If you're a skeptic of climate change or want to educate your child at home Chris Matthews probably thinks you're an oddball. On Tuesday's Hardball, the MSNBC host egged on the former liberal Republican New Jersey governor and former EPA head Christine Todd Whitman to turn to the camera to scold all the global warming non-believers in the GOP as he urged: "Would you tell your Republican colleagues right now – look in the camera and say, 'There is climate change and we have to do something about it?'" And later on in the show Matthews stereotyped all homeschoolers as some sort of anti-social shut-ins that don't want their children to "go to public school 'cause you don't want to mix with other people."
The following exchanges were aired on the November 3 edition of Hardball:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Would you tell your Republican colleagues right now – look in the camera and say, "There is climate change and we have to do something about it?"
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Yes I would. Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Do it.
WHITMAN: Okay there is a thing called climate change. Humans don't cause it but we exacerbate a natural trend and we better start doing something about it now.
MATTHEWS: Okay. That's a Republican, by the way. Thank you Christine Todd Whitman.
...
MATTHEWS: Last question. Here's my litmus test. Are you pushing home-schooling?
CHRIS CHOCOLA, PRESIDENT CLUB FOR GROWTH: We don't, no, we, we support school choice. But that's up to-
MATTHEWS: No but home-schooling where you don't go to public school ‘cause you don't want to mix with other people. You want to keep the kids at home so you can teach them about life at home, away from the exposure of other social groups. Are you for that? Because that would be, I would consider that culturally conservative, at least.
CHOCOLA: We, we do not push home-schooling, we support school choice. We think parents are the ones that are the best in a position to make a decision about the education for their children.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Chocola I'm with you on school choice. Thank you sir, very much.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's a wonder MSNBC keeps
November 3, 2009 - 18:34 ET by bse5150It's a wonder MSNBC keeps this guy on the air. Does he say ANYTHING that gets ratings to go anywhere but South?
→ Like father, like son
November 3, 2009 - 18:39 ET by Cool ArrowJack Murtha and Chris Matthews sure do show a family resemblance, don't they?
ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970
"skeptic of climate change
November 3, 2009 - 18:45 ET by notonmywatch"skeptic of climate change or want to educate your child at home Chris Matthews probably thinks you're an oddball"
Belittling opponents has less to do with what the presenter thinks, and more to do with belittling the opponent in the eyes of the viewer.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Tingle-Boy can come and
November 3, 2009 - 19:44 ET by mattmTingle-Boy can come and live up here in the frozen north for awhile and see if "climate change" means anything. He'll get a tingle when his toes freeze up.
ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970!!! LOL!
BTW - What's with this "saving jobs" BS anyway? No administration has EVER used that bogus non-statistic.
"Obama lies, employment dies." - Publius
COOL ARROW...
November 4, 2009 - 08:24 ET by danybhoyAre you saying they look like drunks? Because if you are not, I am. They both look like boozehounds.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
And that brings up the subject of
November 4, 2009 - 10:28 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIs it true that politicians come from "an alternate position"?
Were murtha and kerry both in Vietnam at the same time?
That's the only pairing that could get the IQ low enough to justify matthews.
http://gjresult.com
school choices
November 3, 2009 - 18:43 ET by KevindFAll kids should have the same school choices the Obama girls have.
→ Not quite Kevin
November 3, 2009 - 18:47 ET by Cool ArrowThe Obama girls had the choice to have an undesirable black girl removed from their school even before they spent their first day.
Their daddy pulled some strings and shut down her voucher.
Only Obama is allowed to be racist.
ACORN - creating or saving votes since 1970
If Chris Matthews is an
November 3, 2009 - 18:45 ET by ElyasIf Chris Matthews is an example of what public school education produces, then I think that would make more parents consider home-schooling.
Elyas... You got that
November 3, 2009 - 18:49 ET by bigtimerElyas...
You got that right!
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Hey
November 3, 2009 - 19:10 ET by srqvetWhoa! Eye R a Publik sckool gradu8.
Maybe if he had been home
November 3, 2009 - 18:49 ET by Hades69Maybe if he had been home schooled, he wouldn't be so gosh darned dumb!
It's of course no longer
November 3, 2009 - 18:52 ET by Radical1979It's of course no longer called "global warming" because the earth doesn't seem to be warming anymore. As far as climate change, I believe it's been proving that the climate of the earth has always been changing, long before man's activities could have caused it. This is just a big push by some idiots and some semi-idiots who have figured out how to make money and/or redistribute the wealth.
President George W. Bush cooled the Earth
November 3, 2009 - 19:14 ET by Ten7s"...the earth doesn't seem to be warming anymore..."
President George W. Bush cooled the Earth, all of the Global Warming alarmists should be swooning at his feet in admiration. Liberals are so full of 5h!t, they can't even fool themselves.
As to homeschooling, until I see EVERY single one of the Limosine Liberals' children attending inner-city schools, PROPORTIONATELY, they should keep their ignorant mouths shut.
Gee I thought Obama was so
November 3, 2009 - 19:23 ET by Radical1979Gee I thought Obama was so cool he cooled the earth, oh no, that was our economy that he cooled and continues to cool...
The more I see and hear about public the sorrier I am I didn't home school my kids. My daughter (17) said at dinner it was a shame the government had to take money from some people to help other people because otherwise no one would help them. I tried to explain that people do help one another without the government's help, but that they have expectations of those they help (that they work, attend church services etc.). She didn't get it.
crash course in civics
November 3, 2009 - 19:59 ET by Ten7sEveryone's going to get a crash course in civics over the next few years. So she'll probably 'learn the hard way'.
I'd start here:
http://www.youtube.c...
And here's a good book:
Quotations from Chairman Bill: The Best of Wm F. Buckley Jr
The left shold be very careful about slamming Bush, W.
November 4, 2009 - 10:32 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonAfter all the flack he got from Katrina, he stopped all further hurricanes from invading the Gulf.
A feat that no democrat president has ever had the courage to even try.
http://gjresult.com
The only thing Tingles
November 3, 2009 - 18:55 ET by bigtimerThe only thing Tingles belittles is himself every single time he opens his yapper and starts yapping.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Chrissie has joined Joy
November 3, 2009 - 18:58 ET by motherbeltChrissie has joined Joy Behar in the "speaks and removes all doubt" club.
mb... Bulls-Eye! 'Doubli
November 3, 2009 - 19:19 ET by bigtimermb...
Bulls-Eye!
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Tweety
November 3, 2009 - 19:02 ET by HoosierEmI think Chris Matthews has some sort of blockage of those tingles and sounds horribly tingly frustrated. He cannot control his emotions nor his outright anger at conservatives. Why? He should be dancing in the streets (that's an ugly picture, by the way) because his brother Barack is in charge and the democrats have the senate and the house.
What's up with that, do you suppose?
Sheesh
November 3, 2009 - 19:15 ET by jdlybrandIs there any doubt Matthews is a little fish with a big mouth in a small pond? But I'm sure he's a legend in his own mind!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
jdly... You hit the nail
November 3, 2009 - 19:20 ET by bigtimerjdly...
You hit the nail on the head with the 'legend in his own mind' line.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Thanks
November 3, 2009 - 20:44 ET by jdlybrandSpeak softly...and carry a big hammer! :)
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Sheesh Feesh
November 3, 2009 - 22:32 ET by matthewdeanNo doubt at all.
A Big Mouth bASS.
MD
"There is no distinctly American criminal class-except Congress."
Humm
November 3, 2009 - 19:17 ET by Joe CamelMy children attended a private Christian school. That school consistently tested about 2.5 years ahead of the public schools. They also tested EVERY student, and included those results for viewing, unlike the public schools. Secondly, one would be hard put to out do most home schooled children when it comes to ciricullium and knowledge. Bright students will excel, regardless of their environment, black, white, or brown. I will however say that the "public" school life today is a total waste of taxpayers dollars.
Joe I'm sure your kids spent
November 3, 2009 - 19:26 ET by Radical1979Joe I'm sure your kids spent more time in learning the basics and less in learning about diversity and how to feel good about themselves. Public schools should go back to teaching reading, writing, and arthimatic, at least for the first four years, and leave all the social crap out.
Wait. Chris Matthews is
November 3, 2009 - 19:23 ET by celatorWait. Chris Matthews is calling someone ELSE an oddball? Are there no mirrors in his house?
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
HOUSE OF MIRRORS...
November 4, 2009 - 08:27 ET by danybhoycelator,
There are mirrors in Matthews' house, but sadly, they are all funhouse mirrors that distort the actual reflection.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
There is climate change
November 3, 2009 - 19:29 ET by nolotrippen"There is climate change and we have to do something about it"
That's right Chris. Wear a sweater. Wear lighter clothing. Don't wear dark colors on a hot day. And don't forget the deoderant (yes, I'm looking at you Chris).
You and your Koolaiders don't even have the guts to keep calling it "Global Warming" because you know that boat pulled up to the doc in 1998. So you change the name, ala Orwell, and hope that if you are shrill enough, no one will notice.
Well, if you're really serious about "climate change," turn off those hot lights, those cameras, and especially your mic and go home -- walking all the way, of course.
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
Chris the Wide Mouth Frog
November 3, 2009 - 19:30 ET by CO2MakerChris the Wide Mouth Frog said: "But home-schooling where you don't go to public school ‘cause you don't want to mix with other people. You want to keep the kids at home so you can teach them about life at home, away from the exposure of other social groups. Are you for that? Because that would be, I would consider that culturally conservative, at least."
Well, he's setting up home-schoolers as crypto-racists, homophobics, xenophobics, and for all we know, anti-semantic, anti-Darwin intelligent designing truthers, birthers, and deniers. You know, Republicans.
But let's suppose Chris is partly correct, that there are people who really do not want their children to be bussed across town to associate with other groups, like druggies, thugs, students with knives and guns, illiterate teachers who are protected by unions and tenure rules, and educationist who practice experimental curricula each year. You know, crackpots.
CO2 let's not forget the sex
November 3, 2009 - 19:34 ET by Radical1979CO2 let's not forget the sex education people may want to shield their kids from. Those silly people in Alameda CA may not want to teach their kindergarteners about homosexuality, that's why the public schools do it.
Lest we forget...
November 4, 2009 - 07:43 ET by CCsteelcityHas is not occured to Tingles that we now have a "czar" in control of our education system and school safety that is a well known gay rights activist and gay porno expert? Who would want to have a child in school with support like that.
"But a constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams
Now?.....Now
November 3, 2009 - 19:32 ET by acumenWHITMAN: "Okay there is a thing called climate change. Humans don't cause it but we exacerbate a natural trend and we better start doing something about it now."
Now? Now that the world has been cooling for the past decade with the Earth cooling .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006? Or is Christine suggesting humans did not exacerbate that particular natural trend?
Acumen - display some acumen and recognize charlatans
November 3, 2009 - 19:56 ET by 007memoAcumen - display some acumen and recognize charlatans.
Your link is to disjointed, convoluted psuedo-science. How about a real source of information.
BTW, that link itself links to Senator Inhofe's 700 climate change denying scientists - Inhofe and his 700 "Scientists" are flat earthers.
† So memo
November 3, 2009 - 21:38 ET by RESTLESS 1You are just going to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and say "Na na na, I can't hear you"? Or do you want to discourse productively on the matter?
And, what does peer review prove? Hansen has admitted to manipulations and incorrect data in his "peer reviewed" models. Yet, they are still wrong.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Basic critical thinking skills needed
November 3, 2009 - 23:52 ET by UnsaneConsidering how much lip-service you pay to source evaluation, you really have no business calling out anyone else on their links.
BTW, that link itself links to Senator Inhofe's 700 climate change denying scientists - Inhofe and his 700 "Scientists" are flat earthers. Yeah, climate is constantly changing. Why did you Statist/Socialists abandon the term "global warming" and switch it to the laughably ambiguous "climate change"? Let me answer for you: because you, like the rest of your fellow Statist/Socialists, could care less about the science. You want to blame any and every bad storm or hot day on capitalism in your bid to strangle the world's most powerful and advanced economy.
By the way, just shouting that certain scientists are "flat earthers" without proper backing is yet again reflective of your intellectual bankruptcy and your penchant for name-calling. Neither are substitutes for debate, but then, I suspect you are a bit too petulant to see that.
Time for you to be a critical thinker and answer some very basic, simple questions, all on your own.
1) If global warming - oh, I mean, "climate change" - is supposed to be solved by the Kyoto Protocol, why is China and India, among others, exempt from it? Is Chinese and Indian pollution (among others) more beneficial to the environment than U.S. pollution?
2) I kept hearing in 1988 how we only had 20-30 more years to do something about global warming. It's 2009. Why am I still hearing that we have 20-30 years to do something?
3) In 2005, we had so many named storms that we had to dip into the Greek alphabet for storm names for the first time ever. This hurricane season was a dud. According to you Statist/Socialists, who cannot wait to turn science into dogma (which is then the death of science), each year is supposed to be progressively worse as global warming progresses. Can you explain why this hurricane season is such a dud?
4) Exit Glacier, just north of Seward, AK, has retreated mightily - since 1780. What man-made activity was causing Exit Glacier to retreat in 1780?
5) Why has the world record high temperature not been broken since 1922?
6) Explain why it snowed in areas south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004. San Antonio itself rarely gets snow; statistically, it happens once every 3-4 years but people who live there know that decades can pass between snow storms. According to you global warming religionists, that isn't supposed to happen. The way I see it, in a warming environment, events such as this are supposed to become rarer. Oh, and there was a major ice storm in San Antonio in January 2007.
7) Why did it snow in Baghdad and environs for the first time in many decades in January 2008? Why did it snow in Buenos Aires in 2007 (IIRC) for the first time in 89 years? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in 2006, another locality where it rarely snows?
8) France gets 78% of its energy from nuclear reactors. This according to the World Almanac and Book of Facts. How come this off-the-shelf green technology is not ever mentioned by the Statist/Socialist global warming religionists as a possible solution, if it is all about maintaining economic growth and high standards of living while being conservationist-minded?
9) The ice washed ashore in July/August 2004 at Barrow, AK. When this happens this is a sign that the ice pack is getting ready to expand once more as it does seasonally. How come this happened, and happened so early, if this global warming thing is really happening?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Just my opinion..
