Zappa.com

Apparently, only if brainpang, downer mydnyte, and you approve.

_________________

Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you
down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Right now in paradise it's a magical 21°C (69.8°F)

Max: 21°C (69.8°F)
Min: 12°C (53.6°F)
Latest reading

Wind: 22 km/hr. (13.67 mph)

Rain Today: 0.0
Humidity: 57%


Updated: 28/12 17:00

Today's Forecast
Cloudy periods and northerlies

_________________
hey punk, where you goin' with Nancy's pearls around your neck?

I, personally, could not care less about what Al Gore has to say about climate change. The reason for this should be obvious - he is not an expert. I am not an expert on climate change, neither are you. Nor is your dog, your mother, or your pet hamster. This is why I, as somebody who is not an expert, tend to let my views be shaped by those who I would consider to be experts. This is also why I refer to people who might be able to interpret data better than myself, you, your dog, your mother, or your pet hamster.

Your comparison with the academic qualifications of Zappa as a composer and the individuals you claim to be authorities on climate change is interesting, but, unfortunately, utterly false.
The reason for this conclusion is that Zappa, as a composer, was somebody involved in what one might call the arts. In the arts, creative impulse is the major criterion for determining value of the product. There is no physical risk involved in allowing the fruits of the composer's invention in being presented to a wider public. In fact, musical risk was what made Zappa's music so unique IMHO. In the case of scientific conclusions in whatever form (physics, engineering, chemistry, even history, if you like) there is a risk involved.

Nor was Zappa concerned with proving an objective truth. What he produced was "art for art's sake". One was not compelled to follow his philosophy (e.g. his views on sex would make most spouse's marital life extremely difficult), nor did one have to objectively equally appreciate all of his compositions.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's assume a city is building a new shopping centre. Why is that they are unable to accept the building design proferred by the architect who has no professional qualifactions, no matter how groovy it might look and prefers that of the architect who has actually studied the subject and is legally allowed to actually present a design? Obviously, because the possibility that the building might fall down is more likely in the former case, than in the latter.

Another, more specific, analogy. In 1988 there was a trial of the well-known Holocaust denier, Ernst Zündel in Canada. Zündel called as a witness an "execution expert", Fred Leuchter. Leuchter had gone to Auschwitz, hacked brick samples from the walls of the gas chambers and revealed that there was no significant traces of cyanide in the walls, thus no Holocaust. The court rejected his testimony as he was neither a qualified engineer, nor a chemist, nor an architectual historian - and rightly so. He had e.g. no knowledge of the chemical conditions under which cyanide reacts with plaster, nor of how the gas chambers were constructed, nor of the amount of cyanide needed to kill the people in the gas chambers. Therefore, his testimony was utterly irrelevant and unqualified.

Experts in climate change are experts for a very good reason. Last weekend, I brunched with an Italian geophysicist. I wanted to hear, as somebody who would appear to be an "expert", what his view might be on climate change, in particular how residues of carbon dioxide in mineral deposits are evaluated to create a picture of carbon dioxide levels throughout the world's history. His reply showed that he was a true scientist in that he said "My opinion on this is not worth very much, as it is not my field of research. I examine how crystals grow". Let me add that he was of the (unqualified) opinion, having talked to other geophysicists who were studying climate change, that the current climate change was massively influenced by man and that it might be too late to halt it.

Academics tend to be like that: most of them are true experts in a very narrow field, to which they devote their life. This is generally true, even in academic fields that are ostensibly "non- scientific"; I would not necessarily trust Ian Kershaw (a scholar of the history of the Third Reich), to give me any valuable opinions on the Roman Empire.

Thus, if you are going to challenge the view that global climate change is a lie, not caused by human beings or is somehow ineffectual, then I think that the quality of your witnesses should at least match up to the 97% of scientists who consider that the opposite is the case.

In consequence, I am not engaged in "character assassination" as you put it, rather I think it is important to know how qualified the statements made in the videos you posted might be. The answer would seem to be - not very.

