JOHN BRUMMETT: At the proper time

The nation's chief pollution permission official told a television interviewer the other day that it was insensitive to talk about climate change while Floridians were suffering.

He buried his head where sand used to be.

I refer to Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. He got the job because he had been active as Oklahoma's attorney general resisting the Obama administration's "overreach," which is what Republicans call protecting the environment.

Pruitt says man's activity has little to do with whatever climate change is occurring. That's a sop to status quo energy generation and consumption. It's fear of change in the way we make money. It's conservative resistance to government regulation.

Scientists say it is empirical nonsense.

Several of them responded to the New York Times by insisting there was no more appropriate time to discuss climate change than while southeastern Texas was under water and Florida was flooded and darkened by a hurricane as broad as Texas.

In 166 years of record-keeping, 2017 is the first year in which two Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes struck the United States.

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, told the Times that scientists warning of climate change are repeatedly told they don't receive major news coverage because the effects of what they warn are so gradual that there is no "news hook."

Tides that routinely wash up higher in Miami Beach than they used to ... that's more suitable for an Al Gore documentary, or so we seem to think. Routine is not news.

Here, then, in Harvey and Irma, were two powerful news hooks for climate change. Yet the nation's EPA administrator was saying the equivalent of this logic: No one should dare talk about seat-belt safety because it would be insensitive to the family of someone recently thrown through a windshield.

Here is what most of the scientific experts say: Yes, we've had powerful hurricanes forever. And, no, we don't have empirical proof that Harvey and Irma were climate-change events. But the data that we've collected and recorded for decades reveals that atmospheric temperatures and ocean temperatures are rising in small, slow and steady increments.

That new warmth and the heightened energy from it do not increase the number of hurricanes, they say, but they will cause--and, anecdotally, seem now already to be causing--storms that generate stronger winds, span newly vast expanses, collect more moisture and move more slowly.

Harvey's hovering for days over Houston, Beaumont and Port Arthur, to the point that it was regenerating its own rainfall--case in point, they say.

A hurricane so uncommonly big it struck the lower western coast of Florida and flooded downtown Jacksonville hundreds of miles north on the eastern coast, and left two-thirds of a large state without power--case in point, they say.

Oh, please, say the climate-change scoffers. They don't have data, but they have what they call common sense and they have their own eye tests. They say:

• We have hurricanes every September. Some are worse than others.

• If the climate is changing a little, and maybe it is, a little, then nature--not mankind--is doing it. We don't need to overreact to a little sub-decimal change in the Fahrenheit reading of some distant ocean water.

• Scientists frequently get things wrong. They were forecasting storm surges of a size not achieved in Florida. It is their job to warn of worst-case scenarios. It is the media's addiction to play up those direst forecasts.

There's some truth in some of that. Some within some.

But here is what the scientists reply, if I might paraphrase in a colloquial way: We are trained in atmospheric and oceanic sciences. We apply carefully gathered data to what we know about how air and water work. Thus, we make credible predictions about unprecedented and worrisome effects.

We can look at Houston and Beaumont and Port Arthur like the rest of you. We can see rain beating down harder and longer on that one region than we've ever seen before. We can see water rising higher and over much broader expanses in that region than we've ever seen before.

Yet we hear the nation's top environmental official saying it would be "very insensitive" if we dared to suggest that people consider the anecdotal evidence they're sloshing through and boating atop.

The current president has said climate change is a hoax. He's said a lot, little of it supported by evidence, little of it sensitive and little of it credible or relevant hours later.

To listen to him and not scientists ... there's a proper time for us to ponder with great sensitivity the wisdom of that. Like now.

Otherwise, Florida will not be alone in the dark.


John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, was inducted into the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame in 2014. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.

Editorial on 09/14/2017


23cal says...

I know people who had two feet of Chinese hoax in their living room.

Posted 14 September 2017, 8:21 a.m. Suggest removal

KnuckleBall says...

Good Article John, I bet if asked the man from Oklahoma would say the Great Dust Bowl in his state in the 30s was not caused by man. If man doesn't do something soon and hopefully not too late, Mother Nature is going to make living on this rock harder and maybe impossible in the future.

Posted 14 September 2017, 8:33 a.m. Suggest removal

davidscherreysbcglobalnet says...