November 4, 2009 - 07:50 ET by CCsteelcityGreat points Unsane - but just one more point from a christian perspective. By biblical prophecy and theology it speaks of occurances of temperatures and weather in places it never had been before. Tornados, hurricanes, floods, snows... you name it, it's happening. The signs of the Tribulation are among us. Get ready for the rapture!
"But a constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams
I don't think this will work
November 4, 2009 - 15:09 ET by UnsaneNo offense, but a Christian perspective is not going to fly with these Statist/Socialists. You could try it, but it is going to fly over a lot of heads.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Way over my head, unsane, in fact to the moon.
November 4, 2009 - 17:45 ET by 007memoWay over my head, unsane, in fact, to the moon.
Let's just throw away the science books and go with CCSteel's interpretation of Christian prophecy. Or should we have a few million other Christians weigh in with their own interpretations and seek a consensus? Nah, I imagine that exercise would start a Holy War.
Flat earthers?
November 3, 2009 - 23:58 ET by MightyMouthThe strawmen of strawmen! You lose moron!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Not only that MM
November 4, 2009 - 09:11 ET by general companyBut it's not flat, its lumpy
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Restless, et al-A link to a right wing opinion site ain't facts
November 4, 2009 - 00:29 ET by 007memoRestless, et al - A link to a right wing opinion sight ain't facts.
Acumen linked to a nutty right wing opinion site as a source for facts on Climate Change. Isn't there a minimum standard you have for the "facts" that you present to support your argument?
The jury is not out on Climate Change science. Where do you get your information that it is? How about a link. Once again, keep in mind that opinion sites don't count.
The US Senate has Inhofe as a Climate Change denier, but I can't think of any other Senators. I guess there are a few others, but not many, so how about naming them. In your search, you'll pretty much find that even Republican politicians aren't denying Climate Change Science anymore. So why are there still so many flat earthers out there?
For our miserable, extremely angry Statist/Socialist
November 4, 2009 - 01:46 ET by UnsaneRestless, et al - A link to a right wing opinion sight ain't facts Says he who links to Media Matters for "proof" that Rush Limbaugh is a racist (because that sure as all hell beats out explaining James Golden and confronting Rush Limbaugh's arguments squarely.
The jury is not out on Climate Change science. Um, yes it is. The day the jury stops being out on this or just about anything else is the day science dies. But you don't care about the science. You only care about strangling the world's most powerful and advanced economy to the point where everyone is as miserable as you are.
By the way, why do you and the rest of you global warming religionists, who so ache to turn science into dogma, keep calling global warming "climate change" now? Could it be because you want to blame any bad weather day whatseover on capitalism/ Could it be you want to use any bad weather day as a vehicle with which to pursue your Statist/Socialist agenda?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
memo
November 5, 2009 - 00:34 ET by RESTLESS 1I could just as easily say that IPCC's website and realclimate.org are left wing opinion sites. We all know Hansen is a clown, and has manipulated data, left out data, and basically made worthless models with worthless data. If you follow the money, you'll see why.
The question you have to ask yourself is: "Why hasn't observed data been congruous with hansen's modeled data?".
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Except realclimate.org links to many Scientific Societies, restl
November 6, 2009 - 13:42 ET by 007memoRestless says, "I could just as easily say that IPCC's website and realclimate.org are left wing opinion sites."
Except that realclimate.org links to many Scientific Societies, restless, as well as US Governement agencies, etc, etc. That page I linked to was a links page to those various sources of information, none of which have anything to do with realclimate.org or their so called opinions.
And yes you could also say that the IPCC website is a left wing opinion site, and many of the like minded people here on this site would agree with you, but that is not a universally accepted opinion. The IPCC is demonized by the far right wing, so in keeping with that far right wing meme, you dismis their actual science as opinion since it fits neatly with your political bias.
But all of this is beside the point. I linked to realclimate.org since it saved me from the laborious task of individually listing all those links myself. By doing so, I apparently allowed you the opportunity to post your ad hominum attack of all those perfectly legitimate Scientific Societies and US Government Agencies that are linked to by realclimate.org on their site.
But, restless, what about all those other sources of Scientific research. Are all of them dismissed as left wing opinion? And if so, what scientific society or US Government source do you cite as supporting your position?
And which of these
November 6, 2009 - 14:02 ET by NL207And which of these 'scientific' bodies linked by realclimate.org are actually independent of the realclimate editors? I'd say just about none.
Let's start by ruling out NASA/GISS. Realclimate's principals include Gavin Schmidt, Hansen's heir apparent at GISS.
You gotta give up on the logical fallacies nl207.
November 6, 2009 - 15:11 ET by 007memoYou gotta give up on the logical fallacies nl207.
My new mantra is going to be about logical fallacies.
But besides that, nl207. None of "these 'scientific' societies are independent of the realclimate editors"? You really don't believe that right? Your just playing a silly little game, right?
First though, it's George Soros who controls realclimate.org, then realclimate.org controls all of these scientific societies. Man, that is a grand conspiracy. Really, all of these?:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections, Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
There is no chance for a logical argument with those of you that deny simple facts, and instead subscribe to grand conspiracy theories.
I said nothing about Soros
November 9, 2009 - 10:02 ET by NL207I said nothing about Soros or any conspiracy! That's you projecting. Projection: a property of the delusional.
What I did say was the organization you cited has an agenda and the 'corroborating opinion' you refer to are not independent of the authors of realclimate.org, meaning you have not provided any independent support for yopur arguments.
Lets looks at that list of yours.
The AAAS is not a purely scientific body. It permits and has lay members: "Membership in AAAS is open to all individuals who support the goals and objectives of the Association " Its goals are not purely scientific: "To advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." In particular: "Provide a voice for science on societal issues" and "Promote the responsible use of science in public policy" are clearly political in nature.
The ACS is similar. Its membership rules also permit lay members. Its mission is also not purely scientific. "ACS is a congressionally chartered independent membership organization " There could not be a political component here, could there?
The upshot here is that everyone of these "scientific bodies" contains a political element.
Now, exactly who writes these 'policy statements' these bodies publish? A policy committee does, usually about 5 'interested' members of the organization. Moreover, these statements are not voted on by the rank-and-file membership of these organizations. Most of the membership do not even know what is in these policy statements.
The upshot here is that these 'endoresements' of AGW theory by these various 'scientific bodies' are often at odds with the views of a majority of their scientist membership. Nowhere can this be more clearly seen than in the AMS.
Earth to Global Warming Deniers - It's getting hot around here
November 3, 2009 - 19:33 ET by 007memoWho is it that says the earth is getting cooler and not warmer? Post your sources - can't wait to see.
And Whitman does as Matthews asks and smacks the flat earthers over global warming denial:
"WHITMAN: Okay there is a thing called climate change. Humans don't cause it but we exacerbate a natural trend and we better start doing something about it now."
Look Up!
November 3, 2009 - 19:41 ET by saw the lightCheck out acumen's post above!
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama to "Joe the Plumber"
What????
November 3, 2009 - 19:51 ET by motherbeltYou want him/her to actually read a couple of comments before shooting off his/her mouth?
Sheesh!
Reading
November 3, 2009 - 20:01 ET by saw the lightYou'd think I'd learn after over three years here!
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama to "Joe the Plumber"
MB...
November 3, 2009 - 22:47 ET by B-townGiantIT'S mouth.
A troll is neither male or female. It is simply a squat, dumpy pile of excrement. It has no soul, no brain, no function other than to stink up the joint.
Best leave them to their dark bathrooms, porno mags, and auto-erotic fascination of Obumble.
Saw the light, and it's a link to a pretty dim bulb.
November 3, 2009 - 20:00 ET by 007memoI saw the light, and it's a link to a pretty dim bulb.
Acumen didn't disappoint me with the link to the flat earther site. Now how about a link to a peer reviewed scientific analysis.
There's a terrific new book
November 3, 2009 - 20:34 ET by nolotrippenThere's a terrific new book out, but you'll actually have to buy it and read it. Or buy one of the other books listed in the same area on Amazon. Of course, you could just read the negative reviews and ignore the positive reviews and feel like you've done your homework:
http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/1589794729/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=ICUL7YM9QFXR7&colid=1QPEQSS41SDPU
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
peer review: idiot opens his mouth >> out pops idiot saying.
November 7, 2009 - 00:20 ET by JWF007idiot: Who is it that says the earth is getting cooler and not warmer? Post your sources - can't wait to see.
007idiot: Now how about a link to a peer reviewed scientific analysis.
It does not take a peer reviewed scientific analysis for someone to go out day after day and take readings off a thermometer. Idiot.
Just like it does not take a peer reviewed scientific analysis to look at a satellite and see a hurricane is approaching. Idiot.
Nor does it take a peer reviewed scientific analysis to know 007memo is an idiot.
But you shall have it
November 7, 2009 - 00:32 ET by general companyNor does it take a peer reviewed scientific analysis to know 007memo is an idiot.
I have reviewed and also concur.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I concur, we now have a concensus
November 7, 2009 - 15:34 ET by upcountrywaterA concensus is pure science in the 007 greenworld.
State controlled health care ! music video.
Actually, by not buying
November 3, 2009 - 19:46 ET by fitzfongActually, by not buying into the garbage "science" behind "Global Warming"/"Climate Change", I am not a "flat earther" or "denier"...you are an economic literacy denier.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
fitzfong, flat earthers call GW/CC "garbage science".
November 3, 2009 - 20:36 ET by 007memofitzfong, flat earthers call GW/CC "garbage science".
What's logical to the flat earthers is the premise that the entire world scientific community is in a grand conspiracy to promote GW/CC.
And the reason they promote this grand conspiracy? I'm not quite sure but it's for some reason that's perfectly logical to them. Can anyone enlighten me?
BTW. What is an "economic literacy denier."?
The entire world scientific community?
November 3, 2009 - 22:49 ET by B-townGiantReally?
Your source? And no, troll, Wiki does not count.
Good luck. See you...oh, never.
Read it and weep, B-town. Now post your GW/CC denial links
November 4, 2009 - 02:27 ET by 007memoRead it and weep, B-town. Now post your GW/CC denial links.
And no, right wing "opinion" sites don't count.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
November 4, 2009 - 12:18 ET by B-townGiantThe "Union of Concerned Scientists" website? Is this not the group supported financially by Soros?
Are you f***ing kidding me?
You are such a loser. How is this site any different than the sites acumen posted above? They are not! They both have an agenda! When are you going to learn that just because you are stupid enough to believe it DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!!!
And that's the point. The science is not settled. The debate is not over. There is "consensus" on both sides. But, I have yet to see any climate change skeptic scientists have to come out and say, "Ooops, we goofed on the data input...sorry!"
Troll, go back to your closet and your kiddie porn.
Emphasis on the word "Scientist", B-Town
November 4, 2009 - 19:03 ET by 007memoNearly all of the links on the page aren't simply to a lone scientist's claims, but rather to Scientific Associations and Societies, and National Science Academies, etc.
You ask about the Union of Concerned Scientist; "Is this not the group supported financially by Soros?" Don't know and don't care since it just doesn't matter. The organization has been around since 1969. Your argumentum ad hominem will only work with the non compus mentus. Ha, Ha.
Here's one link from the page to a letter dated October 21, 2009, to US Senators which is signed by the below listed scientific societies. The first two paragraphs read in part:
"As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change isoccurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that thegreenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
Forthwith is the list of signers to the letter:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections, Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Invoking George Soros' name is pretty weak amidst the weight of so many scientific societies. But, have at it B-town.
I'm waiting for your refutation of the facts, b-town
November 6, 2009 - 13:56 ET by 007memoI'm waiting for your refutation of the facts, b-town.
Refute the consensus opinion of these Associations and Societies:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections, Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
Sure, B-town you can find a scientist who is a member of one of these societies to refute the science, but in the scheme of things, it just doesn't matter compared to the statement by the entire Scientific Society itself.
Actually, 007memo, flat
November 4, 2009 - 01:07 ET by fitzfongActually, 007memo, flat earthers believe that GW/CC is "settled" "science". Flat earthers believe the junk "science" promoted by Al Gore, James Hansen, the UN and other statist parasites because they lack the intelligence and the ambition to think for themselves. A cluster of Soros/UN-funded propagandists does not equate to the "entire world scientific community", but extra points given for your hyperbolic dishonesty. The reason for the promotion of this junk "science" is very simple: socialism advances virally. Create a phony crisis, use the public school system as a trojan horse to indoctrinate children and use those children to spread the misinformation around as fact...leading to parental involvement in "stopping" this mythical "crisis" and creating an artificial demand for government to "solve" the "crisis" (a "solution" that requires taxes and regulation to cripple industy and kill private sector jobs). Ultimately, the objective is to increase the power of government at the expense of individual liberty...socialism.
BTW. What is an "economic literacy denier."?
Since you were so polite in asking, I will give you an answer. "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" isn't an issue of science so much as it's an issue of economics. "Environmentalism" creates hysteria like "Global Warming" as a back door to a command-and-control economy. Socialists know that their economic policies cannot survive in the light, so they must create darkness from which their policies can creep in unnoticed. "Global Warming" is presented as "science", but it's really a vessel through which socialist economic policy is gradually delivered as fiscal and regulatory "solutions" to dubious "scientific" "problems". Someone who doesn't see "Global Warming" for what it is, a socialist Trojan Horse, is an economic illiterate, or, to borrow the language of from America's Biggest Economic Terrorist, Al Gore, an economic literacy denier.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Fitzfong - Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
November 4, 2009 - 02:13 ET by 007memoFitzfong - Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Did the scientific community manufacture the GW Science conspiracy first, which the Socialist then exploited, or did the Socialist first manufacture the conspiracy for which the scientific community, obligingly, manufactured the science?
Or, perhaps were the Scientists in on the ground floor of the conspiracy right along with the Socialists?
As I understand what you purport, apparently the grandest of conspiracies is being pulled off right under our noses. As with any conspiracy theory, the first question that you must ask is this: Is it really possible for disparate groups of people to actually join together to perpetrate such a sophisticated conspiracy? Hundreds of thousands of scientists, politicians, journalists, etc, conspired together to turn the world Socialist, with that ultimate "prize" of Socialism as the powerful, binding force. Really?
Then, even if these groups were actually able to work out those insurmountable logistics, how could they keep such a conspiracy secret from the rest of the US, let alone the rest of the world? I realize they aren't keeping it a secret from you and yours, but how is it they are keeping the secret from everyone else? Is the answer that almost everyone else is in on the conspiracy?
