Alaska Darin

It's even funnier that your lack of ability to think for yourself means you actually believe that. Please don't ever leave - I'd miss your hypocrisy.

How unpredictable. Another liberal ass licking from Joey. Now tell everyone how progressive and intellectual you are while wallowing in the political Utopia of Buffalo.

I don't trust anyone who's basically a politician or a member of the media. Snow is both.

I think it's better - but there's a long way to go.

That dude's gonna get his ass kicked.

An incredibly dumb explanation, as if using an extra "i" somehow absolves you in the community because YOUR conscience feels better. You've got the balls of a gnat. Well, I could bring up even further science because there is plenty of it. How about: New York City and Albany. They're what, 200 miles apart? Globally, that's a really small number. Yet NY City's temperature has risen 5 degrees since the early 1800s, but Albany's has dropped. Their CO2 atmosphere is for all purposes the same. Is THIS an example of good science for global warming? (Source: USHCN) I'm sure the difference in temperature has almost nothing to do with NYC's increase in population from 120K to over 9 MILLION and the trillions of tons of concrete and superstructures built since to support them. Nope. Got to be global warming. (McKendry: Applied Climatology) The Chinese stated that Shanghai alone rose over 1 degree Celcius in the last 20 years alone. That's more than total GW of the PLANET for the last CENTURY. Probably has nothing to do with population explosion and construction, coupled with better measurement apparatus. Nah. Global Warming. The Global Warming "Scientists" use what amounts to a "fudge factor" to explain away urbanization. That's pretty much the equivalent of Holcomb's Arm's 3.5 value. How about the fact that "climatologists" can't predict El Ninos with any certainty but Global Warming "could" lead to the polar ice caps in Greenland melting in 1000 years? That's right, they can't accurately forecast for a known phenomenon that occurs 23-5 times a century for THOUSANDS of YEARS but we're supposed to believe there's a catastrophic event could be coming over a period TEN TIMES longer. It's also quite interesting that most Global Warming proponents use charts and measures from 1930 on to prove their point. Try and find out why they don't go back 100 years further. Couldn't be that it throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing, could it? How right was the scientific and enviro community on DDT? To the point that they got the US to use their bully pulpit of "we'll withhold foriegn aid if you don't stop using it!" Fully backed by the wackos. Of course, 50 MILLION people died in third world countries and malaria is on the way back in force. But at least that evil (since proven otherwise) DDT isn't out there anymore. What about Kilimanjaro? "It's rapidly melting!" (Global Warming). Of course it's been happening since the 1800s and can pretty much be traced to the deforestation at the bottom of the mountain. But it's alot easier to get money from people if it's some boogie man that the media can trumpet from the top of Mt Panic Induction. "The sea level is rising because of global warming!" Of course it has been for 6000 years, at an attributable rate for each 100 year period, including the "Global Warming" period. "MORE CATASTROPHIC WEATHER CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING!" US hurricane strikes: 1900-1909: 16 1910-1919: 19 1920-1929: 15 1930-1939: 17 1940-1949: 23 1950-1959: 18 1960-1969: 15 1970-1979: 12 1980-1989: 16 1990-1999: 14 2000-2006: 9 The average per decade is 17.7 (source: NHC) "No long terms trends evident in either tropical or extratropical storms and no systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail." (source: IPCC "Climate Change" 2001) "Overall there is no evidence that extreme weather events or climate variability has increased in a global sense, throughout the twentieth century." (Source: IPCC "Climate Change" 1995) THE GLACIERS ARE MELTING! "There is no obvious common GLOBAL trend of increasing glacial melt in recent years" (Brathwaite. "Progress in Physical Geography" 2002). There are nearly 170 THOUSAND glaciers on the planet, barely a third of which are actually catalogued. An insignificant number are actually studied on a regular basis, yet the Global Warming folks would have us believe that not only are they melting at a rapid rate, but they are also causing catastrophic damage to other facets of the environment at the same time. "A MILLION SPECIES WILL BE EXTINCT BY 2000" (Myers) "HALF OF ALL SPECIES WILL BE EXTINCT BY 2000" (Ehrlich) These weren't science. They were opinion without significant fact. Much like the rest of "global warming." The scientific community doesn't have a true grasp on the actual number of species on the planet and can only guestimate (it's so inaccurate that I've seen numbers from 3 million to over 100 million). Yet these two were quick to trumpet that a significant number (Myers) or a PREPOSTEROUS number would be completely removed in less than a single generation. It's showmanship that Gore and his followers continue to this day, with folks like you buying hook, line, and sinker. Be sure to let me know when the first "double blind" global warming study concludes, will you? People with "my type of abilities?" What would that be, oh guy who doesn't know me at all? Would that be the ability to look at the trend of making huge amounts of money by scaring the hell out of the populous? "Global Warming" is simply another "Nuclear Winter", "Breast Implants", "Cold War" or "War on Terror". Nothing more. Ah, the old "attack the messenger" thing. I've stated nothing about those things and your attempt to put words in my mouth shows the complete weakness of your "argument." Mostly because you don't have any clue what you're talking about. Once again, I agree with the environmentalists that we do a terrible job of stewarding the planet. And I never said anything about the junk science "community", only that Global Warming is "junk science". Because it is. I also didn't share one research paper. There was more there than that. Thanks for bringing up the Greeks, too. I'm sure their science had a bit less little influence from lobbyists and fund raisers. As far as "not caring a whit" (whatever the fukk that is), you're wrong. I simply don't care what your opinion of me is. Try and figure out the difference.

Aw, you know you think I'm a "diick".

