on a UNIVERSAL scale, they are miniscule. Almost negligible. Also negligible are the odds that man is the root cause of global warming.
For all of you “global warming” zealots out there (oh wait, you recently changed the name to “global climate change” - - and what was the rationale behind that? – don’t tell me, we all know), there’s a brand new secular movement out there for you to join called “global cooling”. That’s right, “cooling”. It is based on the theory that earth’s inner core is cooling at a faster rate than the human race is warming the atmosphere. So we must act quickly to prevent the next ICE AGE. Try that one out in your bong.
Meanwhile, those of us with a less self-centered belief system will continue to make responsible decisions toward the mutual benefit and supportive co-existence of all based on informed science - - not the global crisis of the month that smells of political expediency. Political correctness be damned! And GOD BLESS AMERICA!

From the other side of the tracks


Sofa King.....'s picture
Submitted by Sofa King..... on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 4:29pm.

I hope both of you stay on the other side of the tracks.......far away from the rest of us. I hope for your sake and, really, for all of ours that there will be plenty of dam builders and structural engineers with you when the Atlantic crashes in to the neighborhood. There you can do as you please with (T)His wonderful creation (Earth) while wearing your gas mask to breathe in the future. Pretty cool(ing), huh? You people are all in such denial it's Sofa King sad.


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 4:42pm.

From the other side of the tracks


Sofa King.....'s picture
Submitted by Sofa King..... on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 5:43pm.

didn't realize we were competing here, but alright. Maybe you can convince some of the other doubting thomases so they can help you build an ark..lol.

"our prices are Sofa King low"


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 9:58am.

. . . but you are the one who believes you need to build an ark. You are the one who believes there is an impending flood. Not me.
It is also obvious that you would rather sit back on your sofa and hurl insults rather than engage in a reasoned debate. Because you won't win. Neither will Gore. Which is why neither of you will debate the issue. The debate isn't over just cause Gore says it is.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

From the other side of the tracks


Sofa King.....'s picture
Submitted by Sofa King..... on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 10:39am.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

do some reading......they do that on your side of the trax don't they

"our prices are Sofa King low"


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 1:30pm.

I just read them, I don't wrtie them.

Scientists doubt climate change

"The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet."


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 11:08am.

So you admit you are incapable of debate?

From the other side of the tracks


Sofa King.....'s picture
Submitted by Sofa King..... on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 11:17am.

I'm not an expert on the issue......just know how to separate the FACTS from obstinate, asinine, bullheadedness from people unable or unwilling to do the same. So, are you able to read or not? Ya know what we used to do to ya's on MY side of the tracks up in Jersey...

"our prices are Sofa King low"


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 11:27am.

And it is obvious that you have been drinking the global warming KoolAid (reading) from the comfort of your sofa. I've read it. It is NOT based on scientific FACT or hard evidence. You can't win the debate so you hurl threats and abuse. How mature. Either debate the issue or SHUT UP. But then, you won't shut up, will you. So I'll just ignore you. Goodbye.

P.S. I've been to Jersey. And it surprises me not that you hail from the garden state. Great summer vegetables. But too many fruits.

From the other side of the tracks


Sofa King.....'s picture
Submitted by Sofa King..... on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 11:40am.

someone's got their li'l panties in a bunch.....

"our prices are Sofa King low"


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 12:21pm.

you would know that one of the trustees of the Environmental Defense
Fund is ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz, wife of American traitor John Kerry. The EDF is a well known liberal wack job outfit. Figures you'd be drinking their KoolAid. I'd rather have my shorts in a bunch than have to clean out the diarrhea ooozing out of yours (a well-known side affect of liberal KoolAid). Or was that your mouth???

The best you can do is taunt? I'm done. You've proved nothing. And you won't debate. I win. You lose. LOSER! LMAO

From the other side of the tracks


McGannahan Skjellyfetti's picture
Submitted by McGannahan Skje... on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 12:54pm.

It is obvious it's all a big ploy brought about by the crazy liberals. PLEASE.......you Mr./Mrs./Ms./whatever are a DUNCE. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a real phenomenon. Any real, true scientist will tell you this if they are truthful (ie. not a right wing/conservative fanatic and pawn. Any time someone tries to gently explain the truth or reason with types like you, you throw out the liberal University, liberal media, liberal environmentalists card. It goes on and on with you ad nauseam. Just stop your insanity and paranoia for one second....no one's out to get you or trying to take over here....just be sensible for a change for everyone's sake. Maybe take a walk around the block and look at the beauty all around you before it's too late instead of hopping in your Hummer to turn on Limbaugh or O'Reilly to get your info. You act like a sour'puss' southern fruit instead of one of those delicious Jersey ones you mock.....quite mature.

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"


other_side_trax's picture
Submitted by other_side_trax on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 4:01pm.

Great. Call the other person a dunce and prove nothing with your comments. You proved nothing and mocked only yourself. Bottom line is there is NO compelling evidence that proves climate change is anthropogenically based. Minorly influenced perhaps. But human action being the PRIMARY CAUSE?? Not even close. And if you had bothered to read the other postings, you would have discovered that we already quashed the supposed arguments you offered.

Enough of the name calling and boorish behavior. Grow up. Recommend you try another hobby. Something you might be good at. 'Cause blogging isn't it.

No name calling required - just the facts.

From the other side of the tracks


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 6:06pm.

does that say UCLA on your avatar?

Cal Thomas is an idiot. Thankfully, Gore has brought the issue of global warming/climate change to the forefront and people are paying attention. Unbelievable, that a global issue would end up creating a political divide in this country.

Did you read, back in Sept., that the melting of Greenland's ice sheet, was faster than the scientific models predicted? Here's a link:

Arctic Melt Worries Experts


Submitted by d.smith700 on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 7:22pm.

Is that Ted Haggard's picture?
Where is he now?

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 8:55pm.

Yes, that's the famed Ted "I am now a heterosexual" Haggard.

Last time I checked, he and his wife Gayle were enrolled at the Univ of Phoenix and he is studying to be a COUNSELOR. A counselor of what, I'm not certain.

He's asking for donations to help them through their 'studies' and money can be sent to 'Families With a Mission', a group headed up by a registered SEX OFFENDER (Paul Huberty):

TED'S CASH FOR HEAVEN OFFER


Sofa King.....'s picture
Submitted by Sofa King..... on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 6:13pm.

I've seen this before too. yes it does say UCLA, however, in this case it stands for United Clam Lovers Association! I am a PAC 10 guy though......GO 'CATS!

"our prices are Sofa King low"


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 6:24pm.

hey, welcome!

PAC 10 is close... I'm a CU Buffalo (Colorado) fan myself.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Wed, 12/26/2007 - 6:22pm.

Do you do time at the college of Westwood Blvd?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.