Now you also purport this: "Ultimately, the objective is to increase the power of government at the expense of individual liberty... socialism." Is that really an "ultimate" goal that would motivate this mass of co-conspirators? Cause that's really setting the bar pretty low. You'd think they'd at least be looking to line their own pockets with a few bucks for themselves instead of giving it away like modern day Robin Hoods. At least that'd be a conspiracy I could believe in.
I will borrow the
November 4, 2009 - 14:09 ET by fitzfongI will borrow the watermelon metaphor to address your question. Like a watermelon, an "environmentalist" is green on the outside and red on the inside. Like I told you before, socialism, on its face, is unacceptable to Americans. However, socialists are determined to use whatever means necessary to shove their bankrupt ideology down our throats. Lacking the strength and the courage to do so directly, they must employ subversive means: creating phony crises, inventing straw men to hype their "effects", manipulating school children, polluting the media, engaging in crony "capitalism" partnerships with consumer products/media corporations like GE to advance statist objectives and eliminate corporate competition. Simply put, the environment is just one implement that Marxists use as a backdoor to get people to unknowingly accept socialism. Other favorite Marxist tools include: health care, public schools, gender "equality", big labor, racial differences, the elderly, children.
You'd think they'd at least be looking to line their own pockets with a few bucks for themselves instead of giving it away like modern day Robin Hoods.
How ignorant are you? They ARE lining their own pockets with more than a few bucks, and the "giving it away like modern day Robin Hoods" line is another hyperbolic myth. Jesus, what the hell do you think the whole cap-and-trade/carbon offset scam is about? Gore set up that sham organization Generation Investment Management to purchase "carbon offsets" (a theoretical commodity...a commodity of nothing) that he will sell to industries at a huge profit when said industries reach their carbon "cap" and need to produce more under this "cap-and-trade" Ponzi Scheme. The whole concept is designed to line Gore's pockets, simulataneously reducing American energy production, slowing American industry, killing American jobs and making more and more American people dependent on government.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
So Gore is a carpet bagging Capitalist Pig-not a Socialist, Fitz
November 4, 2009 - 23:35 ET by 007memoSo Gore is a carpet bagging Capitalist Pig - not actually a Socialist, Fitz. That I can buy. (What Fitz, you think I haven't heard wingnuttia railing about the huge profits that Gore stands to earn?)
But since you've determined that Gore is in it for greed, then why does he care about "simulataneously reducing American energy production, slowing American industry, killing American jobs and making more and more American people dependent on government." Why isn't he just satisfied to get rich and be done with it?Why should he bother to participate in the Grand Socialist Conspiracy? Wouldn't that be counterproductive to Gore's greedy goals.
And if Gore is just in it for the money, and that's such a bad thing, what is it that the CC/GW Deniers and Energy Industrial Complex in it for? What are their goals? Are their goals less greedy, and more honorable, than Gore's. Are they really?
First of all, your premise
November 5, 2009 - 01:02 ET by fitzfongFirst of all, your premise is garbage. Gore is not a Capitalist, he's a Marxist. Secondly, the suggestion that greed is a motivation limited solely to capitalism is false, driven either by your ignorance or your dishonesty. Socialism IS greed...the beneficiaries are fewer, and those beneficiaries receive more relative to those they pretend to be assisting. Gore's greed is for authoritarian power. Frankly, he's still bitter that he lost the 2000 Election (fair and square, by the way), and what better way to avenge your bitterness than to profit at the expense of those who rejected you? Gore's greed is not just for the money, it's for the power that he claims he was denied. Socialists/Marxists like Gore are greedy for power, for authority, for the license to interfere in others' lives.
The Energy Industrial Complex? What the hell is the "Energy Industrial Complex"? I think you've been sitting in on a few too many Noam Chomsky lectures. We, who understand "Global Warming" as the Marxist scam that it is are simply motivated by a desire to have the best lives possible for ourselves, for our families and for every American. In order for that to be possible, we need to have access to as much cheap energy as can be generated. We need cheap energy to heat and cool our homes, to transport us to and from work, to power our factories and offices, to deliver our goods and services, to cook our food, to power our televisions, to maintain light in our classrooms and libraries, to CREATE AND SUSTAIN JOBS. Eco-scams like "Climate Change" are designed to add unnecessary costs to our energy supply so that we as a nation become less productive and poorer. So, yes, our goals are far less greedy and far more honorable than those of the TERRORIST Al Gore.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Scientists, not Socialists, found global warming consensus, fitz
November 4, 2009 - 02:43 ET by 007memoScientists, not Socialists, found global warming consensus, fitz.
"A cluster of Soros/UN-funded propagandists does not equate to the "entire world scientific community", but extra points given for your hyperbolic dishonesty." And where's your proof of Soros/UN Funding of American Scientific organizationas and US Government Agencies? You said it, now prove it.
As for my proof, how about a plethora of Scientific organizations as proof, fitzfong. Even Soros can't afford to buy off an entire scientific community.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Now post your GW/CC denier, scientist links. Ironically, a cluster of right wing flat earth, denier, "opinion" sites doesn't equate to proof either, fitz.
Scientists, not Socialists??? Really??
November 4, 2009 - 04:27 ET by DoktorFrankenIt seems, 00, that your sources have a slight tilt to the Left:
Discover the Networks
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization with more than 100,000 members. Seeing its mission as building a "cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world," UCS takes public stands, purportedly based on scientific research, regarding a variety of political and health-related issues.
It opposes genetically engineered foods, condemns SUV vehicles, and proposes measures aimed at combating what it deems the imminent dangers of global warming.
It also opposes the vast majority of American foreign policy decisions, and calls for a unilateral reduction in U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpiles. UCS disseminates to lawmakers and news outlets its opinions about each of these matters, with the intent of ultimately influencing public policy.
A Union of Concerned Scientists declaration, entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," charges that the Bush administration "has continued to distort and suppress science in pursuit of its political goals — despite a plea from top U.S. scientists to restore scientific integrity to the policy-making process." According to UCS President Kevin Knobloch. "We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on." The signers of this document portrayed themselves as objective scientists with no political agenda. But in truth, over half of them were financial contributors to the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, or a variety of leftist causes. The UCS website offers visitors an online opportunity to register to vote; this service is sponsored by Working Assets.
UCS is a member of the Save Our Environment Action Center, a leftist coalition that describes itself as "a collaborative effort of the nation's most influential environmental advocacy organizations harnessing the power of the internet to increase public awareness and activism on today's most important environmental issues."
UCS has received funding from the Beldon Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Energy Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts.
JMHO, you understand.
If Saul Alinsky owned a news channel it would be MSNBC. ---- Me
Good source evaluation
November 4, 2009 - 10:29 ET by UnsaneAre you suggesting that 007memo, our hate-filled, miserable, extremely angry Statist/Socialist poster, once again has been caught not doing basic source evaluation?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uh . . .
November 4, 2009 - 21:34 ET by DoktorFranken. . . . yeah
;-)
JMHO, you understand.
If Saul Alinsky owned a news channel it would be MSNBC. ---- Me
Insane/Unsane, the jokes still on you.
November 5, 2009 - 00:09 ET by 007memoInsane/Unsane, the jokes still on you.
As I admonished one of your cohorts earlier, your argumentum ad hominem will only work with the non compus mentus.
As with your ad homin attack on Media Matters, where you denied them as a legitimate factual source, despite their posting exact transcripts, along with the actual recordings in his own words, in complete context no less, of Limbaugh's Racist, Race Baiting rants, you posit another ad hominem attack on my "source evaluation". Give it up, admit when your wrong and let's move on.
I'm waiting, unsane. Address your ad hominem attacks of MM.
November 6, 2009 - 13:17 ET by 007memoI'm waiting, unsane. Address your ad hominem attacks on Media Matters.
I've called you on this many times. It's time for you to explain yourself.
Despite MM posting exact transcripts and recordings from Limbaugh's shows, you attack my "source evaluation".
Apparently, your logical fallacy is that MM is far left liberal so, what is it again - these aren't Limbaugh's exact words?
If we can agree what constitutes ad hominem agruments, and eliminate them from the discussion, perhaps we can get somewhere.
In refuting what I say here, or in defense of your arguments, refrain from attacking what I supposedly do. We'll set aside for the moment what I expect will be your assertion that I do the same also, okay, done. Let's stick to one subject at a time without heading off on several tangents.
double post
November 6, 2009 - 14:01 ET by 007memodouble post
And Soros . . . .
November 4, 2009 - 04:33 ET by DoktorFranken. . . influenced an entire nation's economy. What are a measley group of Leftists ''scientists'' to him after affecting all of Great Britain? And Soros is ''connected'' to so many groups and organizations it would take a few hours to track all of them down.
Double Zero, you are just going to have to try harder next time. Stay away from the Dark Side for a couple of weeks to decompress.
JMHO, you understand.
If Saul Alinsky owned a news channel it would be MSNBC. ---- Me
Not to go off on a George Soros tangent, Doctor F, but...
November 5, 2009 - 00:13 ET by 007memoNot to go off on a George Soros tangent, Doctor F, but... I know next to nothing about Soros, other than him being a favorite boogeyman of the far right wingers.
Soros is irrelevent except as red meat thrown to the far right masses.
Consensus, the creature of politics and parliaments
November 4, 2009 - 10:27 ET by UnsaneScientists, not Socialists, found global warming consensus, fitz. Consensus is the creature of politics and parliaments, not science.
When I am going through a pack of dark chocolate M&Ms - my favorite - and I am left with 2 red ones and 2 green ones, I do not go out and seek a consensus to determine how many M&Ms I have left. The answer is pretty obvious that I have four left.
Consensus was and is likewise not sought for other scientific discoveries. When Galileo pointed a telescope upward, for instance, and saw the moons Ganymede, Callisto, Europa and Io orbiting Jupiter, he did not go out and seek a consensus as to what he saw. He knew what he saw, and other scientists verified this discovery to confirm its validity.
Likewise you link to groups of scientific organizations is crap. Group-think is a p***-poor way to conduct science. Sure, many groups of scientists all believed firmly in the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. And they did, for 2500 years. And every single last one of them was dead wrong.
But again, you could positively care less about science. This theory is a great vehicle for you and your fellow Statist/Socialists to dismantle the world's most powerful and advanced economy, which is what you want to do above all else. You are a hate-filled, miserable, extremely angry person, and desperately need everyone to wallow in your misery. I would love to know what it feels like to hate everything one sees, to be miserable all of the time, and to be perpetually pissed off at everything. Because such is foreign to me. Maybe you need less Statism/Socialism and more professional help. Because being constantly miserable, angry and hateful is not healthy.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yet all the while the Scientific Community promotes the Consensu
November 5, 2009 - 00:17 ET by 007memoYet all the while the Scientific Community promotes the Consensus on GW/CC Science, unsane.
But they must just be the Socialist scientists.
What consensus? There
November 5, 2009 - 11:50 ET by NL207What consensus?
There is growing opposition to this theory within the the climate science community. There has always been widespread doubt in the scientific community at large. The most recent evidence is contradicting these alarmist predictions.
Most importantly, the predictions of the alarmists past and present have been wrong. There is no reason to believe their future prediction will not continue to be wrong. The linked graph clearly shows observed warming over the last two decades has been tracking the MINIMUM warming scenario predicted. Moereover, this result is a confirmation of theoretical physical estimates of Human induced warming made back in the 1970's when this question was first raised that a double of CO2 over preindustrial levels would leat to approximatel a 1 degree C warming of earth's climate.
There is no reason for an alarm.
No consensus if One Associate Professor is a GW/CC Denier,nl207?
November 6, 2009 - 00:21 ET by 007memoNo consensus if One Associate Professor is a GW/CC Denier, nl207???
Your link is to Roger Pielke, Jr. an associate professor of environmental studies.
So, you conclude that since a blogger posting from his mother's basement contradicts scientific community consensus, and that's all the "facts" you need? And he's an associate professor no less!
Oh well, you showed me.
Thank you for tacitly
November 6, 2009 - 14:16 ET by NL207Thank you for tacitly conceding my point that the alarmist predictions are wrong. Let's go one step further. Since we have now established that the Alarmists who claim the Earth will warm 5 degrees C by the end of the century are full of hogwash, we can focus on the question of whether the Human contribution to climate change is large enough to be of any concern or, is in fact negligible when compared with the natural variations witnessed over the last few hundred thousand years of geologic history.
These are those latter variations. They look like -10.0 to +5.0 degrees C. If humans might one day contribute 1.0 degree C as seems likely based on present data, that is not large compared to nature. Indeed, some might see it as entirely beneficial in the context of preventing a recurrence of the -10.0 degree number above.
If you think Roger Pielke is the only skeptical scientist, then you are a pitiful researcher.
Your off on too many tangents, nl207.
November 6, 2009 - 15:39 ET by 007memoYou're off on too many tangents, nl207.
And although I never "tacitly conceding (your) point that the alarmist predictions are wrong", it doesn't mean I don't find many predictions about climate change alarmist. But that's a tangential discussion.
"If you think Roger Pielke is the only skeptical scientist, then you are a pitiful researcher." Well I don't believe Pielke is the only skeptic, he's simply the only one you refer to - and no one else here at NB has ever been able to refer me to any other Societies or Associations of skeptical scientists. I'm beginning to think there just aren't any. So use your masterful research abilities and school me on that massive group of scientist that refute the scientific communities consensus on Global Warming and Climate Change Science.
I will be fascinated to learn what you come up with.
Hey, nl207, DBO uses Pielke as his source also
November 6, 2009 - 15:59 ET by 007memoHey, nl207, DBO uses Pielke as his source also.
What do you know.
There's gotta be some other sccientist out there. I know there's that one MIT scientist denier, everyone uses him. I'm surprised he hasn't been quoted here at NB. He sure trumps Pielke for credibility.
The first organization on
November 4, 2009 - 13:21 ET by fitzfongThe first organization on your propagandist link is the IPCC...a UN operation. You've killed your own weak case with your own link. Next.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Another logical fallacy, fitzfong.
November 6, 2009 - 00:26 ET by 007memoAnother logical fallacy, fitzfong.
Even if the IPCC weren't the experts that they are, the long list of Scientific Societies and US Government agencies provide the overwhelming evidence to support the universal scientific consensus on GW/CC.
