Famed Hurricane Forecaster Says Al Gore ‘Brainwashing Our Children’

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | October 14, 2007 - 12:37 ET

As Atlantic tropical storm activity increased a few years ago, Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University was thrust into the limelight as one of the leading hurricane forecasters in the world.

On Friday, deliciously coincident with the Global Warmingist-in-Chief receiving likely the first of many Nobel Peace Prizes, Dr. Gray spoke to a group of meteorologists and students at the University of North Carolina telling the audience that the theory of manmade climate change is "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works."

Thankfully, that's not all he had to say on the subject as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald Sunday (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer lunaticcringeradio):

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

[...]

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

How marvelous. But there was much more:

Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

Folks that have been honestly following this debate - yes, it's not close to being over despite what Gore and his deluded sycophants are claiming! - are quite aware of the vast number of scientists who believe the natural warming that began in the '70s peaked in 1998, and that the planet has actually moved into a cooling trend potentially caused by a cyclical decline in solar activity.

Of course, charlatans like Gore and people on the Nobel committee aren't interested in the real science of this issue as they spread hysteria.

Dr. Gray intimated such in his lecture:

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

Hmmm. You mean the actual statistics compiled by one of the nation's foremost experts on the subject don't comply with the hysteria being disseminated by Gore and the media?

Shocking, wouldn't you agree?

The article concluded with a really inconvenient truth the newly crowned Nobel laureate and his disciples in the press will fight tooth and nail to prevent being shared with the general public:

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Bravo, Doctor. Bravo!

Post script: From what I can tell, none of the leading mainstream press outlets bothered to report Gray's statements. Think that would have been the case if he had something positive to say about Gore and the global warming myth?

Assuming your answer is similar to mine, this makes media complicit in the brainwashing Gray spoke of, doesn't it?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

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

How strange...

it is that Dr. Gray, from Colorado State University (USA) speaks to a group of meteorologists at the University of North Carolina (USA) and you have to find the article in a newspaper from Australia.

That's what should be shocking.

That was my thought

That was my thought too...another NGW (non-global warming) advocate ignored by the MSM.

-

It is, indeed. 

 Dr. Gray does a wonderful job speaking out.  But because of the American msm's one sided reporting and silence on sceptic scientists like him, many, many people still think there is a unanimous scientific consensus about AGW. 

Shame on the msm.  What happened to the elevation of reason and the search for the truth?

It's going to take a while

 It's going to take a while for our media to catch up, they're too busy trying to get the Democrats a Presidency to concentrate on the truth about global warming.  We're going to have to depend on the media in Australia and Britain to give us the truth for a while.

 Once the 2008 election is over, perhaps the press will get back to reporting the truth.

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

Liberalism rules!

"We're brainwashing our children"

What is the purpose of education today?

Why did George Washington University decide against disciplinary action when he learned the hate Muslim demonstrates were not conservative?

My children are being brainwashed into global warming in high school. Try reasoning with that crap.

JDW

Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters

 

Noel

As usual, you present another delicious argument to knock one of the legs out from under Al's AGW stool.

I, however, am at Gore fatigue overload. I am to the point of changing channels whenever I hear that voice. I don't know what's worse...his voice or Hillary's cackle.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde

you do too know which is worse, one causes you to change the channel the other causes you to want to throw things at the tube before changing the channel

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

That's the problem

 Since, people like Gore, use the old Nazi philosophy that, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth, you have to listen to catch them every time they say it.  It's a tough job.

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

When your life depends on it

People should notice when your PAYCHECK or life depends on what your profession is in science or any field instead of GRANTS that an entire different mentality and understanding develops.

Take for example Dr. Gray who proves above all he states. Then take for example a professor at Wisconsin named Galen McKinley who gets study grants there to "study the effects of the Great Lakes on global warming due to gases".

People who get grants will say anything to get the hog trough money and fame as that is how they generate their livelihood. The sky is falling when one needs to get elected to be Al Gore president or the sky is falling when globalists like George Soros are dumping in money to study what they want to find........so the finding will mean the destruction of free economies they intend to plunder and rape.

Dr. Gray is more correct in more ways than one as he shows when a person is actually studying climate that it doesn't take long to equate that huge gas ocean called the atmosphere is sloshing around in solar heating, affected by moisture sweated from the earth and moderated by oceans. People can no more affect the world than one could melt the glaciers with a match at 100 below zero.