Your claim that I have not engaged in the arguments offered in the 8 videos is equally inaccurate. I watched the videos, looked up background information about those who gave their opinions and consulted a site (https://www.skepticalscience.com/) that specifically refutes the claims made in the videos. If you want to refute those rebuttals, go to the site, read them and do so. The alternative is that I repost the entire site here, which would be extremely tedious.

I find it particulary curious that you seem to believe that there is some kind of academic conspiracy to propagate one scientific view and that this is motivated by the scientists' greed. It would seem blatently obvious that the people with the real money are sitting in the oil, coal, and car companies and that they are in a far better position to bribe climate change scientists to falsify conclusions. If something is accepted as scientific fact by nearly all scientists, why should funding be provided for those who challenge it? Should there be funding for research into the flatness of the Earth, the "fact" that the Earth was created in 6 days or that the Holocaust never happened? Surely that would be waste of funds?

Your final paragraph indicates your inability to look out beyond your personal experience and expect that the world reacts accordingly. Is the rest of the world really supposed to deal with the possible ramifications of climate change on the basis of your subjective experience that it has been a bit chilly in Vancouver for the last 10 years? Here, let me disprove you: "Winters in central Germany have been much warmer in the last 10 years".

Have you ever thought of the reason for why this phenomenon might be referred to as "global climate change" and not, at least recently, as "global warming"?

Substance, as you define it, would seem to consist of posting 8 random youtube videos, from extremely dubious sources, that deny that climate change is happening. Well, if that is enough for you...

I'm sorry that many of the words I have used have more than 2 syllables.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

As usual, you're TOTALLY missing (or ignoring) the points I've made, especially by indulging in character assassinations. Many of the people in the clips I've provided ARE credible experts and scientists that aren't government or corporate funded. Yet you concentrate on the ones that aren't. Do you know how much $$$ world governments have given to many of the world's 31,000+ scientists over the past 30 years for 'research'? Nearly $5 BILLION. And these scientists ONLY receive these funds if they conform to the belief that global warming is happening. So are you seriously going to sit there and try to convince me that that isn't affecting their scientific judgements or isn't an issue?! And like I said, I can keep posting plenty of clips clearly proving that global warming is a scam but because it doesn't fit your political narrative, it won't matter, will it?!

The reason why I brought up Al Gore's claim again, is because he's probably drawn more attention to the issue over the past 10-15 years than many scientists have. In the middle of last decade he claimed (and many scientists 'agreed' with him) that there wouldn't be polar ice caps in 5-10 years, which is clearly now false. In fact, some of them are LARGER. These caps would be the first things to melt completely if global warming was happening. It's probably THE biggest lie regarding the global warming scam I can think of. And Al Gore made MILLIONS of dollars off it.

You know, Caputh...here's some advice: trying be more concise and less verbose. Because almost every time I read one of your posts, I have to flog myself into doing it (and I'm sure I'm not the only one).

Oh and btw, it's more than a "bit" chillier during the winters in Vancouver over the past 4-5 years...

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

I'm terribly sorry you have such problems understanding the English language. May I suggest night school?

As usual, repetition without any reference to counterargument would appear to be your favoured tactic. In fact, if you flog yourself a little more, you might find that I've already answered the points you make.

However, at the risk of repeating myself as well...

Here is a list of the people who I would not regard as experts on climate change, whom you have cited up to now. And, BTW, this is not character assassination - it's character suicide.

Ron Paul (gynaecologist and politician)

Rand Paul (doctor of ophthalmology and politician)

Al Gore (politician)

Don Easterbrook (debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/don-easter ... ality.html)

Martin Durkin (filmmaker, debunked here: http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html)

Any member of "Friends of Science" (financed by the fossil fuel industry https://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott- ... 55254.html)

Nigel Lawson (ex-chancellor of the exchequer, refuses to reveal who is financing his climate change denial organisation, it turns out it is the fossil fuel industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-funders)

John Coleman (ex-weatherman and, frankly, a liar as he claims that arctic ice shelf has grown. Debunked here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming)

David Wilcock (weird conspiracy theorist, believer in alien prophecies and a bit mad. A great article here: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/david ... t-atlantis which shows how he claims that "an Evil "Cabal" of Aliens and Democrats Are Trying to Stop Trump from Defeating Evil, Revealing Truth about Atlantis")

Patrick Moore (ecologist/not a climate change researcher, "research" into climate change financed by the logging industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rick-moore)

Ivar Giavever (not his field of study, inadequate research on the topic, debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaev ... ntist.html)

Peter Reid (marine biologist)

Bob Carter (debunked here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm)

Steve Scalise (politician)

Newt Gingrich (politician)

Which leaves us with...