It was nearly 12 years till Harvey that the last major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which is the longest such period on record.
Harvey couldn’t go any further, so it just meandered, because it was blocked by high pressure in midwest.

1915 3 hurricanes hit USA two at Cat 4.

List of 3 or more hurricanes hitting USA in a year.

1852 3 hurricanes, 1854 3 hurricanes, 1860 3 hurricanes, 1861 3 hurricanes, 1869 4 hurricanes, 1870 3 hurricanes, 1871 3 hurricanes, 1879 3 hurricanes, 1880 4 hurricanes, 1854 3 hurricanes, 1882 3 hurricanes,
1886 6 hurricanes hit USA, 1887 4 hurricanes, 1881 3 hurricanes, 1893 4 hurricanes, 1896 3 hurricanes, 1898 3 hurricanes, 1906 4 hurricanes, 1909 4 hurricanes, 1913 3 hurricanes, 1915 3 hurricanes 2 at Cat 4, 1916 4 hurricanes, 1926 3 hurricanes, 1933 5 hurricanes, 1936 3 hurricanes, 1944 3 hurricanes, 1947 3 hurricanes, 1948 3 hurricanes, 1949 3 hurricanes, 1950 3 hurricanes, 1953 3 hurricanes, 1954 3 hurricanes, 1955 3 hurricanes,
1959 3 hurricanes, 1964 4 hurricanes, 1971 3 hurricanes, 1985 5 hurricanes, 1989 3 hurricanes, 1998 3 hurricanes, 1999 3 hurricanes, 2004 5 hurricanes,and for six weeks, Florida reeled under the assault of four hurricanes.

It is likely that 2017 will see a net increase in Greenland’s ice mass for the first time this century.
125,000 years ago was definitely warmer than today based on paleoclimatic data from tree rings, ice cores, sediments and other ways of examining Earth's history said NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt.
I don't think there were any automobiles 125,000 years ago.

Posted 14 September 2017, 8:53 a.m. Suggest removal

PopulistMom says...

Great column, John.

Posted 14 September 2017, 9 a.m. Suggest removal

TimberTopper says...

I think a good bit of the deny on climate change comes as a result of friends and money. He has friends with lots of money, that oil is their cash cow. Then there's the friends of friends, that coal is their cash cow. Any thinking person, that has been on this earth for any length of time knows the weather has changed in their lifetime. The men and women of science for the most part say it is due to the pollution man has put into the air. Yet the opposition says it's not. Maybe that group needs to never go to a medical doctor, as they depend on science to cure. Or maybe, it's just something in the drinking water in Oklahoma. Another good one, John.

Posted 14 September 2017, 9:08 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

"In 166 years of record-keeping...." And with that Brummett stumbles into his own logical fallacy. Climate has been happening on the Earth for literally billions of years. It's insane to think accurate conclusions can be drawn from a sample size so small (166/1,000,000,000,000). No true scientist would ever make such a claim.
It's always interesting to note the climate change cult accuses the opposition of being "science deniers" while supporting the notion a person can change the science of gender. Liberal hypocrisy truly has no bounds.

Posted 14 September 2017, 10:03 a.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

This climate change hoax is as redundant as Hillary's excuses.

Posted 14 September 2017, 10:31 a.m. Suggest removal

hah406 says...

Packman, I thought the GOP thought that the Earth was only created a few thousand years ago. I guess that is actually just the ultra-religious corner of the party? You are right that the sample size is very small. Unfortunately by the time it is large enough to analyze, there won't be anyone left alive to do it.

Posted 14 September 2017, 10:48 a.m. Suggest removal

mrcharles says...

In the cool of the evening the deity was walking [huh?] in the garden. Adam where art thou and your lovely Eve? Whatyou been doing?

The point being if the deity cant figure out where primates are hiding or what they have been doing, the most powerful being in the universe as long as it doesnt mess with iron chariots, how can mere creations of the creator, talking primates [ of course there are talking donkeys and snakes] do not have the ability to figure out climate change which we will all agree is harder to figure out than where them two creatures were hiding in the garden and/or what they been doing. [ uncle joe chirps in but the deity has the power to know everything, and see all], I remind him sea bass claims the same powers but is batting about .101.

I suggest that all the divines just use their powers and knowledge to turn dirty water into clean water, turn dirty air from clean coal to clean air, and as to the climate , making things up here kinda like San Diego wouldnt be a bad idea.