And as far as the IPCC is concerned, it's solely wingnuttia that doesn't accept them as the experts that they are.
Another lazy, inept,
November 6, 2009 - 12:57 ET by fitzfongAnother lazy, inept, completely dishonest conclusion defecated by 007memo. Just because you claim that the IPCC - which is, IN FACT, the "Global Warming" propaganda wing of the corrupt, discredited UN - is a collection of "experts", doesn't make it so. You have no credibility, whatsoever. The fact that you are reduced to referring to those who don't buy your unsupportable, UN-fueled Marxist propaganda as "wingnuts", simply illustrates that you've reached your intellectual dead end.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Look up "logical fallacy" Fitz, then get back to me.
November 6, 2009 - 14:05 ET by 007memoLook up "logical fallacy" Fitz, then get back to me, please.
I know what logical
November 6, 2009 - 14:23 ET by fitzfongI know what logical fallacies are: your posts are littered with them.
Better yet, instead of wasting bandwidth with fake homework assignments and other non sequiturs designed to mask your obvious ignorance, why don't you break open an elementary economics textbook and educate yourself? This way, you might learn something of value and stop being such a bountiful source of ridicule.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
You know what logical fallacies are, but you persist in using
November 6, 2009 - 15:51 ET by 007memoYou know what logical fallacies are, but you persist in using them, fitzfong.
I have to refer you back to exactly what I said about your logical fallacy: Even if the IPCC weren't the experts that they are, the long list of Scientific Societies and US Government agencies provide the overwhelming evidence to support the universal scientific consensus on GW/CC.
So, we'll leave out the IPCC, since you use them to dismiss the remainder of the world scientific community (cause if the IPCC is evil, all scientists are evil - your logical fallacy) . So what about the rest of the scientific community - and in your answer don't invoke the IPCC.
You and your
November 6, 2009 - 16:39 ET by fitzfongYou and your fact-challenged, rhetorically hyperbolic posts have reached new depths of stupidity and dishonesty. The IPCC does not represent all scientists, it represents the groupthink of a community of UN-supported "scientists". Your claim of a logical fallacy is therefore fallacious.
And by the way, your cherry-picking of a handful of like-minded individuals and groupthink organizations as somehow representative of the "rest of the scientific community" is embarrassing for you.
The problem you have is that you're insistent on portraying scientific opinions as facts. You choose to believe people in the scientific community who preach of "Man-made" "Global Warming", I believe those in the scientific community who preach otherwise. The problem is, you cannot produce sufficient proof that "Global Warming" is a crisis that must be addressed by the regressive social and economic policies advocated by your "experts", so your only tool is a dishonest position that your ideological think-alikes constitute not just a consensus of scientific thought, but represent indisputable scientific fact...and that those who think otherwise are to be marginalized as "deniers", "outliers", "wingnuts" or some other substance-free pejorative. The great frustration that you have is that you cannot convince people of your position, so you must employ any means necessary to ramrod your ideology down our throats. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than creating a straw man argument based on the phony notion that your "experts" are more credible than mine (or that they're credible at all). Facts are facts, and unfortunately for you, you don't have any.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Name my logical falacies, fitz
November 6, 2009 - 16:49 ET by 007memoName my logical falacies, fitz.
I'd like to see the list.
Fallacies? Are you
November 6, 2009 - 17:30 ET by fitzfongFallacies? Are you joking? Where does one begin? Perhaps your claim that the IPCC is representative of all scientists? Your mockery of domestic drilling while simultaneously claiming to support "energy independence"? Your accusation of other's economic "simplicity" when you have thus far failed to grasp even basic economics?
And that's not even taking into account the fact that you parrot the conclusions made by studies that you haven't produced (e.g. this Bush Administration/"oil speculator" report)...substituting the purported conclusions for your own critical thought.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Khabibullo Abdusamatov
November 4, 2009 - 09:10 ET by danboKhabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age
Drs Tim Ball and Tom Harris.
Shall I go on?
After all we have this.
Back in the 60's you could add my anthropology, geography and geology professors. Earth has a record of cold. And it doesn't require man.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
You make broad claims of
November 9, 2009 - 10:37 ET by NL207You make broad claims of scientific authority yet I don't see any sources from you. Post yours. Peer-reviewed only, thank you.
Christine Todd Whitman
November 3, 2009 - 19:39 ET by Thinking.ManAnother hyphenated RINO that needs to sent to the taxidermist.
She also gave a pretty fence sitting answer (she is a RINO so not surprising) but it seemed to fly over the drunks head.
... Humans don't cause it (yeah it's called the seasons and longer term natural climate cycling)
...but we excacerbate it... Thanks Christine, nice non-answer
As far as homeschooling, yeah Mathews is a dullard who needs a little schooling himself, which is coming in 2010.
Think for yourself, thinking man. Whitman was very specific.
November 3, 2009 - 20:15 ET by 007memo"...but we excacerbate it... Thanks Christine, nice non-answer "
Think for yourself, thinking man - when you can't believe your lying eyes... Whitman was very specific with her answers - she clearly states in reference to climate change, ya know, "we exacerbate it".
And in response to Mathews other question, she was also unequivocal:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Would you tell your Republican colleagues right now – look in the camera and say, "There is climate change and we have to do something about it?"
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Yes I would. Absolutely.
Hardly what you can categorize as non-answers, thinking man.
Think man, think!
Non-answer indeed
November 4, 2009 - 00:06 ET by UnsaneCHRIS MATTHEWS: Would you tell your Republican colleagues right now – look in the camera and say, "There is climate change and we have to do something about it?"
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Yes I would. Absolutely.
Sweetie, my intellectually bankrupt young man who seems to believe that being extremely angry 25/8 is somehow a substitute for intellectual discourse...this is very much a non-answer, the very definition of vagueness. "Do something?" OK. What?
Every last one of you Statist/Socialists and golbal warming religionists and dogmatists always love to whine that "we need to do something". When confronted and asked once and for all what do we need to do, either you start crying petulantly or you are all silent.
Therefore, agreeing to "do something" is a non-answer.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The logic of deniers, unsane.
November 4, 2009 - 00:40 ET by 007memoThe logic of deniers, unsane. I'm trying to understand.
So, what is it that Whitman said, or didn't say? I'm so confused - not about what Whitman said, but about what the heck you believe she said.
Explain to me then, in your own words, what you believe Whitman's stand is on GW/CC.
For our petulant, miserable, name-calling Statist/Socialist
November 4, 2009 - 01:56 ET by UnsaneConstantly name-calling, jumping up and down like a petulant little boy, screaming "DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER! DENIER!" is not debate. There is nothing to be denied, because the theory of global warming is just that, a theory. It may - or may not - be happening, and we do not know why or how it is happening. Pure and simple.
Anyways, good to see you are reading impaired. Whitman said that we need to "do something" about global warming. OK. I need to do something about...let me pick a chore...my laundry. I need to do something about...changing my truck's oil. I need to do something about...(fill in the blank). WHAT?
Tell me, Miss Whitman...or better, YOU can tell me...you constantly whine we need to "do something". Do WHAT?
Do you understand English as conveyed in Latin letters?
I answer your questions when you man up and answer mine.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So many questions, so little time, unsane.
November 4, 2009 - 03:19 ET by 007memo"I answer your questions when you man up and answer mine."
So many questions, so little time, unsane. You do go off on many tangents, unsane, it's tough to keep up. I will answer this one "YOU can tell me...you constantly whine we need to "do something". Do WHAT?"
The simple answer is that we need to set a goal for energy independence. The benefits to our economy, security and environment would be manyfold.
Here are what specifics look like
November 4, 2009 - 10:43 ET by UnsaneThe simple answer is that we need to set a goal for energy independence. The benefits to our economy, security and environment would be manyfold. More vagueness from you. Not a shock.
I ask you what we should do about "global warming". You come back with an economic argument about "energy independence". And yet, you whine about me going off on tangents?
You really cannot learn to stop being a hypocrite and stop accsuing people of what you routinely do, can you?
In my questions about global warming you seem fit to ignore, I asked about France. France is a nation that has embarked on a nuclear program since 1974. As a result of this, it gets 78% of its energy from nuclear power. Not to mention it lacks something the United States and Finland has: a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste (although France does lots of reprocessing of its waste and that of other countries).
Nuclear power is about as green as it gets, and it is getting safer all the time. Plants are being designed with features which will cause them to automatically shut down in the case of accidents. They are expensive to build but cheap to run. Their emissions - for those of you who subscribe to the religion of global warming - are practically nil. Interestingly, I have yet to meet a global warming religionist who wants this done - they'd rather have us waste our time and money with wind and solar. Those latter technologies will be great on a much smaller scale. But you still need to create a great amount of energy - more than wind and solar can provide. Enter nuclear reactors, and no global warming religionist will dare consider them.
If we were to do that, and lift sugar subsidies on U.S. producers of sugar (and instead have them use sugar as a feedstock for ethanol, as it is a superior feedstock for ethanol than corn - just as Brazil), and take advantage of our coal supplies (America is the Saudi Arabia of coal) and our oil shale supplies and drill in AK and elsewhere for oil and natural gas - I would submit you will have a cleaner environment and achieve energy independence. But I see you advocating none of these things - just screaming and shrieking about your beloved theory, about how everyone who does not believe in your theory is stuck in the Middle Ages (also demonstrating your penchant for insulting people and belittling people).
I, on the other hand, just went into specifics, something you have repeatedly demonstrated you have no interest in doing, because insulting, name-calling, and shrieking, and posting links you do not take one second to properly evaluate are much easier activities for you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I will respond when I have a little time, unsane.
November 6, 2009 - 02:13 ET by 007memoI will respond when I have a little time, unsane, it's 2 am.
Interestingly, you attribute many opinions and beliefs to me, that I have never displayed to you anywhere on this site. You assume many, many things about me, all of them stereotypes, but you actually have no idea what I think. Stand by.
In the meantime, please read my post. I'm curious to hear your response:
WOW, dbo, Even the Bush Administration isn't a credible source!
November 6, 2009 - 01:54 ET by 007memo
Good grief oo7
November 4, 2009 - 10:48 ET by general companyThe simple answer is that we need to set a goal for energy independence.
Good greif, if this is your suggstion, I guess I will let you in on a little secret. Aint happening under this Admin
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
yet...
November 4, 2009 - 11:05 ET by Unsane...yet 007memo slavishly worships His Majesty The Shahinshah.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And he runs around here
November 4, 2009 - 12:28 ET by general companyCalling everyone else a flat earthier. A walking contradiction
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
No, General, "Aint happening under this Admin"
November 5, 2009 - 01:42 ET by 007memoNo, General, it "Aint happening under this Admin" either.
We'll see how hard they try, but they have the Republican party of NO to contend with, along with their own energy state Democrats, as well as the simple fact that both Reps and Dems are bought and paid for by the energy lobby. And then there is the will, or lack thereof, of the American Sheeple. They were mad as hell for a while, but then energy prices dropped and they lost interest again, until the next crisis.
Case in point, albeit just the tip of the iceberg, but telling: The Bush Administration released a report just prior to the 2008 Election that determined unequivocally that oil speculators were responsible for the spike in oil prices to $4.50/ gallon. It didn't get much play in the MSM at the time, nor since. Since then, Congress has failed to act toward reigning in speculators, despite bipartisan efforts to enact new laws. The Oil Speculation Reduction Act in the House, and it's counterpart in the Senate, and their various iterations have failed to go anywhere. Even regulations that would have broad bipartisan support can't get enacted.
In the meantime, the speculators are up to their old tricks as reported by CBS News in July:
"Ever since, the price of crude has been on a wild ride plunging as low as $34 a barrel in December before bouncing back to about $60 today.
This has fueled new concerns that - in the midst of economic turmoil - oil speculators are at it again, pumping an estimated $200 billion into the oil futures market in just the last year, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian."
The Obama Administration was supposedly taking steps of their own to reing in the speculators, but I haven't followed up to see if they actually accomplished anything:
"In response, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil and other commodities in the U.S., is dropping its historic hands-off approach. It is now considering tougher regulations that would make it harder for speculators to amass huge positions and make money timing the market.
It's not our job to set prices in government but it is our job to make sure there's no fraud abuse or manipulation," said CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton."
Anyway, I don't know if Obama has the political clout to push America toward a goal of energy independence, and I'm not too sure the American people have the will either. I do know that Bush had the opportunity to do so after 9/11 and never understood why he didn't capitalize on that opportunity.
By the way, that "Oil" President thing didn't work out too well for us the last eight years did it?
And "good grief", general, a concentrated goal toward energy independence is exactly what this country needs to solve a broad range of pressing problems.
Link to CBS News report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/08/cbsnews_investigates/main5145164.shtml
What, specifically, does
November 5, 2009 - 12:22 ET by fitzfongWhat, specifically, does "energy independence" mean to 007memo? The way you're throwing that trite euphemism around suggests that you haven't a clue about the role of energy (from a supply or demand perspective) in an economy and that you're desperate enough to use a meaningless expression as a talking point designed to mask your ignorance. So, prove me wrong: what is "energy independence" as you see it?
Secondly, how do you explain your unsupported contention that "speculators" are responsible for the spike in oil prices? How, exactly, do "speculators" drive up the price of oil? They don't have control of the supply, they don't have the influence to affect worldwide demand. As far as I can tell, they simply put their money at risk making a bet on whether the price of oil will go up or down (and by how much). But, once again, they've become a convenient straw man for liberals (looking to advance a socialist "energy policy") to use whenever they need talking points to placate the economic illiterates.
Finally, it's interesting how you unwittingly admit to the parasitic tactics you eco-Marxists use in trying to advance your bankrupt agenda. Acknowledging that individuals don't react the way "environmentalists" want them to react until the issue of price sensitivity enters the equation, perfectly illustrates my earlier point that socialism requires fake crises (e.g. "Global Warming") to mask and gradually advance a bankrupt economic agenda. Thank you for confirming what we already suspected.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
"Secondly, how do you
November 6, 2009 - 02:41 ET by 007memo"Secondly, how do you explain your unsupported contention that "speculators" are responsible for the spike in oil prices? "
I'm not surprised you, and most have never heard of this, but it is in fact true. But I did link to a CBS report about the subject for you. And, as I said, the Bush Administration released a report just prior to the 2008 Election that determined unequivocally that oil speculators were responsible for the spike in oil prices to $4.50/ gallon. It didn't get much play in the MSM at the time, nor since.