... Garth Paltridge, who is theoretically an expert. Garth seems a little like you in that in his book "the Climate Caper" he posits a global conspiracy of scientists to falsify science without actually dealing specifically with science itself. I, personally,found the idea of previous global conspiracies pretty ridiculous (remember that other one about the Jews?) But if global conspiracies are your bag...

Which is not "many" scientists who "ARE credible experts and scientists that aren't government or corporate funded."

One could almost come to the conclusion that you just searched youtube for climate change denial videos and that you, yourself have not watched any of the videos you posted.

BTW. 30 years + 31,000 scientists + 5 billion dollars = a little under 5377 dollars per scientist, per year = not enough money to finance a global conspiracy.
This is also not enough money to justify your very own "character assassination" of 31,000 scientists.

In contrast, Exxon's profits alone for 2016 were 7.8 billion dollars.

Thus the potential funding for climate change denial by the entire fossil fuel industry (not just Exxon), the logging comapanies, the car manufacturers, the oil-producing nations is much greater than the funds provided by governments for climate change research. As we can see above, they are already flinging money out to anybody (c.f. "Friends of Science") prepared to deny climate change. If scientists were so corrupt then surely the temptations offered by the fossil fuel industry would be irresistable.

To prove how circular your argumentation is, you once again make refrence to the fact that the North Pole has yet to disappear and the ice shelf on the South Pole has increased somewhat. This is something we've already discussed. Here is the answer to this claim.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarc ... ng-ice.htm



I'm dreadfully sorry that you're freezing arse off in Vancouver, but, once again they call it global climate change. Which means that some parts of the world get colder and some parts get hotter.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

I don't have problems understanding the English language. But I have problems understanding your own brand of it. Let's call it Caputhglish.

As usual, you only answer the some of the questions I've provided and ignore the rest. And of course, you CONTINUE to indulge in character assassinations with just about every person listed above, automatically assuming they're discredited because they're not necessarily scientists, which doesn't necessarily mean they should be discredited. You can be an expert in a field without a degree or traditional training. And once again, you're compounding global warming with climate change. They are two different things. Not only that, but I never said all 31,000 scientists are funded by world governments (don't ask me the exact quantity that are government funded because I don't know). So your calculation is way off and quite laughable. Also, not all industries are even interested in, let alone preoccupied with funding researchers or scientists, regardless of whether they believe in global warming or not. So when one questions who's funded by who, you'll get quite a variety of answers from a myriad of diverse industries and governments. And once again, MANY scientists agreed with Al Gore's claims and were clearly WRONG.

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

Have you ever been more wrong? Well, yeah, but still.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Actually, I answered every single one of your points - read it again.

Next time you go to hospital for major surgery, then I'm sure you'll be glad to be operated on by somebody who claims to be an expert in his field "without a degree or traditional training", rather than a fully qualified doctor.

It's not me who is confusing global warming with global climate change - it's you, with comments about cold winters in Vancouver.

You mentioned the figures of 31,000 scientists, 30 years and 5 billion dollars, I didn't. Now you seem incapable of saying how "many" of the "many scientists", who are part of the 31,000 scientists (of what, from were?), received the 5 billion dollars over a period of 30 years. Could it be that you might have gotten the 31,000 figure slightly mixed up with another figure or another context?
Perhaps you could help us by telling us where you got these figures from?

Al Gore's figures were based on Dr. Malowski's ( not MANY scientists).

Gore claimed at the time...
"Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

It turns out that even Malowski was unhappy with Gore using this figure, stating afterwards...
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at... I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Apparently...
"Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore."