When are the Republicans going to start demanding an accounting in Congress of the hundreds of billions being wasted on "global warming" which should be invested IN HOME SHELTERS and FOOD RESERVES.

If the GOP would simply force this money to be dished out in grants to home owners, remember this is hundreds of billions of dollars, the construction, consumption of appliances for shelters and food purchased would create an economic boom........a real one that would generate great livings for American workers.

Very simple economics. Invest in a type of fallout shelter for civil and national defense and the entire economy booms instead of a few hundred liberal professors padding their bank accounts and "select" high tech globalist manufacturers getting their cut.

GOP are you listening........especially Fred Thompson. This is a money issue that American voters can understand.........and gee can you not just hear Galen McKinley crying to the media.....and then the media asking the real questions of IS ANY OF THIS MONEY STOPPING TEMPERATURES RISING FROM THE SUN?

The answer of course is NO and never will be as Dr. Gray explains.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Off Subject a little --- over population

 Overpopulation
Here are some numbers
Please give the following some serious consideration----       
Take the world population-----   6,593,583,936  people         
IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and put them on the Island of
Puerto Rico--- which has an land area of 3559.09 Sq. Miles---- 5280 times 5280 gives you 27,247,800 Sq. Feet in a Sq. Mile times 3559.09 = 99,221,734,656 Sq. feet on the Island
Divide Sq. feet by people and each person in the world
have 15.04 Sq. feet to stand on or about HALF on a 4x8
sheet of plywood-- How go to the map and find Puerto Rico --you may have some trouble, it's down there by Cuba someplace, in fact Cuba is a HUGE when you compare the two.
Now you tell me ---- that anyone that has any ability to
THINK, can really believe the Human race has the power the change the World Climate--we are not that GOOD---If the Earth is warming it is more likely the position of the Planets has something to do with it.
Saturn , Jupiter and Uranus were all in line back in 1998 -- we started to cool again after 1998 but we don't hear about that --- We should  all quit drinking our Coke or Pepsi --- what do you think makes the fizz -- CO2 don't ya know --
I used to be a Liberal but I got tired of being wrong --Lee

<td hei

Ah, the facts, Noel - of no interest to the MSM.

Ah, the facts, Noel - of no interest to the MSM.

From an April, 2007 report from Gray and Klotzbach, with a few more details. While the media will pound us with it's "cyclic worthy only" charts from the last cool point in our cycles (1970's) - they continue to share with the public the calming effect of seeing the left side of those charts (that before 1970). "It's a mystery to me."

Table 7: U.S. Landfalling tropical cyclones by intensity during two 50-year periods:

Years           Named       Hurricanes     Intense    Global Temp.Inc
                    Storms                         Hurricanes      degrees C
                                                        (Cat 3,4,5)

1900-1949        189             101              39                
(50 years)
                                                                                                           
1956-2005        165              83               34              +0.4
(50 years)

I'll just say, "It ain't so,"  and perhaps I'll receive a Nobel Kook Prize as well.

Gary remember prior to

Gary remember prior to using satellites, and planes to find hurricanes. The "known" number of hurricanes to make landfall was 75% including 15 years where 100% of known hurricanes made landfall. However since they started using planes and satellites there has been on average 59% of storms making landfall.  We missed 15-16% of the hurricanes.

Further in the sky is falling 05 season you had TS Gert. A storm that came ashore in an area with few people. It was never identified via land stations. And was only identified via satellite and fly thoughs.

In 06 you have the un-named storm which was only identified as a review of the data at seasons end.

Part of source.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo - exactly

 

Here's another piece of data (fact) from Phil Klotzbach (heck, it was a hurricane conference - lot's of media - and they still decided not to share ''Keep the fear alive."

Florida - No. of major hurricanes (Cat. 3-5) making landfall.

1933 - 1965 (33 years) - 11 major  hurricanes

1965 - 2005 (40 years) - 4 major hurricanes  

Seems to me, off the top of my head, that 2006 and 2007 (so far) have left Florida alone, right? So the last data would be for 42 years, and only 4 major hurricans landfalling in Florida.

I'd wager that almost any national MSM jouralist, who has covered these storms in recent years, would look at these numbers and say,"that cannot be true."

 

More Good Info, Gary

Now, if you would just wave your magic wand around and declare hurricane season over for 2007.

Thank you in advance. :)

P.S. We did have tropical fizzle Ernesto last year in June. It was great...I had the day off.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

waving the wand..