I'll find the House and Senate bills, each with bipartisan support, which attempt to limit oil speculators.
I didn't make this up, there has been significant reporting about it in newspapers, etc. It just hassn't risen to the level of importance granted to subjects like, say, Obama being a Muslim, non-citizen, Socialist, terrorist, marxist, grandma killier, etc, nor as important as Michael Jackson death, etc
I'll try and find the news accounts off the Bush Admin report.
Frankly, it doesn't matter
November 6, 2009 - 13:51 ET by fitzfongFrankly, it doesn't matter what the Bush Administration, or any other government entity has to say about the subject. Government will look for any straw man villain it can conjure up to deflect responsibility off itself. Facts are facts, and no amount of self-protecting spin can honestly shift the blame from those in government who mishandled the crisis to those who make and lose money betting on commodity prices.
There is one reason, and one reason only, that gasoline prices spiked in summer 2008: supply did not meet increasing worldwide demand. For all this hubristic chatter about creating "energy independence", left-wing "environmental" policy ensured that we were more dependent on foreign oil than ever. A legitimate solution to an artificially shortened supply relative to a naturally high demand is to ADD TO THE SUPPLY. The price went up due to the relative scarcity of the resource at the time...more supply would have made the market more competitive and would have brought the price down. But we were stuck having to indulge the no growth eco-parasites, and were constantly assaulted with the phony "'Drill, baby drill' is not an energy policy" slogans. As a matter of fact, "Drill, baby drill" was the ONLY responsible energy policy available (and still is, by the way), but instead of fighting, too many John McCain-type intellectual lightweight Republicans caved to popular sentiment created by the terroristic influences of the so-called "environmental" movement. Thus, instead of signalling an intention to open up the supply line to bring the costs down (something that would have gone a long way towards easing the economic collapse), cowards like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist chose to protect the interests of the eco-Marxists over those of the American people, refusing to even mention the possibility of offshore drilling to avert this collapse.
The bottom line is this: I understand economics, you don't. When demand is out of proportion with supply, the correct solution is to increase supply to put supply and demand in equilibrium. Liberals, however, are under the misapprehension, that you can simply stifle demand to create this equilibrium. You can't. The American people have become accustomed to a certain standard of living, that if you eco-parasites just got out of the way, they could continue to maintain. Americans like to have cars. They like to heat and cool their homes. They like to operate computers, watch television, store perishable food, work late at the office, shop at the supermarket, eat at restaurants. They don't want to give up these rather modest conveniences, but your brand of "environmentalism" ensures that they do just that on behalf of "the planet". People like you are a liability...you don't have critical thinking skills, any actual intelligence or any tangible solutions, but you create incalculable distress on this economy and on our standard of living pretending that you do.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Frankly, it does matter.
November 6, 2009 - 16:15 ET by 007memoI'll refer you to some more reports on speculators driving up oil prices later. I'll also post the links to the bipartisan House and Senate bills that attempt to reign in the speculators. But it does seem like the Obama Admistration is now stepping up efforts to reing in the speculators. Hooray!
You claim, "The bottom line is this: I understand economics, you don't." Well, when you invoke "drill baby, drill" as your mantra, and make statments like: "There is one reason, and one reason only, that gasoline prices spiked in summer 2008: supply did not meet increasing worldwide demand" It tells me you you subscribe to a simplistice philosophy of eceonomics, one unencumbered by the consideration of what's actually going on in the world around you.
I must correct a statement I made though "the Bush Administration released a report just prior to the 2008 Election that determined unequivocally that oil speculators were responsible for the spike in oil prices to $4.50/ gallon." I can't find that report anywhere, and found reports to the contrary, wherein the Bush Administration refused to blame speculators. My bad.
It tells me you you
November 6, 2009 - 16:56 ET by fitzfongIt tells me you you subscribe to a simplistice philosophy of eceonomics, one unencumbered by the consideration of what's actually going on in the world around you.
It seems that you've taken a rather round-about way of illustrating your ignorance of economics. But I'll be a sport. Please, if you contend that my economic philosophy is "simplistic", enlighten me. What are the subtle economic nuances that I am missing in my argument? What, specifically, was actually going on in the world around me that I failed to consider in coming to my "simplistic" conclusion? What tangible factors beyond the overly-regulated market's failure to fulfill natural demand contributed to the spike in oil, and thus, gasoline prices...and how did those factors affect oil prices? Apply some critical thinking for once in your life rather than having some government CYA report speak for you.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Chrissy must not have heard
November 3, 2009 - 20:01 ET by 10ksnookerSince everyone here knows the science of the AGW hoax is fraudulent --- Today Al Gore admitted that CO2 was not the cause they thought of warming since 1991, and he was in his next book converting to a ministry ...
This is big. Al Gore is now saying carbon dioxide isn’t actually to blame for most of the warming we saw until 2001:
Which suggests not only that was Gore wrong to claim the science was
“settled”, but that the hugely expensive schemes to “stop” warming by
slashing carbon dixoide emissions will be less than half as effective
as claimed.
Yep he said it ... http://blogs.news.co...
Of course the real answer is CO2 has already done just about all the warming it is capable of doing.
Yuz dunt unnerstan
November 3, 2009 - 20:05 ET by GazinyaYoo gotta unnerstan dat Da Obama waz jus beein kin tu doz kids. Theek bout dem kids goin hom an axkin der frends 'whad yu lern at skool tadaa?' Thad be lik 'wat?' See Da Obama is juz beein pashnut to dem getto kids.
You see vouchers would empty the state run schools faster than it took me to figure out how to write the above 'ubonics' speak. Gazinya
Racist!
November 3, 2009 - 20:37 ET by nolotrippenSorry, I just wanted to beat a liberal troll to the punch.
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
Proud home schooling mom here
November 3, 2009 - 20:19 ET by DEVILDOCMOMGee, I will match my son's education with any chrissie cares to pick. My son was home schooled and entered a local community college when he was 10. Entered a major university at 13. Enlisted and served in Iraq as a Navy Corpsman. Currently enrolled in a masters program. chrissie...is that enough? Probably not...Oh, earned his Eagle Scout and Order of the Arrow while mixing with other children.
I know I have posted this before, but these losers anger me.
DDM... You have plenty to
November 3, 2009 - 20:30 ET by bigtimerDDM...
You have plenty to be proud of.
Liberals really don't know the real meaning of that word.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Pride goeth before a fall, bt
November 3, 2009 - 20:51 ET by 007memoPride goeth before a fall, bt.
And your pride that "Liberals really don't know the real meaning of that word.", but that you do know, will inevitably lead to your fall.
Boy, are you wrong!
November 3, 2009 - 20:54 ET by DEVILDOCMOMenough said.
Pride rears it's ugly head, devildog.
November 3, 2009 - 21:04 ET by 007memoPride rears it's ugly head, devildog. Have your son explain it to you.
DDM... Pay him no mind
November 3, 2009 - 21:09 ET by bigtimerDDM...
Pay him no mind ...he's a troll...doing his usual job.
He's not worth the attention....not one iota.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
A troll calling the kettle black, bt
November 4, 2009 - 01:02 ET by 007memoA troll calling the kettle black, bt.
If this isn't a troll comment, what is?:
"You have plenty to be proud of. Liberals really don't know the real meaning of that word."
Go back to Dkos 00...it's
November 4, 2009 - 01:15 ET by bigtimerGo back to Dkos 00...it's easy to see thru you..always has been.
For me...it's pathetic some of you are allowed to stick around so long..then again you all have back up user names at the ready and then NBs is Fair and Balanced...and we're all supposed to pat you on the head and see if we are just so smart to turn you all around and really see the light.
I still laugh at that...never going to happen..although some pretend pretty well..which makes others happy here.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
The only reason to respond.
November 4, 2009 - 08:20 ET by danboThe only reason to respond. In MHO. Is when he feeds mis information. And it's not for him. It's for others who are lurking.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
DD Mom
November 3, 2009 - 22:55 ET by B-townGiantIgnore the troll. Someone (probably his mommy) let it out of its dark bathroom too soon today. See, it has polluted it's mind with queer magazines and psychotic liberal websites. It has no knowledge, and can only feel better about itself when it is tearing others down.
Guarantee you it sucks it's thumb at night, too.
You are right to be proud, and good luck to your son. My wife and I homeschool as well, and our children are far advanced of any in their peer group. And they are eminently socialized, get along great with others, and are all natural leaders.
People like 007 HATED kids like ours.....made them feel so inadequate.
B-town can only feel better when tearing others down, LOL!
November 4, 2009 - 01:13 ET by 007memoB-town can only feel better when tearing others down, LOL!
"It has no knowledge, and can only feel better about itself when it is tearing others down."
Wow! And then B-town goes on to tear down further with this hate and vitriol:
"it has polluted it's mind with queer magazines and psychotic liberal websites. It has no knowledge, and can only feel better about itself when it is tearing others down.
Guarantee you it sucks it's thumb at night, too."
You must be feeling much better now B-town!
Stupidity
November 4, 2009 - 02:02 ET by UnsaneB-town can only feel better when tearing others down, LOL! This from a hate-filled, extremely angry, miserable Statist/Socialist who has routinely attacked people, calling them "rubes", among other insults, as if he is somehow better than us.
Yeah, he is better than us in every way, yet he doesn't know the basic difference between a unitary and a federal government. Nor does he comprehend the difference between political parties and political ideologies. Nor does he understand what science is, nor does he care. Nor does he understand what is, and what is not, a "right".
You should be much more careful when writing a post like this. What you accuse B-town of doing is what you routinely, constantly do when you are on NB. Any cliche about people living in glass houses will do.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"You should be much more
November 4, 2009 - 03:09 ET by 007memo"You should be much more careful when writing a post like this. What you accuse B-town of doing is what you routinely, constantly do when you are on NB."
"What you accuse B-town of doing", you say unsane? Actually I was quoting b-towns exact words. Read his post, then read mine - then get back to me. Maybe you'll get the irony.
Did I call you a Rube, unsane? Rather mild compared to the names I've been called. But whatever I called you, I hope it was only in response to name calling by you in the first place, cause I like to believe I don't draw first blood.
BTW, I do remember referring to you as Insane/Unsane once, but I think I have refrained from that reference since.
Still though, I love your rants, unsane.
Now the Statist/Socialist resorts to whining
November 4, 2009 - 11:03 ET by UnsaneRead his post, then read mine - then get back to me. Why should I do that? What I reference in my response to you is the sum total of your history here.
When your history on NB is taken into consideration, you have zero business posting a response such as that you aimed at B-town. It's quite simple, really.
This is you, on 17 October 2009, at 1049 EST, calling NBers a "bunch of rubes", all the while doing something else you do best: tossing accusations out there without a shred of evidence (hey, if there was "overwhelming evidence", as you boast in this post, you'd HAVE some, right?).
So funny, so pathetic, so childish, cool
Not one of you has come up with a single piece of evidence to counter the overwhelming evidence that Rush is a racist.
You slap each other on the back chortling "Rush isn't a racist, those aren't racist comments, I agree with everything Rush says and I'm not a racist". LOL!!!
Rush tells his dittoheads they're great Americans, patriotic Americans. They're not stupid, racist rubes like those innelectuls say.
By golly, I love this country so much I could just cry... but I'll leave the maudlin psychodrama to Glenn Beck.
What a bunch of rubes.
This sounds like a pretty general cheap shot to me. And laughable, considering the evidence. The sophisticated among us know what source evaluation is and what the difference between unitary governments and federal governments is, and what separates political parties from political philosophies.
They would also know, like me, what differentiates theory from hypothesis or law, and the dangers and pratfalls of wedding yourself too closely to a theory, scientific or otherwise.
Did I call you a Rube, unsane? Rather mild compared to the names I've been called. But whatever I called you, I hope it was only in response to name calling by you in the first place, cause I like to believe I don't draw first blood. The typical pious whine of a Statist/Socialist caught in the act. This whine would not be necessary if you practiced civility at all times, which you have demonstrated time and time again you are not interested in. Just like other Statist/Socialist posters, you come in here, throw grenades, walk around insulting and belittling others, and then when called on it, or hit back likewise, you start to whine as indicated in the bold above. Why everybody is picking on poor, helpless wittle 007memo now...(sniff)
BTW, I do remember referring to you as Insane/Unsane once, but I think I have refrained from that reference since. The beauty of my screen name - a tip o' the hat to one of the greatest concerts I have been privileged to attend - is that so many Leftists, Statist/Socialists and Rightist whackjobs that inhabit this board think that changing the "U" to an "I" constitutes an insult. The joke is on all of you! It constitutes high praise. :-)
Still though, I love your rants, unsane. You ought to read them. Very carefully. You might learn something.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
oo7, Your link to global warming is almost 4 years old
November 4, 2009 - 11:19 ET by upcountrywaterThe Sun was warming all the planets in the solar system, way back in 2006.
Today we have a sun that is at a low end of energy output.
Hurricane energy at a 30 year low.
The sun spotless days (solar cycle 24) is now in 6 th. place over a period of 400 years.
The little ice age was the only event that had longer sun spot free days. Canada's wheat harvest is DOWN 20 % this year.
It is all about the data in real time.
Your electric bill has readings in KwH. Where does that energy come from when the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine?
You will be paying more for food soon very soon.
State controlled health care ! music video.
Why, thank you!
November 4, 2009 - 12:50 ET by B-townGiantYes, I do feel better. And I do so love the way others have jumped in to point out you are only getting a dose of your own medicine (thanks and a tip of the hat, Unsane).
Care to comment on your attack of DD Mom, loser? She made an artful comment, which basically was calling out Matthews for his hateful comments, and YOU jump in with insults. "Oh, pride goeth before fall! Get your son to teach you about this!"
You are a cruel, unimaginative, slightly evil hypocrite. I enjoy tugging on your tail, and love reading others' posts destroying your weak and ill-sourced arguments. Yes, I take great pleasure in that.
There is an argument for cleaning our environment. God has charged us (it's in the Bible, something you are obviously not familiar with) with being good stewards of His creation. Reasonable people can disagree on the details of what we need to do. You, Gore, Hansen, Soros, the Union of Concerned scientists and all like you are NOT reasonable. If you were, you would be open to the FACT that our climate is always changing, in different directions (hotter/colder) and in different seasons and in different places ("Oh, the Arctic ice is melting! We'll all be inundated! Aaaagggghhhhhhhh!" "Wait, the Antarctic ice is INCREASING. The average temperature is going DOWN. The polar bear population has INCREASED.").