The same site goes on to state...
"While the disappearance of summer sea ice is difficult to predict, a 2013 review of different approaches (including Maslowski’s) summarized the range of various predictions for the first ice-free summer in the Arctic:

We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. […]

Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. […]

It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two."
(https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/)

Even in Gore's extremely sloppy statement he refers to...

a) some of the models
b) suggest
c) arctic summer ice levels will be at 0
d) at a 75% chance.

This is a slightly more measured statement than John Coleman's who you cite in your videos:
'There is no significant global warming and I'm the guy that is just doggone sure of that'.

However, I would agree that Gore was unhelpfully employing propaganda. Which is why Gore is on my list of climate change "experts" who I do not trust.

All the same: which picture shows more ice?



I didn't mention all industries. I said: e.g. fossil fuel companies, logging companies, car companies and some national governments.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Instead of throwing stones from a glass house (which is seemingly your entire shtick?), maybe you should come back to this thread when you have something intelligent to post...?



No, you did NOT. And until you do, I'm going to ignore your posts and instead continue to post 1 clip per day that discredits global warming and shows how climate change isn't happening as quickly as the left state it is. Here's #9:

Global Warming Debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

Now time for a fresh perspective:

Make everything political! If the planet melts blame a specific political party.

Haven't most people simply just gone along with the things that have led us here? Or did we take a stand and fail?

The global warming debate comes down to the two sides fighting for control of the world's industry. Oh, and a few souls who actually care about polar bears and the livability of our planet and stuff.

Perhaps you could tell me which points I have not addressed, in your opinion?
Video 9 consists of discussion between William Happer and Stefan Molyneux

Happer is an atomic scientist who "...describes his laboratory's research interests in atomic physics: "we're interested in the mechanisms that limit the performance of optical pumping systems, such as atomic clocks, magnetometers, and laser guide-star adaptive optics systems."

He therefore has not studied climate change or "global warming" in any depth.

His views that most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes, that some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2 and that C02 is purely "a boon to plant life" have been described by the IPCC as “simply not true”. The Columbia Journalism Review described one of his published papers as "shameful".

In addition, his views are contradicted by Paltridge (see video 6 above) who believes that humans caused increased levels of carbon dioxide, that climate change is happening as a result, but that the effects will not be as extreme as others claim. Paltridge also happens to be the only qualified climate scientist you have quoted up until now.

So the views of your expert in video 6 and the views of your "expert" in video 9 are utterly conflicting. Who should climate change denialists believe? Paltridge or Happer?

I also found the following amusing...

"In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked the fee to be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he reached out to the Donors Trust to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in that way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer

Molyneux is a blogger.

Ho-hum.

BTW, I think I'm the only person bothering to watch this stuff - and I think everybody else also includes you.

It seems to that you appear to believe that the more not-very-credible videos you post, the more credible your argument is going to be. The opposite is the case.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

How would you know?
My "shtick", at least when it comes to responding to your posts, is popping your bubbles of FACTS and more hilariously PROOFs, hahaha, those videos, hahahaha. I'd say that I can't believe you fall for the shit in those videos, but easily, yep easily, hahahaha
I might as well try to find something intelligent to post about a ham sandwich.

“Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?”
― Walt Whitman

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Simply fact is it doesn't matter the cause of climate change because the ice is melting, within the ice is contained 90% of all naturally created C02 since the planet formed an atmosphere...

Because of this on going melting it is imperative that humans decrease and ultimately stop creating these gases as soon as possible in order to avoid the man made C02 combining with the naturally occurring C02 that is escaping from the ice melt to create what we can call a C02 squared event that will lead to run away warming and ultimately the possible extinction of life on the planet...

Conversation over, what is causing it is irrelevant the fact that it is happening forces humans to end man made green house gases to have even a chance of stopping the ice melt and its subsequent release of naturally occurring C02 stored there...

We don't end up with water world we end up with a Venus like world where nothing living exists...

sounds ideal.

_________________
that's what happens when you don't read you loose your link to higher thinking

And another part of your "shtick", is to act like you've discredited me when you clearly haven't. Because in case you don't already know, stating, "hahahahahahahaha", is not an argument. Nor is stating, "Yer boring."

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

You want some more? Well, here's some more. #10...

How Global Warming Saved The Planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3XlooigupM

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

That's just Patrick Moore again (see above)...