Waving the wand.. say after me.. "Reducto Cyclonico."

Or, one could simply station Al Gore in Florida permanently. A hurricane would never dare threaten the sanctity of the giver of the what is best for mother earth.

Reducto Cyclonico

Reducto Cyclonico, Reducto Cyclonico, Reducto Cyclonico.

(Is this like me saying "I love my job, I love my job, I love my job" at least once a week?).

As to your second suggestion...um....NO. Al Gore already did more damage to Florida in 2000 than Hurricane Andrew. I'm forever relegated to being from lovely liberal Broward County...home of the hanging & pregnant chads, thank you very much.

Why don't we send him to Giaia (sp)?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Hurricane season is about

Hurricane season is about over. if not over. At least for me. We've been down into the low 50's a few times. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Yeah, dan

Issy doomboo (it's done).

It'll be a while before I get low 50's...but I'm looking forward to it. Nice cold fronts & the sailfish tailing down the big ocean swells from the north. Woo hoo!

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Can I jump off the back of

Can I jump off the back of the boat and swim with the sail fish? 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Sure, Dan

You & Guy Harvey.

It'll be great.

I promise not to set the hook if you really, really have to swim fast after the bait! Because you're hungry.

LOL. :D

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Now I may demand that you

Now I may demand that you toss my swimming buddy back in....LOL

Actually, I've been caught before. Well. Not me. But my dive flag and line. 

Pre Ivan. I loved shore diving at the Ft. Pickens jetties. (Pensacola) You could get down to about 50 feet with a short swim. No need for a boat. Soft coral. military artifacts on the bottom.  And there were the shore fishermen....

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

I know how you feel

 I know how you feel, Blondie, living in Palm Beach County, where they just can't figure out how to do an election, is pretty tricky.  Rob Wexler is trying his best to give this county to the Democrats.  He had his personal choice elected as the election supervisor, but apparently he's not too sure of him so, the word is out, he may support someone else for the office. 

If Wexler supports them, you can be pretty sure he figures he can manipulate them.  He couldn't manipulate Theresa LePore, which is why he pulled all the strings he could to get Anderson elected.

Let's cross our fingers on the hurricane season, just 6 weeks to go, before it's officially over.  The AGW fanatics can't figure out why we haven't been hit with a couple of dozen, so far.  Those nasty winds, shearing off the tops of those storms, must be an annoying thing for people rooting for doom and disaster.

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

Tree rings rather than Hurricanes.

A bit off subject. Isn't the theory that tree rings increase with size with temperture?

I know the climate temperture history using proxy data used to a great part tree rings till about 1980 then tacked on surface station data.

But if tree rings are supposed to get larger with temperture increases? Judging from the 1st of the Bristlecone samples to come out. Something happened about the mid 90's. (This is slow to open.)

Steve is at it again.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

-

Actually, you're raising a good point.  If they started out measuring temps with tree rings (because they had no other measure), shouldn't they stick to tree rings measurements for the entire data set?  Isn't consistency of data collection methods important?

seems to me

tree rings would indicate rainfall rather than temperature

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

Which means they're not

Which means they're not that good as a proxy for ?????

I didn't create this mess.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo

check it out simply put scroll down to "what causes variations in tree rings"

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

As a former student of

As a former student of archaeology. I have a bit of experience with tree rings. I've always wondered how they isolated the temperture and length of growning season variables,(Not an exact match.) from the other variables that influence tree growth,

Yet we can get a temperture to within 2 digits to the right of the decimal? 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

seems fishy

but even so there is a baseline of info that validates the medievel warming period when green land was green.  There are no doubt methods to isolate the other factors and arrive at a trend but to an accuracy of .01 degree?

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

-

Yup, the point is that scientists trying to prove AGW muddied their own data by switching collection methods - even if it was to a more accurate one. 

(Hi, Botg!)

"  There are no doubt

"  There are no doubt methods to isolate the other factors "

What are those methods? Unless you know the exact proportions those  other variables play. As the amount of rain in a given year, you can't isolate the temperture portion. I doubt we know how much rain fell in 1824 much less 1066.

Tree rings tell us there was a climatic disaster in 535AD. But can we say what the temperture was? I don't think we can.

The MWP is also validated via historical records. We can give an educated "guess" on the temperture based on tree rings, crop patterns, the historical records of the location of glaciers etc. But to say the present world temps are .? degrees warmer than the MWP????