You see, troll? There can be reasonable discussion if you are willing to try. You simply have to start from a point that any honest scientist would be willing to start from:
You believe in the concept of climate change. You used to call it global warming, but can't do that anymore because your "science" does not support your premise. Fine. Good for you. Live your life as green as you want.
I do not believe in the concept of "man-made global warming" or "man-made climate change." I do believe we should all be living as sustainable a lifestyle as we can. for the betterment of all of society. But that is MY choice. The government, ours or any other on this planet, DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE! EVER!!!!! As soon as you and your ilk can acknowledge and accept that, we can have a reasonable debate, and work to a consensus.
Until then, I will continue to challenge you. Every. Time.
This dissembling by B-town
November 6, 2009 - 14:28 ET by 007memoThis is pure dissembling by B-town about how I supposedly attacked the poor defenseless ddmom. Yeah, right.
"Care to comment on your attack of DD Mom, loser? She made an artful comment, which basically was calling out Matthews for his hateful comments, and YOU jump in with insults. "Oh, pride goeth before fall! Get your son to teach you about this!"
Actually I was responding to a derisive comment by bigtimer: "You have plenty to be proud of. Liberals really don't know the real meaning of that word." ddmom responded to my comment and I rather mildly rebuked her for her comment.
I wouldn't mind if your attack was based on reality, b-town.
Learn to read, go back to 7th grade reading comprehension class - it may help you from making this mistake again.
And I still call it "Global Warming".
Where the dummies go
November 4, 2009 - 00:09 ET by UnsaneSee, silly, that is the problem. Only dummies join the military. Your son must be a real dummy to join the Navy. That's where all of society's losers and failures go because they have nothing else to contribute to society. You prove Chrissy's point.
(please note that all the letters in the above post are dripping with a delicate, faint note of sarcasm)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"(please note that all the
November 4, 2009 - 00:18 ET by MightyMouth"(please note that all the letters in the above post are dripping with a delicate, faint note of sarcasm)"
But at the same time are what the Oaf and our congressional "leaders" belive!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
I hope Matthew's kids aren't
November 3, 2009 - 22:56 ET by Dan DiegoI hope Matthew's kids aren't Home Schooled. That would be criminal child-abuse.
Chris Matthews, "scientist,' LOL
November 3, 2009 - 23:37 ET by jaeIt always amazes me that people like chris matthews or al gore can actually stand in front of the public, spouting "scientific facts" as if they have ANY understanding of science. THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE, FOLKS. These guys know about as much science as my dog. If you will look, there are never any FACTS provided, just innuendo and appeals to some phantom "consensus," "peer-reviewed literatue," and some phantom "disaster-to-come." This is PERFECT CHICKEN-LITTLE FAIRY TALES, FOLKS. If there is anyone out there that isn't "wise" to this propaganda of the left, I will be amazed. (BTW, you communists, the namecalling, like "denialists" and "flat-earthers" is actually SCREWING you in the public opinion, LOL. The average Joe, even those with IQ 100, knows that "trick." AND we "denialists" are really proud to display your absolute ignorance and lack of facts. The present article is a PERFECT example--absolutely nothing of the facts. Someday, maybe you will understand this--or maybe not? The absolute hypocracy of the liberal pigs and their media is shocking to say the least. How can they look in the mirror?
Don't get me started
November 3, 2009 - 23:59 ET by UnsaneI'm dealing with enough lousy public school educated kids as it is.
And later on in the show Matthews stereotyped all homeschoolers as some sort of anti-social shut-ins that don't want their children to "go to public school 'cause you don't want to mix with other people." Do I need more proof that the one of the purposes of public school, especially high school, it to provide kids with a GREAT social environment, far above actually educating the students?
I would love to work with some homeschooled kids. Maybe they won't have those oh so cherished memories of the senior prom or homecoming, but they (perhaps) will be able to do something many public-school educated kids cannot: write, write good, well-organized essays, and otherwise demnostrate a capacity for critical thinking. In other words, they might actually be prepared for the grown up world.
As it is, too many colleges and universities are used as remedial teaching centers for these public-school kids that Chrissy extols as the most virtuous children of all in America.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hey! Chris! There is
November 4, 2009 - 12:07 ET by MikeBHey! Chris! There is climate change, and there's not a bloody thing we can do about it. The climate has been changing since the planet came into being. The climate has been even warmer than today for most of the past history of this planet...even recent history of this planet. Did you ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period, Chris? You know, that time in history when people quit grubbing for enough to eat and started exploring the world? When science and technology took a giant leap forward? But, you keep worrying and panicking, 'cause stress is bad for the heart and immune system. Once you retire for medical reasons, maybe someone with a clue will replace you.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
BUSH ADMIN: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate
November 5, 2009 - 02:31 ET by 007memoBUSH ADMINISTRATION REPORT: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. June 2008
Even the Bush Administration gave up on GW/CC denial by 2008 - Bada Bing!!!
The first sentence of the Adminiistrations report Synopsis:
"Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate."
Additional excerpts from the first page of the Synopsis:
"It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases."
"Current and future impacts resulting from these changes depend not only on the changes in extremes, but also on responses by human and natural systems."
Okay gang, have at the Bush Administration for their consensus on GW/CC Science.
Full Bush Administration Report here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-all.pdf
Bada Bong
November 5, 2009 - 10:42 ET by dboEven the Bush Administration gave up on GW/CC denial by 2008 - Bada Bing!!!
Dude, you got to stop living inside your own fantasy world. A little loosey goosey with term "Bush Administration". Are you just really really ignorant or purposely lying? This report is put out by uber-alarmist extrordinaire Tom Karl, director of NOAA. You know, he's the guy that for years went around saying he was a doctor when in fact his highest academic achievement is a Masters in Meteorology.
This claim conflicts with the 2005 National Research Council report.
Not to mention the whole report is biased and contrived of cherry picked information. Karl edits and reviews his own work.
WOW, dbo, Even the Bush Administration isn't a credible source!
November 6, 2009 - 01:54 ET by 007memoWOW, dbo, Even the Bush Administration isn't a credible source to deniers!!!
I think it's katainkent who references his interest in the "sociological aspect" of the content of the comments on this site. It's fascinating to me as well. You accuse me of lying and being ignorant, when exactly what I present are facts. But your interpretation of these unequivocal facts are that they are lies. Weird, wild stuff, dbo.
Then as support of your refutation of the facts I present, you link to a blog by a lone associate professor of environmental science, whom, to coin a phrase, is likely blogging from his mother's basement. Yes, weird, wild stuff, dbo.
This report, in fact, was presented to Congress in June 2008 by the Bush Administration's Committee on Climate Change, Science and Technology Integration. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee are Bush Cabinet Secretary's, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce and Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy.
The third signer to the report is Bush Administration appointee John H. Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy. Not quite a Bush Cabinet Secretary, after all there are only 15 Cabinet members, but a prestigious position nonetheless.
Forthwith is their transmittal letter to Congress dated June, 2008:
Members of Congress:
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is pleased to transmit to the President and the Congress this Synthesis and Assessment Product (SAP), Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii,Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. This is part of a series of 21 SAPs produced by the CCSP aimed at providing current assessments of climate change science to inform public debate, policy, and operational decisions. These reports are also intended to help the CCSP develop future program research priorities.
The CCSP’s guiding vision is to provide the Nation and the global community with the science-based knowledge needed to manage the risks and capture the opportunities associated with climate and related environmental changes. The SAPs are important steps toward achieving that vision and help to translate the CCSP’s extensive observational and research database into informational tools that directly address key questions being asked of the research community.
This SAP assesses the state of our knowledge concerning changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories. It was developed with broad scientific input and in accordance with the Guidelines for Producing CCSP SAPs, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Information Quality
Act, Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (Public
Law 106-554), and the guidelines issued by the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant to Section 515.
We commend the report’s authors for both the thorough nature of their work and their adherence to an inclusive review process.
Sincerely,
Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, Samuel W. Bodman Secretary of Energy and John H. Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
I'll re-submit a couple sentences of the synopsis from the report for your consideration:
"Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate."
"It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases."
But why not read the report for yourself:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-all.pdf
Finally, dbo et als (sic), what is it that causes you to deny unequivocal facts? What is it you see in the Bush Administrations Report, that causes you to conclude that it's not a Bush Administration report. How do you decide what it is you are going to believe versus deny as truth?
Weird, wild, stuff!
007, Old stuff, OLD TIRED OLD OLD, usless data.
November 6, 2009 - 14:05 ET by upcountrywater99% of the data in your link was before 2006.
The Sun was warming all the planets in the solar system, way back in 2006.
Record lows this year
Today 2009 we have a sun that is at a low end of energy output.
How about getting up to date?
Hurricane energy at a 30 year low.
The sun spotless days (solar cycle 24) is now in 6 th. place over a period of 400 years.
The little ice age was the only event that had longer sun spot free days.
Canada's wheat harvest is DOWN 20 % this year.
It is all about the data in real time.
Your electric bill has readings in KwH. Where does that energy come
from when the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine?
You will be paying more for food soon very soon.
State controlled health care ! music video.
What is your data, upcountry. Enecdotal?
November 6, 2009 - 14:51 ET by 007memoWhat is your data, upcountry. Enecdotal? Where is the science in that?
Your link, as usual around here, is to some blogger sitting in his mother's basement - or in this case, a bunch of bloggers sitting in their mothers' basements.
So explain to me upcountry, how does this refute the Bush Administration's Committee on Climate Change, Science and Technology Integration Report of 2008?
What weight are we supposed to give your anecdotal evidence?
If this is what you consider evidence, there is no hope to ever have a reasonable dicussion with you.
000007, anecdotal evidence? Thats your stick, hello it's 2009!
November 6, 2009 - 15:00 ET by upcountrywatercold
record setting cold
92 cold records IN October 2009
007, Got any DATA that beats this, in the last 15 years?
November 6, 2009 - 15:09 ET by upcountrywaterRECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES
No you don't... Because it's getting COLDER...
Er, I think you climate commies can dispense with the...
November 6, 2009 - 15:40 ET by R D Helm...man-made climate change malarkey.
After all, you no-longer have to sneak communism into this country through the back door using your "concern" for the environment as a cover. You have now managed to have Comrade Chairman Obama installed in the White House, and he is bringing communism in through the front door.
At the rate he is moving, it won't be long before he will surpass even your wildest Marxist wet dreams, once he is through turning this country into a near-zero emissions banana republic, I mean.
-Dave
Our elected representatives have failed us.
Upcountry provides anecdotal evidence and concludes...
November 6, 2009 - 16:39 ET by 007memoUpcountry provides anecdotal evidence and concludes...
Wow, this is what you provide as evidence to support your argument?
I know you're not a scientist upcountry, but did you happen to sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Cause it sure gave you some brazen confidence.
If this is what you consider evidence, there is no hope to ever have a reasonable dicussion with you.
007, Weak deflection, and no DATA from you...