Would that be the same Al Gore who made his fortune off Occidental Petroleum and paved the way for them to open the environmentally sensitive Elk Hills? You're right, since he's not running for political office he couldn't possibly be doing anything untoward. At one time in history, I'm quite sure you could have found over 90% of the scientific community would agree that the earth was flat, was the center of the solar system, etc. Science is never wrong. That's why I'm pulling Africanized honey bees outta my igloo this Spring. They also never invent causes, make things seem worse than they are, or fudge data a bit to get more "free" funding. Nah, that never happens. Uh wait, am I supposed to care about YOUR opinion for some reason? That's just a gem. What part of "we should be better stewards of the environment" did you have a problem with? You're right, man. The fact that there's so much contrarian evidence or conclusions based on gigantic leaps while A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE are getting VERY RICH off TAXPAYER money is no reason for scepticism. After all, Hollywood did make an Oscar winning "documentary" on the subject. Nothing to see here. Question nothing, it's a half a degree warmer "somewhere" and it's likely the fault of hairspray. Dude, I'm not sure it's possible for me to care less about other people's opinions. Especially some guy who thinks he needs to spell "dick" differently. I was so waiting for someone's permission. Thank goodness it was yours.

I didn't neglect anything. I posted the data in full. I also asked people to draw their own conclusions. To me, Global Warming is junk science. I don't at all disagree that the human race is a terrible steward of the environment and we need to be far more careful and cognizant of what we're doing to the planet, but that doesn't mean that I at all accept what Gore and the money grubbing scum who join him are selling. Global Warming is Y2K and Africanized Honey Bees. Science can't accurately tell you the weather in a 10 day window but somehow the speculation that human induced CO2 emissions are having major climate affect is now considered gospel (to the point that Antarctica is getting colder and the Ross Ice Shelf is getting thicker can be pooh poohed with a wave but other areas of the planet's warming is a major cause for alarm ). Environmental Groups in the US generate untold billions in solicited cash with very little oversight from the Federal Government - but I'm sure that's not what Global Warming is all about. Antarctica has a huge affect on the planet's climate.

Let me know when one of the 32 hires you to GM. They're obviously missing the boat. I'm sorry you're not enjoying the journey. That's your loss. Nah, you're just the bestest fan ever. You're wrong when you say "all the skill in the world gets you nowhere." You have to have a combination of both PLUS some luck to win it all. No one I've ever met in hockey has consistantly been able to pick a SC champion before the playoffs started. Gee, I wonder why that is. Welcome to being a fan in modern day America. It's only going to get worse the more money it costs to get in the barn. You want to find real fans? Go to minor league sporting events. If you are right, it won't be because you're actually right. Figure that one out.

"Our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn." It is thus quite surprising that despite apparent increase in global temperatures during the last 20 years (e.g., Jones et al. 1999), the Antarctic region in general shows slight cooling during the period. Such cooling could partly explain the slight positive trend in sea ice extent observed during the 1979–96 period by Cavalieri et al. (1997). We have used ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (20.9 gigatons per year). Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly--as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years Our data also suggest that the ice masses that border the Weddell Sea are more extensive than they were during the previous glacial minimum. Keep in mind that Antarctica holds about NINETY PERCENT of the world's ICE. Draw your own conclusions. I know the hippies are all over Global Warming and I agree that we need better stewardship of the environment, but...

Polls suck.

$8 a gallon gas, perhaps? If you think the House of Saud sucks, you ought to look at the options of them being out of power.

Read the post again. Then figure out how wrong YOU are. You mean like the faulty character they showed the other night in Pittsburgh when they made up 2 goals with under 10 minutes to go? Or last night in Atlanta? They worked no harder last season. It's a long year and every team goes through spells. So now you're comparing a team that has been in contention for the President's Trophy all year to a team that never sniffed the playoffs? As for your comparison to the NBA, you couldn't be more wrong. That's OK, it looks like your it's your "thing". Congrats on not buying into Donahoe after seeing him for a few "years". Of course, that's about how long he was actually in Buffalo. But I'm sure you also understand the NHL much better than Lindy does. WTF would he know about it? Typical Buffalonian. Always fixated on the brass ring and just can't enjoy the journey.

Did you have Carolina last year? Yeah, didn't think so. Real stretch to take the whole rest of the NHL, given history. You're a true genius. The fact of the matter is the hockey playoffs are likely the greatest in sports because NO ONE knows who's going to be standing at the end of the last game. I "KNEW" the Sabres would hoist Lord Stanley last season if they could stay healthy throughout the tournament. They didn't and the final ended up being Edmonton/Carolina. There isn't one person who'd have called that 2 weeks before the playoffs started.

No, it's simply the typical Buffalonian attitude. This team could win every game 30-0 and there'd still be a few people who'd B word. You'd be one of them. I'm really sorry the Sabres aren't your cup of tea and that you can't enjoy this ride. Perhaps you haven't lived through enough pain yet. When they suck again but have the "character" to "work their butts off every game" (which is laughable no matter what sport or team you're talking about EVER) and aren't "soft" but don't qualify for the playoffs, you'll be in hog heaven. The Penguins added toughness? Laraque ain't gonna see a meaningful shift in the playoffs and they'll be lucky if the 80 year old Roberts plays 50% of their games.

Mullets.

They were awesome yesterday.

De Monet, Si Vous Plait, who cares? Don't get saucy with me, Bernais.

Count De Money lives? Cool.

Where ya been? Trying to find someone, anyone who still believes Drew Bledsoe is a starting caliber NFL QB?

Settle down, rookie.

Denny Klein

You music snobs are just awesome.

I guess ol' Carol isn't making much money in residuals, huh? Suing a cartoon? Harvey Korman is rolling over in his grave.