I heard tom coburn from Oklahoma has the world's biggest snowball collection.

Posted 14 September 2017, 11:09 a.m. Suggest removal

PopulistMom says...

Well, let's see. The scientists said that the earth is getting warmer and that includes ocean waters. These same scientists predicted that the warmer ocean could cause bigger monster hurricanes. This year we've gotten hit with two monster hurricanes. There just might be something to what the scientists are telling us!

Posted 14 September 2017, 11:21 a.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

Science is a liberal plot.

Posted 14 September 2017, 11:30 a.m. Suggest removal

BOLTAR says...

If you are going to deny science, do it with smoke signals instead of the Internet.

Posted 14 September 2017, 11:38 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey hah - The sample size isn't just "very small". It's absurdly small to serve any scientific purpose whatsoever and only used to falsely support a political narrative to useful idiots.
Hey amgoo and Boltar - Kind of like that liberal plot that denies the science of gender?

Posted 14 September 2017, 11:44 a.m. Suggest removal

hah406 says...

Packman, no one denies the "science of gender" i.e. XX or XY chromosomes. But you yourself have often said you can't know what another person feels. I would assert as a medical fact that the feeling and expression of gender can be in opposition to the chromosomal gender, and in fact is for some people, for reasons we don't fully understand, but likely having to do with genetics and hormonal influences in utero.

Posted 14 September 2017, 11:56 a.m. Suggest removal

RBear says...

davidcherry, once again you don't really research your points. The increase in mass in Greenland is due to greater than normal snowfall in Greenland this past year. However, the area has also experienced higher temperatures so the net effect may be an increase, but not do to slower melting.

Posted 14 September 2017, 12:52 p.m. Suggest removal

TimberTopper says...

Packy, your intelligence is showing, or the lack thereof.

Posted 14 September 2017, 2:04 p.m. Suggest removal

RBear says...

BTW davidcherry, you left a lot out of the report from the original site that spoke to the issue of snowfall. You provided ONE SENTENCE from an entire report, including the fact that testing was needed to validate the speculation. The net result was not because of a decline in warming, but an increase in snowfall.

Posted 14 September 2017, 2:33 p.m. Suggest removal

FreshAir says...

Why is this such a partisan issue? Why would it hurt for us to put systems into place to safeguard against carbon emissions and man's effect on climate? Even if you think it is minimal, how naive is to think it has ZERO effect. How silly is it to wait until every political hack and polluting company says it's OK to make changes?
Packman, tell me why it makes more sense to do nothing regarding carbon emissions? What is the downside to reducing our potential impact on the environment? Have you taken the time to ask a credible scientist your questions about sample size? Does it even matter considering that same time period there was virtually zero man-made impact? The "only used to falsely support a political narrative to useful idiots" comment is comical. You are doing the exact same thing. I'm sure you've studied this topic very little. All you're doing is using some soundbite you've heard someone else say and trying to dismiss any other POV as idiotic. Maybe you should drop the name calling and soundbites that fit your politics and try to actually learn about the subject.

Posted 14 September 2017, 2:40 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey hah - If you believe a person can arbitrarily change their gender you must also logically believe they can change their species. Science is what it is and it's not a "feeling". Stop being a science denier.
Hey Timber - And your ad hominem attack in lieu of reasoned response is showing as well. Point, game, set, match......Packman for the win.
Hey FreshAir - I never said to do nothing (see recommendation below). And yes, I've discussed the sample size point with a medical researcher who says it's laughable for legitimate scientific analysis. The problem, Fresh, is libs see "climate change" as something they can shamelessly use to gain votes of those that consider "the environment" as the single biggest issue of our time. As to carbon emissions not that long ago we were told if we only went to unleaded fuel and catalytic converters in automobiles the problem would be solved. Now we're being told we must stop driving 4 x 4 trucks and only eat eggs from cage free hens to save the planet.
One thing we can do to reduce carbon emissions is to stop going to the movies. Movies are purely entertainment and something we can all easily live without. Reckon all those Hollywood elites that tell the rest of us how to live would be good with that?

Posted 14 September 2017, 3:06 p.m. Suggest removal

Pobucker says...