- Patrick Moore ("ecologist"/not a climate change researcher, "research" into climate change financed by the logging industry https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rick-moore)

He believes that CO2 is wonderful and that the more C02 we have, the better the world we be.

Amongst his other amusing beliefs is that the active ingredient of the weedkiller, Roundup, glyphosate, which the WHO described as being "probably carcinogenic", is safe enough to drink.

When actually challenged do so himself, the following exchange took place...

"Moore: Do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you.

Interviewer: You want to drink some? We have some here.

Moore: I'd be happy to actually... Not, not really, but...

Interviewer: Not really?

Moore: I know it wouldn't hurt me.

Interviewer: If you say so, I have some glyphosate.

Moore: No, I'm not stupid.

Interviewer: OK. So you… So it's dangerous, right?

Moore: No. People try to commit suicide with it and fail, fairly regularly.

Interviewer: Tell the truth. It's dangerous.

Moore: It's not dangerous to humans. No, it's not.

Interviewer: So you are ready to drink one glass of glyphosate?

Moore: No, I'm not an idiot.

Interviewer looks puzzled.

Moore: Interview me about golden rice. That's what I'm talking about.

Interviewer: Really?

Moore: OK. Then it's finished.

Interviewer: Except it's...

Moore: The interview is finished.

Interviewer: That's a good way to solve things.

Moore (getting up to leave): Yeah. You're a complete jerk."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore

Spoken like a true scientist!

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Discredit what? Your love of Trump? Your love of U2 and Journey? Your lack of understanding of science? Your predictions that never went anywhere in 5... 4... 3... blablabla? I said I pop bubbles... bubbles are empty.

Though I guess there are exceptions.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

And neither is, "blablabla."

Though, you are correct that my prediction about the USD bubble exploding is incorrect...so far.


Anyway, here's #11...

The Global Warming Hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

Video 11 contains another loony. This time, it's the Conservative politician, former shirt shop owner and non-scientist Lord Christopher Monckton. Apart from moaning about the fact that he cannot take up a seat in the House of Lords because the hereditary peerage has been abolished, Monckton made the suggestion when aids first broke out that... "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

He also claimed that "official survey after official survey had shown that homosexuals had an average of 500-1,000 partners in their sexually active lifetime, and that some had as many as 20,000."

So, I'm not sure whether he has such a great track record on statistics as he claims in your video.

He believes that CO2 levels have no effect on the atmosphere. When these views were criticized by Professor John P. Abraham, Monckton attempted to get him subject to disciplinary measures by The University of St Thomas, a claim the university rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph ... _Brenchley

His views on climate change are all debunked here...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

Stefan Molyneux seems to have an amazing talent for seeking out the truly disturbed.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

There you go again, Caputh...indulging in character assassinations and not concentrating on the information presented. Anyway, here's #12...

The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988

Not true...



The blogger Stefan Molyneux's claim in your video # 12 that the 97% consensus of scientists on climate change is a hoax is debunked here...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-per ... robust.htm

and by NASA here...
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

which quotes the following report:
"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Is anybody apart from me watching these videos?

Disco Boy - do you actually watch them before you post them?

Stefan Molyneux's getting really boring and predictable. This is the third one, now. I found his dentist comparison particularly risible.



And I hate to point out another character suicide, but it also appears that many people think that he is running a cult:
"Partly what's going on with the people on the Internet who are indoctrinated, they spend lots of hours on the computer. Videos can have them up all night for several nights in a row. Molyneux knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about, despite very little academic research. He cites this and cites that, and presents it as the whole truth. It dismantles people's sense of self and replaces it with his sense of confidence about how to fix the world." (Steven Hassan, a licensed mental health counselor with experience on cults)

The Guardian also details his attempts to seperate children from parents to join his cult.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... defoo-cult

Apparently, he does this because he thinks mothers always corrupt their children.
"If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, ... Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Mo ... an-2008-26


Find some more Garth Paltridge, at least he's got a vague idea of what he's talking about.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Actually, it's very true, as always.

Anyway, here's #13...

Professor Bob Carter - The Faux "97% Consensus" - 10th ICCC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4

_________________
"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988