November 6, 2009 - 17:25 ET by upcountrywaterYea no hope in reason; you.. linkless babbler
H/T pop tech
Global Cooling is Here
December 20, 2008 - 21:20 ET by PopularTech
2006 - Record cold has killed 49 so far this winter in Mexico (The Miami Herald, January 21, 2006)
2006 - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 9, 2006)
2006 - Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist (RIA Novosti, February 6, 2006)
2006 - Record cold snap killed 738 people in Ukraine (The Independent, UK, February 7, 2006)
2006 - A Record Snow: 26.9 Inches Fall in New York City (The New York Times, February 13, 2006)
2006 - Russian Scientist Issues Global Cooling Warning (RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006)
2006 - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily, September 21, 2006)
2006 - The Coldest Year In The Last Five Years (The Reference Frame, December 16, 2006)
2007 - Record cold snap for the nation's hottest town (The Australian, January 05, 2007)
2007 - Freezing temperatures destroy most of California citrus crop (International Herald Tribune, January 16, 2007)
2007 - The Coming Global Cooling? (World Climate Report, March 16, 2007)
2007 - Record cold takes a toll on crops (USA Today, April 9, 2007)
2007 - Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling (NewsMax, June 21, 2007)
2007 - Is 'global cooling' the real threat? (The Washington Times, June 24, 2007)
2007 - It's Global Cooling, and It's Deadly (NewsMax, June 27, 2007)
2007 - Haryana, Punjab record cold temperatures (The Hindu, November 3, 2007)
2007 - Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times, December 19, 2007)
2007 - Get Ready for Global Cooling (NewsMax, December 19, 2007)
2008 - A cold spell soon to replace global warming (RIA Novosti, January 3, 2008)
2008 - Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? (The Boston Globe, January 6, 2008)
2008 - First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad (AFP, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years (RIA Novosti, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Up to 61 killed by heavy snow in Afghanistan (RIA Novosti, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age (RIA Novosti, January 22, 2008)
2008 - China battles "coldest winter in 100 years" (Reuters, February 4, 2008)
2008 - Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling (NewsBusters, February 8, 2008)
2008 - Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech, February 9, 2008)
2008 - Record Cold for Northern Minn.: 40 Below (Associated Press, February 11, 2008)
2008 - Record cold kills cattle and rice in Vietnam (The Earth Times, February 13, 2008)
2008 - 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, February 19, 2008)
2008 - Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada, February 25, 2008)
2008 - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech, February 26, 2008)
2008 - Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold (The Daily Telegraph, UK, February 26, 2008)
2008 - Record snow smothers New England (USA Today, February 28, 2008)
2008 - Coldest Winter in Memory (NewsMax, March 4, 2008)
2008 - Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily, March 15, 2008)
2008 - It was the coldest Easter for more than 40 years (Daily Mail, UK, March 25, 2008)
2008 - The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press, March 26, 2008)
2008 - Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC, April 4, 2008)
2008 - No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off (Prison Planet, April 4, 2008)
2008 - Global Warming? Northeast Skies Through a Snowy Season (The New York Sun, April 4, 2008)
2008 - Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade (The Times, UK, April 19, 2008)
2008 - The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, April 21, 2008)
2008 - Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh (The Australian, April 23, 2008)
2008 - Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 30, 2008)
2008 - May Day storm brings snow to Colorado mountains (USA Today, May 1, 2008)
2008 - New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling (Hawaii Reporter, May 7, 2008)
2008 - U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record (NOAA, June 6, 2008)
2008 - Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 6, 2008)
2008 - Global Warming Movement Turns Cool (James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, June 22, 2008)
2008 - Warming on 11 year hiatus? How about cooling? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 23, 2008)
2008 - Astronomical Society of Australia publishes new paper warning of solar quieting and global cooling (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 28, 2008)
2008 - Australian Researchers Warn of Global Cooling (DailyTech, July 1, 2008)
2008 - Charlotte temperature hits 123-year low (The Charlotte Observer, July 2, 2008)
2008 - UAH Global Temperatures, June 2008 still low (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, July 2, 2008)
2008 - Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, July 12, 2008)
2008 - Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation assures global cooling for the next 3 decades (Don J. Easterbrook Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, July 20, 2008)
2008 - Anchorage’s record setting cold summer (Anchorage Daily News, July 24th, 2008)
2008 - More Global Cooling Ahead, Study Says (The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2008)
2008 - Could the Earth be cooling its heels? (Delta Farm Press, August 7, 2008)
2008 - Solar radio waves could signal global cooling (Financial Post, Canada, August 11, 2008)
2008 - Is there a cold future just lying in wait for us? (Belfast Telegraph, UK, August 13, 2008)
2008 - Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930 (Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2008)
2008 - Dearth Of Sunspot Activity To Herald New Ice Age? (Prison Planet, August 14, 2008)
2008 - Hadley Climate Center Data shows global cooling in the last year (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, August 15, 2008)
2008 - Mexican scientist warn Earth will enter 'Little Ice Age' for up to 80 Years Due to decrease in solar activity (Right Side News, August 19, 2008)
2008 - Global cooling gains momentum among scientists (Delta Farm Press, August 25, 2008)
2008 - Former head of CSIRO’s division of space science says global cooling may be on the way (Canberra Times, Australia, August 26, 2008)
2008 - 'Snowfall' shocks Kenyan village (BBC, September 3, 2008)
2008 - Global Warming’s Kaput; 2008 Coolest in 5 Years (NewsMax, September 8, 2008)
2008 - Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway (USA Today, September 9, 2008)
2008 - NAS reports: 50 million year cooling trend (The Christian Science Monitor, September 25, 2008)
2008 - Global cooling sign: Solar winds at 50-year-low (Financial Post, Canada, September 28, 2008)
2008 - Ireland: Coldest September for 14 years (The Press Association, October 1, 2008)
2008 - Boise gets earliest snow on record (The Idaho Statesman, October 11, 2008)
2008 - Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof (National Post, Canada, October 20, 2008)
2008 - Chill in the air: record low temps in 10 states (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, October 26, 2008)
2008 - London has first October snow in over 70 years (The Guardian, UK, October 29, 2008)
2008 - Tibet's 'worst snowstorm ever', 7 killed (Xinhua, October 30, 2008)
2008 - South Florida cold spell breaks records (Sun Sentinel, October 30, 2008)
2008 - NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, October 30, 2008)
2008 - Global Cooling is Here (Global Research, November 2, 2008)
2008 - Alarmists Still Heated Even As World Cools (Investors Business Daily, November 04, 2008)
2008 - New satellite indicates cycle of global cooling (The Spokesman-Review. November 20, 2008)
2008 - UK brought to standstill as five inches of snow falls (The Daily Telegraph, UK, November 25, 2008)
2008 - Early Snowfalls In Europe Hit 'Historic Levels' (Ski Report Europe, December 3, 2008)
2008 - Rare 50 year Arctic Blast Sets Sights On Southern California (Ontario Weather Service, December 8, 2008)
2008 - Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools (NASA, December 9, 2008)
2008 - Houston ties earliest snowfall record (Houston Chronicle, December 10, 2008)
2008 - Rare snow falls in south Louisiana, Miss., Alabama (Associated Press, December 11, 2008)
2008 - Worst ice storm in decade hits New England (Nashua Telegraph, December 12, 2008)
2008 - Cold weather sets records in several cities (Great Falls Tribune, December 14, 2008)
2008 - Denver sets record for cold temp today (The Denver Post, December 14, 2008)
2008 - Record low temperature set this morning (The Seattle Times, December 15, 2008)
2008 - Northeast Siberia braces for extreme cold of -60C (RIA Novosti ,December 15, 2008)
2008 - Record cold chills out Colorado (The Gazette, December 15, 2008)
2008 - Record cold grips southern Alberta (The Lethbridge Herald, Canada, December 15, 2008)
2008 - Record snow hits Nanaimo (Nanaimo Daily News, Canada, December 15, 2008)
2008 - St. Cloud sees record cold temp (Post-Bulletin, December 17, 2008)
2008 - Global cooling is here (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 18, 2008)
2008 - Record snow fall paralyzing Spokane (The Seattle Times, December 18, 2008)
2008 - Las Vegas gets heaviest snow fall in 30 years (The Daily Telegraph, UK, December 18, 2008)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Upcountry provides a huge load of anecdotal evidence and...
November 6, 2009 - 18:28 ET by 007memoUpcountry provides a huge load of anecdotal evidence and...
You post links to anecdotal evidence, and opinion and commentary to supposedly prove what?
Show me the science.
I did follow one of your links to a commentary that claimed NASA reported Global Cooling in 2007. I followed up further and this is what I found. It's quite the contrary to the commentators claims:
"Summary
The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).
"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't post legitimate sources of scientific information. Show me some peer corroborated science to support your claims!
If this is what you consider evidence, there is no hope to ever have a reasonable dicussion with you.
007 Solar energy denier, ha ha ha
November 6, 2009 - 19:35 ET by upcountrywaterCooler by the numbers..Posted by a PhD.
All you have is hot air...
Upcountry, give it up
November 6, 2009 - 21:10 ET by 007memoYou endlessly posting to illegitimate sources. Interesting opinions and commentary, but not proof of anything
You've apparently used these links before. Do people just accept these as proof of... as proof of what, exactly???
If this is what you consider evidence, there is no hope to ever have a reasonable dicussion with you.
LMAO. When are you going to
November 7, 2009 - 00:08 ET by dboLMAO. When are you going to stop your silly cut and paste games and and show us that you really understand what's going on here (rhetorical question/ I know the answer)? For Christ's sake lets get serious here. The report that you link (read cut and paste) is just one of many regoinal reports under the annual umbrella of 'Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program For Fiscal Year 2009'. These reports have been required by an act of congress every year since 1990. What you're showing me here is a form letter. A rubber stamp. Notice the final transmittal on the full report a month after your cut and paste has no ringing endorsement.
By 2008? Why didn't you link to the 2007 'endorsement', or
the 2006 'endorsement', or
the 2005 'endorsement', or
the 2004 'endorsement', or
the 2003 'endorsement', or
etc, etc.
Are you really so naive that you don't understand how governments and bureaucracies work? You make it sound that Bush appointed these scientists and this reflects Bush administration input. In fact, it's just the usual same old, same old rent an alarmist crowd. That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with your general point. The Bush administration frequently played politics (surprise) with this issue. If you recall, Sen. Inhofe was frequently a critic of Bush administration policies. I could care less about the politics here. I'm more interested in the science. Saying 'Even the Bush Administration gave up on GW/CC denial by 2008' means absolutely diddley squat.
I have. And many of it's numerous cousins as well. Long before it was ever linked to by you. As I said before, the report is directly contrary to the 2005 NRC report.
Once again you embarrass yourself with your ignorance. 'Blogger' Pielke is a distinguished professor at the University of Colorado and has over 350 peer reviewed papers. This is more than James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann conbined. If you read the links I provided, Pielke shows by referencing peer reviewed papers how Tom Karl and gang (the same people that have no problem with thermometers by a/c vents and bbq's) have cherry picked information to support there own agenda. If you're not happy with those peer reviewed papers, here's another 450 peer reviewed papers to read. Btw rookie, Roger Pielke Sr. is a different person than Roger Pielke Jr. They have considerably different opinions.
Even Bush Administration gave up denying Global Warming, DBO
November 7, 2009 - 04:52 ET by 007memoEven the Bush Administration gave up denying Global Warming, DBO.
You can claim that means squat, dbo, but it actually means everything.
And invoking the name of the troglodyte, flat earther Senator Inhofe as counterbalance to these stunning Bush Administration's admissions is laughable:
"Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate."
"It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases."
In another comment on this page I asked that someone name the other Senators who are like minded on GW/CC as flat earther Inhofe, since I couldn't think of any. It turns out that Inhofe is on his own. Here's the first couple paragraphs of a recent column from the Washington Post about the extinction of the troglodytes entitled A Senator (Inhofe) in a Hostile Climate. Here are the first few paragraphs:
"It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, committed climate-change denier, found himself in just such a position Tuesday morning as the Senate environment committee, on which he is the ranking Republican, took up legislation on global warming. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was in talks with Democrats over a compromise bill -- the traitor! And as Inhofe listened, fellow Republicans on the committee -- turncoats! -- made it clear that they no longer share, if they ever did, Inhofe's view that man-made global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
"Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming," admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."
An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars." And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102702845.html
Now, on to Roger Pielke, Jr. Although he is a tangent and minor distraction from the topic, I'll address him anyway: You are correct, he is more than a blogger in his mother's basement - he is a widely cited denier by the right wing flat earthers. (Although, I don't think he actually denies Global Warming - but he is used by the right to support their denial case).
And I don't believe he's an actual scientist, check his resume which is impressive, but I don't believe he's a scientist, unless you cite that he is in fact a political scientist.
But as I say, he is a distraction. So you have him, and a bunch of other denier scientists (distractions) with legitimate credentials who have contrary scientific opinions to those of the majority of their peers. Okay, granted. Theirs is still a minority opinion and their just whistleing in the wind.
I've posted this list of scientific societies that support the consensus opinion on Global Warming and stated that "sure you can find a scientist who is a member of one of these societies to refute the science, but in the scheme of things, it just doesn't matter compared to the statement by the entire Scientific Society itself". Does it really matter that a minority of scientists contest the majority consensus, DBO?
Would you admit this is a pretty impressive list, which represents a vast quantity of scientific experts, DBO?
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections, Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
Weird Al Gore is a Charlatan
November 7, 2009 - 05:31 ET by Captain KirockI'm sorry, but Weird Al Gore is the greatest political villain of the last 35 years.
Weird Al is a master husckster and hustler.
Anything he is for, I am against.
Oh do shut up idiot.
November 7, 2009 - 05:54 ET by JWFYou've lost the argument. You personally have lost the argument with your constant ad hominem flat earthers.
The entire movement has lost the agument because the science and numbers behind the original 20 year old algorithms was flawed and have mysteriously disappeared due to a sudden case of not enough-hard-drive-space-itis.
Even the earth itself has turned against your movement as the climate models UTTERLY FAILED to predict the recent decadal cooling period.
And knock it off with your oh so magical list of Associations and Societies. EVERY ONE OF WHICH GETS GOVERNMENT GRANTS. Grants that go to SURPRISE study the effects of global warming on X, Y and Z.
Idiot.
One final thing idiot. If the argument is over. And the flat earthers have been denied. Where is the fix? Where is the fix from Al Gore? Where is the fix from Mommy Government? 20 years and no fix while it just gets hotter and hotter? Come on? It is such an emergency, where is the cap & trade fix? Huh? We are burning up and your gushylove Obama fiddles.
You are sooooooooooooooooo right and we are sooooooooooooooo wrong. Should be easy to get the fix in.
Where is it, mr. spam up the site with your gushy Obama teeny crush?
Fix it. Idiot.
not Sincerely for idiots,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
You have convinced us all. We are dead wrong.
November 7, 2009 - 05:57 ET by JWFCome on. Where is the fix. The evidence is overwhelming. The science is settled. All the smart people have piped in. We are officially dying.
So where is your magic cooly cooly cooly fix?
We are waiting........ still waiting..... You said we were dead wrong. So we should be able to pass a law with like 97.5 percent of Congress jumping up and down happily to pass it.
Come on. The science is settled. Man up. Fix it.
Idiot.
I am dying.
November 7, 2009 - 05:59 ET by JWFMommy earth is dying.
Where is the fix mr. magic non-flat earther?
Come on. You are right. Fix it. Fix it now.
Idiot.
November 7, 2009 - 06:00 ET by JWFFix it.
I just checked. You did not fix it. Why?
November 7, 2009 - 06:19 ET by JWF007idiot:human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases
It has been 30 minutes. You have the numbers in Congress. FIX IT.
Odd. I have a house full of the same heat-trapping gases, 2 humans, 6 dogs, 7 cats and a guinea pig emitting even more heat-trapping gases and yet the furnace keeps kicking on again and again and again and again. Why is that?
I have a thermos full of coffee. Why is it not insulated with heat-trapping gases so my coffee will stay warm?
Come on. You are right. We are wrong. Why is it not being fix right this very second.
Mommy earth has a fever and 007idiot does not care. She won't fix it.
Mommy earth has a fever and 007Idiot has the prescription.
November 7, 2009 - 06:26 ET by JWFI had a flat tire the other day. Did I stand around arguing with a bunch of idiots that claimed my tire was not flat?
No. I fixed it.
So Idiot. Why am I standing here waiting for you to fix it. You know. You told us. You know what is wrong. FIX IT.
Idiot.
What is going on here. Are we being played? Who is the idiot?
November 7, 2009 - 11:45 ET by JWFIt is now 20 years plus 4 hours later and not a single solitary thing is fixed.
We are denying deniers, flat earthers, getting our info from nutty right wing opinion sites, far right wing demonizers, playing a silly little game, accusing the entire world scientific community is in a grand conspiracy, ignoring rigorous scientific research that demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
And yet 20 years and 4 hours later. What do we have? not a single thing has changed. So fix its smart man. You are so much smarter than us. Why after 20 years have you not fixed it? FIX IT.
Wait....
007Idiot whines for 20 years - nothing. crickets. Nada.
So how stupid are we? We have managed to BLOCK you for 20 years. Plus 4 hours. Who is the idiot here?
You spent 7 hours whining, crying, lying, and calling names. What did you get? nothing. crickets. Nada.