This core is only the first to come out. And the 1st to be updated. But if a pattern develops. And the tree rings don't support a warmer period over the last 10 years. Either Hanson's adjust tempertures aren't real as they're not supported by the proxies. Or we have to be sceptical of any temperture history based on tree rings.

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Busted link

Danbo, all I got there was a sign up page. 

 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

Sorry. You may have to go

Sorry. You may have to go through this page. The link is down the page in update 2 pm second paragraph. "Most recent widths." Opt for original size.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

What does it mean?

danbo:  I read the article, then looked at the tree ring scans here and here.  You don't need to be a scientist to see that if the scaling is equal, the rings up to the 90's are significantly larger than what came before, even back into the mid 19th century.  So, what I'm getting out of this, is that if these bristlecone pine growth rings hold some significance for climate measurements, there is a disconnect from what we are being told, i.e. that higher CO2 levels=higher temps=more bristlecone pine growth, right?  The disconnect being that if CO2/temps are so much higher, what's happened since about 1990?  The last 10-15 yrs. are pretty darn small in comparison to what came before.  My question:  what happens if they turn out to be predictors of what's to come?  Bundle up, I guess.

Keep the links coming, they are interesting reading. 

 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

Tired of scrolling around?  Find your comments among the clutter like a laser beam.

This should be fun to

This should be fun to watch. This is only one. But they're being processed. If we listen to the warmers the rings should be larger. And they're sugnificantly smaller.

According to giss, Boulder themps are rising a bit.

I doubt they're predictive as they reflect what's already happened. Rather, to me. If a pattern arises we have to look at any climate history derived from these rings with a great deal of scepticism..

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

The beauty of this

 The beauty of this season is, if we don't have a major hurricane hit the U.S., it will drive down the average from 2004 and 2005 to more normal levels.  Statistics are a terrible thing, to people like Gore and his ilk. 

Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.

Statistics

You are right. That’s why he needs to cash in now before the statistics find their natural balance again.

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

Careful... the number of

Careful... the number of hurricanes hitting landfall is based on very different factors than the number of hurricanes that form.  Landfall records vary wildly with no clear trend, because you can have things like random high pressure fronts that keep them at sea.  Number and intensity of hurricanes overall, however, shows clear trends and is currently slightly higher than the cyclic theory predicts.

Let's see. After we

Let's see. After we started using satelites 59% of hurricance came ashore. Before we started using satelites 75% made landfall.

Since we started using satelites there has never been a season with mone than 80% making landfall. Yet before we started using satelites there are 15 years where every hurricane made landfall.

The satelites must be keeping the hurricanes at sea.  We should have started using them sooner. 

Brilliant.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

What on earth are you

What on earth are you talking about?

Other than the fact you

Other than the fact you don't know what you're talking about when you try to split hairs over hurricanes making land fall and total hurricanes.

Other than that. Nothing.

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Absolutely, Danbo, put up more satellites....

....problem solved.

Obviously, you've tapped into Warmist "logic"....   ;^)

Look here...

http://www.riskinc.com/Publications/60HUActivityRates_whitepaper.pdf

You don't have to read the article if you don't want to, although it is very interesting.  There is a figure a few pages in which shows total hurricanes and hurricanes making landfall since 1950.  While total hurricanes shows half of a clear cyclic trend, with peaks in the fifties and now, I defy you to find a trend in the landfall data.

Satellites or no, there is simply much higher variability in whether or not hurricanes hit land, so a couple years of lows aren't going to particularly significant.

"The sky is falling---the

"The sky is falling---the sky is falling---it's the end of the world." 

Now that that's out of the way, can we please go back to normal daily life?

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Let's see a risk management

Let's see a risk management report or Chris Landsea....

A risk management report. or a hurricane historian who's been studying hurricanes for decades....

A risk management report or IPCC's chosen hurricane expert until he got fed up with IPCC's politics and resigned.

Chris says youre only looking at part of the story... 

"There is an  attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

The report essentially

The report essentially AGREES with Landsea's contention that hurricanes follow cyclic activity!  I think you've made the mistake of assuming, because I'm me, that I must be trying to make some point about this all being due to global warming.  I'm not!  I'm saying that whether or not you think the current hurricane activity is due to climate change or natural cycles, you have to be careful about drawing any conclusions based on whether or not a hurricane hits land in any given season.  It's the same as taking 5 hot days in the summer and saying "See?!  The globe must be warming!"

