Now you're just pissing me off ...

I have for years given sound scientific refutations of global warming zealots. Having done that repeatedly within our little triumvirate (admittedly some time ago) I at some point in recent history "assumed" that within our group we all "got it." And much like we make sarcastic comments about each other's religion, I don't feel and don't expect a recitation of the "good" done by of our respective Church's on the heels of every crack - that's assumed and mutually respected, because we all "get that" too. Must every time I make a crack about "tree huggers" there be yet another of these factual recitations? Is that the rules now? My argument for years HAS NOT BEEN SOLEY SUCH A DISCOURSE, not in the least! Have I made "cracks?" Certainly. And apparently that's all you remember. What I find fascinating is that from the 2nd Amendment to man-induced global warming now that you've had this great "conservative awakening" or a natural progression of intellectual pursuit - call it whatever you want - you are suddenly taking every opportunity to slam either Rush or myself over not arguing the subject "properly." Well hell, whether its' Rush or me or whoever, we made the factual arguments back when you were refuting them, over, and over and over. Now that I know you embrace them I feel no need to repeat them, thus the simple joke or reference here and there. And while you're peering into my dealer break room through your magnificent crystal ball amidst all the dry ice and smoke, know this - I DO make sound, fact based arguments when talking with people I don't really know. The idea that I must do that here in order to balance every "crack", especially now that we are all 3 "basically" of a like mind on the major issues of the day is somewhat absurd - ESPECIALLY when those arguments have been made embasta in the past to people with apparently long term memory problems.

And dammit I wrote an ENTIRE multi page email (pre blog) that quoted, explained and sourced tons of data in an argument I sent to you & Jambo years ago, much of which was based on the research of the man whom invented Hurricane forecasting (slightly more credible then say Al Gore - oops, there I go again, being a wisenheimer); but my last computer didn't survive the storm/move. That email was complete with pie charts, graphs, data, the works. If you have that email by any chance, either of you, please forward it to me. I have only post storm stuff. One of the most glaring examples was the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 98% of which occurs due to water evaporation. Another 1.2% is naturally occurring i.e. cow flatulation and human exhalation. The last 0.8 is unnatural. The idea that this amount is unsustainable by our atmosphere is clearly nonsensical. Damn I wish I had that email. Perhaps I will write an updated version for the Bund.

And by the way, it was Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines that released more fluorocarbons in one eruption then all man was capable of since the first smoke stack went up at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution - the point being this was one volcano eruption in 4 billion years worth of eruptions & it was equal to all of man's contributions, meaning we couldn't destroy our ozone if we actively tried.

Oh, and "the leadership of Rush Limbaugh" comment - you should know. I was turned on to the above fact, then subsequently researched it to confirm it was correct, in Rush Limbaugh's best selling book: "The Way Things Ought To Be", pgs 154-155. I know listing fact filled, common sense arguments based on the science doesn't fit your template that we're all just out here making wise cracks, but I thought I should stop you before you made anymore of an ass of yourself by critiquing my or Rush's argument as "dismissive" rather then engaging on the facts.