We want the status quo. We want it left alone. What did we get after the 007Idiot whines? the status quo. Looks like we prevailed again. Idiot.
Why don't you whine some more. Spend another 20 years whining. What do you have at the end of the day? Victory for us. Not a damn thing has changed. Congress did nothing. The President did nothing. The U.N did nothing. Your stock in all the Green Technology companies do nothing.
Who is the idiot? Huh?
Idiot.
Yawn
November 7, 2009 - 12:44 ET by dboI must admit, quoting assorted politicians and linking to a Washington Post article is pretty compelling evidence that 1 extra molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 total molecules is going to destroy the planet.
I guess I have to say this twice. Roger Pielke Senior is a different person than Roger Pielke Junior. Comprendo? I linked to Senior. Notice the difference? You know, PhD in Meteology from Penn State, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State, that kind of stuff. Author of 657 publications.
Why do you keep repeating this myth when I have shown you twice already that the NRC says this statement is totally bogus?
This 'impressive list' has eighteen signatures on it. The fact that the president of a dirt and soil organization signs a letter tells me that he is just lobbying for money from the government. Btw, where's the most significant organization of all, the APS? Here's a list of over 31,000 signatures that not only state that AGW is complete BS, but state that extra CO2 is beneficial.
DBO has 31,000 signatures, including Perry Mason, and Spice Girl
November 7, 2009 - 15:53 ET by 007memoDBO has 31,000 signatures, including Perry Mason, and Spice Girl, Geri Haliwell, proving unequivocally that there are 31,000 signatures.
1.) Your "petition", circulated in 1998 (and still being circulated today), which was designed to give the impression to unsuspecting signers that the science was endorsed by the National Academy of Science, prompted the National Academy of Science to provide this Press Release that reads in part:
"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
2.) Of the 31,000 signers, how many would you say are actually qualified climate scientists? I'll refer you to the horse's mouth (or whatever part), the Global Warming Petition Projects own site where they list the qualifications of the petition signers. Take a look, would you say that the number of qualified signatories is closer to 1,000 or 31,000? Take a look because anyone could have signed the petition, including your hairdresser, or your Heart Surgeon:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3.) I don't see any scientific paper attached to that petition which refutes the Scientific Consensus on GW/CC. So, the only fact about the petition is that there are, in fact, 31,000 signatures on that petition.
4.) And Scientific Consensus on GW/CC has solidified in the last ten years since that petition was created, maybe you can agree with that.
So, you weren't talking about Roger Pielke, Jr, the darling of the deniers (that was another commenter), you were talking about his father instead, my bad.
Pielke Sr. is a reputable scientist with legitimate credentials as a PHD in meteorology, who has some contrary scientific opinions to those of some of his peers with equally legitimate credentials. Okay, granted.
But even if he is correct in some of his contrarian positions (something that is entirely possible since scientist, like you and maybe even me, are not perfect) he doesn't undermine the basic Consensus among Scientist about GW/CC. And I don't believe he claims to either.
And then you dismiss the list of Scientific Societies that "state the consensus scientific view..." that it is "clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." ANd you dismis this 'impressive list' because it has just eighteen signatures on it. But the 18 signatures are by the Presidents of the Societies that represent tens of thousands of Scientists and possibly hundreds of thousands of individual members. Oh well.
007, Hay! rubbing it up with algore, will not bring back the
November 7, 2009 - 16:03 ET by upcountrywaterHockeystick oh yea it's from MIT
[...]But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt.
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
Come on 007 show some temp readings that broke some all time warm records? You can't...
MIT does have a Denier Scientist, agreed upcountry
November 8, 2009 - 00:33 ET by 007memoMIT does have at least one well respected Denier Scientist, agreed, upcountry. And they "suddenly" published this article in 2004 not in 2009. But the Consensus Scientific Opinion of MIT Scientists is still with GW/CC Science.
"Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."
And here's a Myth vs Fact analysis of the "HockeyStick"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Still in front of the car arguing that your tire is flat.
November 8, 2009 - 07:52 ET by JWFSo get the jack and fix it. Stop arguing with the crowd that says your tire is not flat.
21 years. 4 months. 2 weeks. 2 days. FIX IT GIRLYMAN.
007, here you go and post regurgated crap from the Past
November 8, 2009 - 12:16 ET by upcountrywaterAll I want from you is some DATA ... record high temps?
What is so hard about that!
HELLO!!!!! Where on Earth is it RECORD HOT RIGHT NOW??????
from your WEAK link:
Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998)
reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the
conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
Bad Math, no matter how many times one figgures it, it's still WRONG
NASA; So this is STILL NOT an issue!!!
No, it's not an issue, upcountry
November 8, 2009 - 23:35 ET by 007memoNo, it's not an issue, upcountry
You ask, "NASA; So this is STILL NOT an issue!!! "
Apparently not, just read further about what NASA has to say about this trumped up issue:
"What's Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)
Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally. So says NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That's not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle."
This report, that there's nothing to report, is newsworthy because of a growing buzz in lay and academic circles that something is wrong with the sun."
I guess you can go on and on with individual pieces of evidence that may, or may not, help your argument, upcountry. But in total, the overwhelming evidence is still with the Scietific Consensus on GW/CC.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
Still in front of the car arguing that your tire is flat.
November 9, 2009 - 00:01 ET by JWFSo get the jack and fix it. Stop arguing with the crowd that says your tire is not flat.
21 years. 4 months. 2 weeks. 2 days. FIX IT GIRLYMAN.
007, still in the range, of the numbers
November 9, 2009 - 15:20 ET by upcountrywaterThe little ice age was in the range of the numbers also.
bar graph
Out of the numbered solar cycles, #24 is now in 7th place. Only 5, 6,
and 7 of the Dalton Minimum and cycles 12, 14, and 15 of the Baby Grand
Minimum had more spotless days. Since we’ve now beaten cycle #13, we
are clearly now competitive with the Baby Grand minimum.
It's getting cooler and cooler.... day by day..
NCDC has compiled the October temperatures and it ended up the 3rd
coldest in 115 years. As we have shown it was cold over almost all the
lower 48. Indeed only Florida came in above normal. There is no
[NOAA/NCDC] press release out yet but it should be interesting.
Why do you care?
November 7, 2009 - 16:06 ET by JWFThe science is settled. The consensus signed it. It's done. Why are you still arguing?
Am I going to listen to an ant argue why I should not step on it? No. I walk where I want.
You have the overwhelmingly stunningly consensus. So FRIGGIN FIX IT.
Whip out your global warming credentials and friggin fix friggin it you emascualted girlyman. Fix it. I dare you.
You have had 21 years and nothing. Whine. Bitch. Moan.
Oh you right wingers won't listen. You are stopping me. You have the majority now democrybaby. DO IT.
Oh look we have a new word. Solidified. SO-FRIGGIN-LID-FRIGGIN-I-FIED. GOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLYYYYY. Now it has solidified and turned to die hard cast friggin STEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what the hell are you waiting for girlyman? Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years. Fix it. 21 years.
Awwwwwwww. You gonna fix it or not girlyman.
November 7, 2009 - 16:11 ET by JWFOnly little girlymen tell us how they is gonna fix it very slowly but surely.
It has been 21 years girlyman. How about in my lifetime huh?
Mommy earth can't wait girlyman. Fix it now.
007
November 7, 2009 - 16:22 ET by MrShyYou and Dems/libs go and reverse/contain climate change already.
Go and fix it.
You have an army of voices, money, resources, and "experts" to do it for cryin' (or you claim to, anyway), and have had this for some time. Go do it.
Even go and make a single, little dent, for starters. You haven't even done that.
Heck, you've had almost the ENTIRE Mainstream Media in you back pocket.
Go get it done.
And shut up.
Shhhhh. Don't tell girlyman.
November 7, 2009 - 16:29 ET by JWFWe have machines that can take CO2 right out of the air. If we actually had something stunningly consensusious like girlyman says, well then, we could ramp up production of these machines and actually you know, shhhhhhhh, fix it.
But that would mean we would not have to change our lifestyles, or economy, or way of living. And people like envirosocialists would have no control over us.
No. No NO NO NO NO. Let girlyman fix it and destroy our lives in the process! Go girlyman! We are waiting. 007girlyman.
007idiot. We are still waiting....
November 7, 2009 - 12:36 ET by JWFThe science is settled. Everyone is convinced. So why are we still waiting after 20 years?
Need a train to go from coast to coast? - DONE - Intercontinental Railway.
Need to go somewhere really fast? - DONE - Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.
Need to get a boat from New York to Chicago? - DONE - Erie Canal.
Tired of going from SanFran to NY via the tip of S. America? - DONE - Panama Canal
Need to stop Hitler's Armies and the Japanese Empire - DONE - U.S military might
Man on the moon? - DONE - Apollo Space Program
tiny car on Mars? - DONE - Mars Rovers
Build the worlds biggest Dams during a great depression? - DONE - Hoover dam Boulder Dam
Carve some President's faces on a mountain? - DONE
Have 3% population of the World produce 25% of the World's GDP? - DONE - United Friggin' States of Friggin' America.
Remove a few carbon dioxide molecules out of the air? - crickets. 20 years later. crickets. Boo friggin' Hoo.
Who is the idiot? huh? Looks like us right wing nutties are winning. Score - 20 to BIG FRIGGIN ZERO.
Maybe we need 007idiot to spam a little more here and the world will finally listen.
JWF v. 007
November 7, 2009 - 13:00 ET by MrShy007, you lose.
JWF has you and all DUMB AS ROCKS / SAY EVERYTHING-DO NOTHING libs pinned.
You idiots only care about your own smug voices.
007, seriously don't post again on this subject.
JWF, your rantings bely your flat earther bonafides.
November 7, 2009 - 12:43 ET by 007memoJWF, your rantings bely your flat earther bonafides.
You rant and argue irrelevant, unqualified tangents.
I asserted, and proved, that there is universal Scientific and US Government Consensus on Global Warming/Climate Change.
I quote a 2008 Bush Administration report in which they, stunningly, confirm GW/CC. The Bush Administration stubbornly resisted doing so for years - but even they had to relent and reverse their stance in the face of overwhelming Scientific Consensus.
I provide quotes from Republican Senators who, stunningly, have finally relented and assert the overwhelming Scientific Consensus.
And all you've got is bizarre rants and scoolyard taunts. I rest my case with you.
There will always be the fringe flat earthers like Senator Inhofe who are able to rile up the unwashed masses to a frenzy with their junk science and conspiracy theories, but they are a dying breed. As always, the truth will out as it has in this case, very slowly but surely.
So fix it.
November 7, 2009 - 12:46 ET by JWFWhy repeat yourself? Why stunningly keep saying the same thing over and over and over? Fix it.
The science is stunningly right. Republican Senators stunningly right. Democrat Senators stunningly right. House. President. stunninglystunninglystunninglystunningl right. all right.
Fix it.
20 years.
crickets.
Who is the idiot? Science is done. Everyone believes it except a few right wing nuts. FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.FIX IT. 20 years.
20 years, 5 hours. I still win. Still not fixed. Ha ha.
Fix it. We are waiting.
November 7, 2009 - 12:53 ET by JWFCome on. You got your S.T.U.N.N.I.N.G.L.Y Universal Scientific and US Government Consensus on Global Warming/Climate Change.
FIX IT!!!!!!!!! Come on. It is overwhelming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fix it now! Do it! Do it!
Wait. able to rile up the unwashed masses????????????? LIAR. You said it was overwhelming. Liar.
How can the unwashed masses not be convinced when it is OVER FRIGGIN WHEL FRIGGIN MING. Huh? unwashed masses cannot overcome CON FRIGGIN SEN FRIGGIN SUS.
Fix it. 20 years. Fix it. 20 years.
We gonna listen to your prattle for another 20 years?
Idiot.
Glaciers move faster than you Idiot.
November 7, 2009 - 13:01 ET by JWFFIX IT. Come on! Do it now! 21 years to be exact. Come on Mr. Overwhelming. Mr. Concensus.
Surely a few right wings nuts cannot stop you from fixing it RIGHT FRIGGIN NOW.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html
Fix it. Fix it now. Mommy earth is dying.
November 7, 2009 - 13:06 ET by JWFThe science is overwhelmingly! The consensuses is stunningly!
FOR THE LOVE OF HOSANNA IN THE HIGHEST FIX IT.
20 years, scratch that, 21 YEARS WE HAVE WAITED. HOW MUCH MORE OVERWHELIMING STUNNINGLY CONSENSUSES DO WE FRIGGIN NEED?
Dang,
November 7, 2009 - 13:49 ET by general companyYouv chased him away, guess I will have to find my comic relief else where.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Fix it, Why are you waiting? Quit whining and fix it.
November 7, 2009 - 13:19 ET by JWFyou asserted, and proved overwhelmingly stunningly consensusly here on this page.
So fix it. Are you a man or not? Fix it. No. You are a wussified ineffectual girlyman that is still whining 21 years later.
Fix it girlyman.
Maybe he has passed out
November 7, 2009 - 13:54 ET by general companyFrom holding his breath. Maybe he went to the local Dairy and is smothering all of the cows, but more then likely he went to the airport to pass out fliers,,, in a tee shirt and sandals
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
21 years. 4 months. 2 weeks. 1 day. 7 hours.
November 7, 2009 - 14:14 ET by JWFYea. We are the dummies. We have managed to block fixing it despite teh overwhelming stunningly drop dead gorgeous.... wait. What were we talking about again?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Come on now,
November 7, 2009 - 14:30 ET by general companyConcentrate
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
All right. Here is the point. Here it is.
November 7, 2009 - 14:24 ET by JWFIn a nutshell. Wrapped up in a pretty bow.
Shawn hates it. MrShy understands it. General Company abides.
I can keep coming up with more ways to hammer a point home that the idiot can come up with ways to say the same thing over and over and over again.
So fix it girlyman, cuz I got a fever and girlyman 007idiot has the... well... nah... He ain't got the fix now does he? 21 years girlyman. Fix It Now!
Most assuredly,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
November 7, 2009 - 16:16 ET by MrShyCorrection. Mr. Shy LOVES it.
Mr. Shy gets things, and knows who his friends and enemies are around here, and it all falls into place. Mr. Shy is content.
And you describe all of liberalism in a perfect nutshell. This is what they do. Well, they DON'T do. They just yap.
Sticks and stones and actions do and *change* and improve things.... words are just words.