Sorry. Wrong again. This

Sorry. Wrong again. This isn't about cycles. It's about the fact you haven't a clue about the data source you're looking at.

Cycles are a totally different issue. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Okay fine.  Explain to me

Okay fine.  Explain to me why there isn't more variability in landfall than in hurricane formation.  Or point me to somewhere that Landsea, or anyone for that matter, explains it.

Reread my original post. I

Reread my original post. I got those numbers from Landsea. I've already posted the source.  You jumped on someone  splitting hairs over landfall storms verses total storms. Landsea addresses that. We have an incomplete data set. Yet some people want to make major statements from a seriously lacking data set. And IMHO it's very dishonest. Likewise to pretend the dataset is complete is dishonest. That's part of why the scientist in me dislikes warmers.

We've got a lot of data but only a portion of it with satellite support. And to compare that portion with missing data to that portion with satellite data is dishonest.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

My point had nothing to do

My point had nothing to do with historical data sets, satellites, or conclusions based on historical record.  I was objecting to this post:

The beauty of this season is, if we don't have a major hurricane hit the U.S., it will drive down the average from 2004 and 2005 to more normal levels.  Statistics are a terrible thing, to people like Gore and his ilk. 

which strongly implies that if a hurricane doesn't hit the US this year it will be a blow to the camp that thinks AGW is responsible for recent high hurricane activity.

My point was that you cannot draw conclusions from a single year, or even a couple, in a data set with such high variability.  This is something that the scientist in you should also dislike!  Perhaps you came in with information about historical record because you misunderstood my point, but what we can conclude from the 50-100 year time series of hurricane activity and damage is an entirely different discussion.  I am simply making the point that one season without a major hurricane is not necessarily going to be a "terrible thing" for anybody.

Incidentally, the people who originally predicted higher than average hurricane activity this year were Dr. Gray and his student.  They did it here: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/

The fact that the current season ended up mild doesn't make his theory wrong, and it doesn't make his opponents' theories wrong.

No S**T Sherlock

One season without a major hurricane is a very nice thing for those of us who live through it.  Yearly.  Well, now two years in a row, actually.

The lies that are going on within the media...and the "scientific community" are just that....a bunch of liberal canards to try to scare people.

Don't even go there with me, cleverpig....I am a native Floridian and have lived through this for a very long time.  But thanks to Al Bore & his fine lying friends...I'm paying $5 grand a year for windstorm insurance which I DON'T EVEN NEED!

Statistically...it's a bunch of hype.  So, my liberal friend, I suggest we just tax you to pay for it for me.   How do you like THAT?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

I'm all for a tax to help

I'm all for a tax to help you out if a hurricane hits :)

Fine, dumb-ass swine. Then you pay it.

Send your check today.

 


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

notsocleverpig offers the classic socialist response

to all problems....

I'm dying here.

Was that for real?

LOL! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Whats the matter, stupid oinker? No balls?

After all, you obviously think it is perfectly okay for the government to use its police power to sieze someone's property for the use of others.

What's the matter? Don't you have the courage to defend your clearly Marxist position?

Pig?


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

Whoa!

Calm down.  I don't actually sit and stare at Newsbusters hitting the refresh button all day!

The whole point of taxes is that no one person has to pay the entire cost of something.  You spread the cost for things that benefit everyone among the entire population.  So yes, I would be fine with a tax to support disaster relief.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I already pay taxes for help that people receive after natural disasters.  I think that's fair.  Me paying all of it by sending you a check right now?  Not quite as fair :)

And no, actually, I don't have any balls. 

WHAT? "The point of taxes is is that no one person has to pay

the entire cost of something."  WHAT?

No notsocleversocialistpig, the point of taxes is for government to function, not for your socialist utopia of a nanny-state that collects and then assigns citizen's money to whatever risk they deem appropriate.

RJ

Send the paramedics.

I have died from apoplexy here....SOD!

Can you figure out a way for me to send my entire tax burden the cleverist of little piglets?  Please? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Tsk. And all this time I

Tsk. And all this time I thought the whole point of taxes was so the government can take funds - without my permission - out of my paycheck and then put some of the funds in a sink hole called Social Security and the rest of it in the pockets of those who neither earned it nor deserved it.

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell

Porky, Suppose you are hosting a BBQ, and....

...you and the wife have two guests invited over. You have four twelve ounce rib chops (fat bastards, at that) that are close to perfection on the grill. You are standing there, brush in hand, about to sauce those puppies....