"To listen to him and not scientists ... "
or to listen to you, Jon Brumet: Left Wing Propagandist, as well.
You proglibs never miss a chance to turn tragedy into political points. Always looking to reduce individual liberty using the socialist mantra, "The needs of the many..." (outweigh the rights of the few).
I am glad you used the seatbelt example, Jon. That is fine example of proglib government extorting the many States by withholding money to force compliance. (Like sanctuary cities and Fed money, you proglib hypocrites).
You meddling proglibs actually think it is GOOD for the Feds to extort the States in the seatbelt matter.
Proglibs want to protect the poor stupid pobuckers from making idiot mistakes.
It's not your responsibility, proglib busybodies. Pobuckers have a right to be stupid.
For me to move to a tent in the field and eat grass in the name of protecting Mother Earth, I will need some kind of proof that solution will work. Throwing our economy at the climate change wall to see what will stick is stupid.

Posted 14 September 2017, 3:23 p.m. Suggest removal

mrcharles says...

Po soon you will be able to partake of the deity's herbs as was ordained, do not eat the grass. I know you can if you want to , but with all the chemicals in it you might set next to someone on a bus and contaminate them.

Though po you may have a glimmer of the regressive govt, though sadly it is by your ILKS. Not only do they want to control who you have sex with but how and in what position. Now before people freak out about animals, telephones and toasters, I say adults have certain rights once they overthrew 'Elites , you know like the group running things in DC under the orangeman. Busy bodies want to tell me what to read, what to eat, smoke and what to drink, what to watch on TV [ a tool of the devil] and other social matters I am quite capable of screwing up on my own.

Sadly you forgot to add commies, everyone's source to blame if not blaming the Persian [ they are not arabbbs] devil. Some I am sure have crawled out from under the beds of your fellow worry warts and are running amok heck.

Porighties wants to protect the people [ giant corporations] to take advantage of the common man. There is no longer in effect ius primae noctus later changed to droit de seigneur, and even if it is a myth like gop economics will work, you know when you stand before the man that the rich pray on the weak. Guess that would in civilized societies be considered wrong but con[servative] men want to harken back to the good old days of killing witches, no medicine, and no cell phones to commit their wire fraud on. If you feel matters are every man for their self, I can supply you with a list of elementary schools to go to to take their milk money.

one further note to ha406 on you cant know how another feels. Question for whooper , can the deity know what it feels like to lust after a woman if you are a man, or how same sex couples feel with each other?

I do note utah had to forego individual liberty of having many wife's to join the union. I once calculated if I was a mormon that 2.6 wifes would give me a ok living, and 5.7 wifes would enable me to vacation just about every day in exotic places. What harm is there if the wives do not object for me to practice my individual liberty. Sorry septic this is just practicalities not what word you called me.

Who knows the real truth , an exxon scientist or a gop ILK who says I am not a scientist- thankfully we have other choices than pulling opinions out of thin air like thunder war g-ds of ancient supernatural believing primates.

Po you should quit rebelling against truth due to sinful pride, admit your sins and seek redemption and join the winning team of the 21st century instead of killing chickens and coming up with opinions from their entrails, or listening to sea bass or sean hannity.

Think of all the money we would save bringing back safe lead paint..

Posted 14 September 2017, 4:25 p.m. Suggest removal

CartoonDude says...

Does Brummett believe the hoax because he agrees with the scientific "consensus" (which has been all over the map during my lifetime), or because liberals are just supposed to? BTW, why does "global warming" get to stop happening for 12 years and then be blamed for the next hurricane?

Posted 14 September 2017, 4:45 p.m. Suggest removal

Pobucker says...

I will paint your words on the inside of my smoking tent, mrcharles. There is so much to ponder over, I may need many chickens and perhaps a large goose too chart the vast sea of probabilities ensconced in your missive.
We don't use livers, gizzards or hearts in our prognostications. In respect of mother earth or maybe the pilgrims, we waste not so that we want not. Some things are for eating and some things are just for looking at.

Posted 14 September 2017, 5:13 p.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

"Climate change has been happening on the Earth for literally billions of years. It's insane to think accurate conclusions can be drawn from a sample size so small (166/1,000,000,000,000). No true scientist would ever make such a claim."
1. True scientists aren't making climate claims simply on the hurricane data of the last 166 years. There are other sources of data, from glacial periods compared with inter-glacial periods for example which cover much longer periods of time.
2. You're correct that 166 years is a short data period in climate science. However, if trends are observed and those trends are accelerating during that short period of time, that would be highly significant because climate changes have generally occurred slowly over thousands of years or at least over several centuries, except under unusual conditions such as frequent large volcanic eruptions. If true climate scientists conclude that evidence suggests we should prepare for larger and more powerful hurricanes, it would be insane for us to ignore their warnings.
3. Billions of years is not 1,000,000,000,000 years, so that number seems to indicate that you're not a true scientist and you're trying to fatten your denominator.
4. Brummett didn't attempt to draw a scientific conclusion. He also didn't stumble into a new logical fallacy, but if he had, Aristotle would be proud. Brummett only cited a piece of evidence. This piece of evidence might have a flaw based on davidscherry's post regarding two Category 4 hurricanes making US landfalls in 1915, a statement which is backed by NOAA's chronological list of US hurricanes since 1951. However, both of those 1915 hurricanes had marginal wind speeds for category 4s, so Brummett's source may have categorized one or both of them as category 3s.
5. True climate scientists have much more knowledge about climate science than you and me and all other non-experts on this important subject combined. It's not particularly sane to think otherwise.

Posted 14 September 2017, 5:17 p.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

Regarding davidscherreys' statement about a 12-year lull in major hurricanes making US landfall, that doesn't mean there weren't extremely large and dangerous hurricanes making landfall elsewhere on the planet. For example during that 12-year so-called lull, in 2015 Hurricane Patricia had an extremely unusual 215 mph sustained wind speed before it weakened and made landfall in Mexico with 150 mph winds. It also had the 2nd lowest atmospheric pressure ever measured in a tropical storm. Climate scientists are aware of extreme storms like this, while most deniers aren't because storms don't get much US media attention if they don't threaten to make US landfall and because those recent, powerful storms don't show up on the selective radar of denial websites.

Posted 14 September 2017, 6:07 p.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

correction--NOAA's list of hurricanes since 1851 ...

Posted 14 September 2017, 7:49 p.m. Suggest removal

mrcharles says...

Pilgrims were nuts.

Posted 14 September 2017, 8:53 p.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

mrcharles rocks my world.

Posted 14 September 2017, 10:09 p.m. Suggest removal

JakeTidmore says...

Go to realclimate(dot)org and get the real science, real answers, and a good dose of reality and research.

Good column John. Climate deniers are more and more being seen as the purveyors of the Convenient Lie. It fits their agenda, which is more important than being factual. Mother Nature is taking their hypocrisy to the wood shed and blowing them away.

Posted 15 September 2017, 4:55 a.m. Suggest removal

RBear says...

What I always find interesting about davidcherry's "facts" is that he eliminates a LOT of context when presenting them. In the case of the Greenland ice mass, a little Googling revealed that he lifted that from a conservative blog that selectively quoted from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Had he actually read the study on the mass change, he would have discovered the real reason for the increase was not due to cooling.
As WDD noted, his information on cyclonic activity is very isolated and doesn't take into account the overall activity on our planet. It's what most conservatives seem to do when dealing with environmental issues. They focus on the tiny area around them and forget weather and the environment are global in nature. The attacks against the EPA's clean air and water activities forget that streams, rivers and wind know no state or national boundaries. What happens in one place impacts another.

Posted 15 September 2017, 5:52 a.m. Suggest removal

JakeTidmore says...

"CartoonDoofus" really likes to "argue" by using a plethora of "quotation marks." And to make matters worse, he's got a severe case of brown-nose from sniffing at the source of David Cherry's alternative facts.
If DC & CD fish like they argue, expect an empty basket as they try to practice the fine art of angling with nothing but a slender thread with a bent paper clip tied loosely to one end.
And no bait.

Posted 15 September 2017, 10:31 a.m. Suggest removal

mrcharles says...

At my PCP... told her please use all your skills and refer to science in your diagnosis & treatments. Of course she said , what kind of ignoramus ignores science for gut feelings.
I told her about you right wing ILKS. Note the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

She recommends increase in serotonin & less fox watching for EWE all cons.

Posted 15 September 2017, 11:09 a.m. Suggest removal

Pobucker says...

Fifteen minutes in the smoking tent satisfying your munchies with salty fried chicken gizzards will calm the most savage breast, mrcharles. It's not for elites.
I recommend this for both fox and cnn sycophants. Looking down from the lofty center, I see plenty of moral equivalency on both the commie and nazi extremes.