Suddenly, your neighbor decides that he needs two of those rib chops more than you do, and attempts to take them from you. When you resist, he calls the cops to come take them away.

What will you do? Give them up?


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

So Dave,

What is the answer? Sick the 120 lb mastiff on the userpers?  Or beat them with a spatula?  Or cap 'em with the 45?

Either way...works for me....but Ms CleverPig is happy to pay taxes for me....how nice! 

Regardless...I am terminally hungry...I've not been eating much...work sucks...you're killing me here, Dave.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

B, the .45 works for me. LOL. Sure beats the hell out of a 9mm.

No strays that way. LOL. 

:-)


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

As a stupid drunken

As a stupid drunken crackhead, my standard response to such situations is to climb on the roof with my ribs, tell the neighbor to eat my guests, then yell obscentieis at the cops until they knock me off with a firehose.

Clever, funny, that was. Now, answer the question at hand:

Why is it okay for government to take money away from me by FORCE, against my will, and give it to someone else?

Hell, even my 13 month-old Schnoodle Oliver can answer that question.

Why can't you?


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

I answered your question

I answered your question further down the page

Cleverpig,

I am far from being "rich" yet, about .50% (as in 1/2) of what I make is being taken away from me (by force) and given to someone else.

By what neuroligical misfire is that considered fair?


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

Um, you shouldn't have 50%

Um, you shouldn't have 50% of your gross pay removed for taxes.  Our highest tax bracket is 35%, and that's if you make over 170k a year.  Maybe you should go see an accountant!

Clever, ever heard of sales taxes? On every thing I buy?

Not to mention the ad-velorem tax on my cars, federal income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, user fees, taxes I pay on my electric, gas and phone bills (both cellular, hard line & internet, too), not to mention the taxes I pay at the gas pump (confiscatory, those are). I'm swimming in taxes. Up to my eyeballs, even.

Over half of my income is toast (and so is yours). Trust me.

Which is why my tolerance for new taxes of any kind is zilch. Period.

Screw 'em.

The have-nots, will-nots and never-will do anything for themselves need to get off their lazy fat-asses and get jobs. And damn soon. And let's face it, there are a lot of those people out there who were in that situation LONG before GWB was president (and who will be there long, long after he is gone).

No joke. Else I'm headed for the Cayman's.

Like to see 'em get hold of my wallet there. LOL.

And if Blonde's house should blow down in a hurricane, I'll go down and help re-build it. And I'll be bringing plenty of beer, plus my Webers.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

I'm going to let you have

I'm going to let you have the last word here, since this is WAY off topic and impossible to read!

I am honestly sorry that you find our system so frustrating.  I hope you never have to see the value in it.

You're also paying

You're also paying corporate and business taxes on every product or service you buy. Corporations and bussinesses don't really pay taxes. They pass them on to the consumer.

To avoid a back lash from the voters. Government makes businesses the tax collector and then screams about corporate greed. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

And no, actually, I don't have any balls.

Damn, I knew it!


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

Shocking

What a shock.  A guilt-ridden Leftist wanting to steal from others on the first opportunity.

I live in a city that essentially came to life partly because Galveston went underwater for a day or two in 1900 after going through a hurricane that made Katrina look like an average thunderstorm.  You know what I have in case a hurricane hits?  Something called insurance that no one but me pays for.  Give it a try sometime.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Blonde, No S**T Sherlock???? LOL-I Love it.


When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

hey there cleverpig

the problem is that the data for 100 years does not exist.  Before the satellite era many hurricanes that did not make landfall were missed and thus not included.

This has nothing to do with anything but are you on the list? (here is a truly cleverpig)

"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house."       Groucho

I know. And no, I'm not

I know.

And no, I'm not quite famous enough yet :)

Oh, you're famous alright, you idiot porcine. Famous for being.

...a flaming idiot.

So, praytell, why is it okay for the government to steal the property that I earned and give it to someone else?

Cat got your tongue? Did you run out of crack and have to go buy some more? Did your keg run dry?

Well? We're waiting......

When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

Okay

You are obviously very angry at me right now, so maybe we should stop this conversation.  If a break of thirty minutes between posts is going to send you into name calling then I'm afraid I can't do this.  I have other stuff to do on this computer tonight.  If you want to calm down and both answer each other when we have the chance, let me know.

Wow

That's deep. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Guilt

I think the name "gu