Posted 15 September 2017, 11:50 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey Whodo - All the data you mentioned is either such an absurdly small sample size as to be scoffed at by intelligent people or a comparison based on so many assumptions the conclusions, whatever they may be, have a confidence level of essentially 0. Care to try again? And yes, I did get a little carried away with my zeros.
In the spirit of Donald and Chuck and Nancy and cooperation let's say man's presence on the Earth is a real sh*tstorm and if we don't change our ways we're all gonna die in the next 1,000,000 years instead of the next 1,000,000,000 years. Which ways SPECIFICALLY, Whodo, must we change that scientists tell us will absolutely save the planet? Looking forward to a logical and rational response.

Posted 15 September 2017, 2:31 p.m. Suggest removal

Pobucker says...

Live in tents
Eat grass

Posted 15 September 2017, 4:28 p.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

Yes, Packman, what little data I presented should have a confidence level of essentially zero, and the same for whatever little climate data enters your consciousness. However, climate scientists have access to vast amounts of data, and they're infinitely better at analyzing that data than you and I are. When they publish their findings and analyses, they are subject to intense peer review, like all scientists. It's foolhardy for people to ignore science and cling to denial narratives, much like people who ignore or argue against expert medical advice and make up a more pleasant prognosis.

Posted 15 September 2017, 5:05 p.m. Suggest removal

RBear says...

Oh, but it makes Pack feel so "intelligent" quoting right wingers like Rush and others who probably have about as much smarts as gohogs. After all, didn't Trunp chastise those warning about Irma, only to flee FL himself?

Posted 15 September 2017, 6 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

H Whodo - Answer my question. Don't be a typical liberal chickensh*t.
Hey RBear - Your childish personal attack in lieu of reasoned response is quite telling. Point, game, set, match, I win, again.

Posted 15 September 2017, 7:08 p.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

Bear, I wondered how long it would take you to make a derogatory comment about me. Naturally, I wasn't disappointed.

Posted 15 September 2017, 8:05 p.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

Packman, I thought that was a rhetorical question, but I'll take it as a compliment that you were seriously asking me to tell you what we need to do to "absolutely save the planet."

Posted 15 September 2017, 8:15 p.m. Suggest removal

RBear says...

Pack, already provided the rational response in prior comments and in the past. Just hitting back at one of the kings of personal attacks in here. Just sayin'. Too much for you snowflake?
gohogs, you invite the derogatory comments. In most cases these days I just ignore your low class form of debate. But it's always good to throw in one to keep your head spinning.

Posted 16 September 2017, 7:55 a.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

little bear, You CALL yourself a Christian, that's a lie and you know it. Berating and insulting anyone, even your so-called "friends" on this site, is standard with you. You really do consider yourself an intellect when all you do is Google any comment, absolutely no original thought. I pity you and more so anyone who knows you, you must be so arrogant to be around. You're not as great as you think!

Posted 16 September 2017, 8:35 a.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

Pot, kettle.

Posted 16 September 2017, 9:06 a.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

How utterly Christ-like of you, gohogs.

Posted 16 September 2017, 11:29 a.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

amgoo: Go play somewhere, you meed relief.

Posted 16 September 2017, 1:51 p.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

How do you know what I meed?

Posted 16 September 2017, 2:38 p.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

amgoo: Meed? I figured you're in "meed" of something.

Posted 16 September 2017, 2:40 p.m. Suggest removal

ARMNAR says...

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out why you typed "meed," too.

Posted 16 September 2017, 2:58 p.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

amgoo: You are just plain stupid, girl! Look back at your previous post, I did it in jest. You can't figure anything out, poor girl. I put it in quotes.

Posted 16 September 2017, 3:18 p.m. Suggest removal

TimberTopper says...

Packy, is this just your personal opinion regarding climate change, or do you have the degrees and expertise to make a judgement call?

Posted 16 September 2017, 6:26 p.m. Suggest removal

gohogs17 says...

armnar: I'd like to apologize to you for all the nasty, hateful things I've said. Not only today, but all the past times I've been rude, petty, and downright ugly. I hope you will forgive me for it. I really feel badly about how I've treated you and I'm sorry for it.

Posted 16 September 2017, 6:35 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment