It makes you wonder how much bigger their arrogance will get and will they ever wake up and see it.

They are running on blind hope at best.

How can you debate anyone who is so far from reality or who can just make up things and never see the folly of their words?

Is RonCo going to come out with a similar device, for $29.99 + tax? I've heard it might be called the KR2000+4Steal.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

GAT If you look at nativistic movements, revivalistic movements, messiac movements. There is definately a pattern. Usually a stress that the followers of the movement have a problem with. The approaching white settlers for the Ghost Dancers. The lost of WWI by Germany and the problems after. Difficulty in dealing with the stresses of rapid growth and cultual change in our time, There are  demons that cause the problems. Indians giving up their old ways as well as the whites. The jews in Germany in the 30's and early 40's. The CO2 molecule and oil companies, and the SUV and deniers.  And magical thinking. If we wear the ghost shirt and do the ghost dance the buffalo will return. If we get rid of the jews the arryan race will find the 3rd reich. If we get rid of the advantages of technology we will return to eden.

There are some similar patterns.  

It's interesting they call us hollocast deniers. The pattern fits them better.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

For accuracy in weather/climate forecasting, we need only look at the 2006 Hurricane season.  After a devasting season in 2005 (Katrina; 3 big hurricanes across Florida), we were warned that 2006 would be another 'above average' season, almost as bad as 2005.

In mid-season, with the anticipated hurricanes way behind schedule, they lowered the estimate to 'average season.'  When the season was over and NOT ONE HURRICANE HAD MADE LANDFALL IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, they concluded that 2006 was a 'below average' hurricane season.

Keep this drastic swing in a ONE YEAR HURRICANE FORECAST in mind when you read the IPCC report that just landed at the UN.  One excerpt I read lowered the earlier estimate on sea level rise by about 50%!  In other words, the seas will rise about 17 inches by 2100 --- about the same level of increase we've seen over the past century.

Ciat, Y2K happened just like the doomsayers said it would.  Airliners fell from the sky, cars stopped and never started again, elevators stopped, and they are still stuck between floors.  We were never told about this by the media is that they were bought off or threatened off by the Clinton administration.  After Monica-gate, travel-gate, Foster-gate, FBI-gate, Ruby Ridge-gate, Waco-gate, Elian-gate, Bin Laden-gate, aspirin factory-gate, and the upcoming pardon-gate, the Friends of Bill did not figure that they could spin this properly as a Republican scandal, so they had it supressed. ;-)

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

That's exactly what struck me.  Her comparison is appalling and unacceptable.

It's been amazing to watch the MSM work themselves into a frenzy on this subject.  It qualifies to be studied clinically as a case of mass hysteria.

Scientists pride themselves on looking at all the data before reaching a conclusion.  What happened in this case?  How do you disregard critical evidence like pre-industrial periods of global warming, including one 55m years ago, and the increased energy the sun has been throwing off for the last hundred years?

This relates to conviction rather than global warming, how certain is sen Clinton about cut and run?

JDW

Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I work in the sciences, although not in  a position where I need GW funding to exist. After extensively studying the issue, I have concluded that GW is a hoax. The Earth  is in a warming cycle (as is Mars, Venus, etc.), coming out of the little ice age in the mid 1700s. There is scientific proof that warming and cooling cycles have been occurring on the Earth for millions of years and, from what I see, the current warming is driven by extreme solar activity during the 1990s. I have seen nothing to convince me that the current warming is anything more than part of the natural cycle. In fact, the latest data shows we are now entering a period of less solar activity and a cooling trend. Concerning CO2, it is a natural part of our environment and either released or absorbed by the oceans (which make up ~75% of he earth's surface) depending on the water temperature. Current atmospheric concentrations are in response to solar-driven warming, not the cause of it. Due to the bicarbonate system water chemistry equilibrium and Henry's Law, CO2 would be approximately the same whether there was or was not any anthropogenic sources. In other words, with manmade sources, more remains in the oceans and less is released to the atmosphere; without manmade sources, less remains in the oceans and more is released to the atmosphere. The whole GW scare is political and intended to cause economic hardship on the USA. 

DO NOT DRINK AL GORE'S KOOL-AID!

Dave,

I think you've missed a couple of days, for this discussion occurred on Tuesday, not last night. However, I'm more than willing to stoke your memory, and to give everyone here some context for that snippet you cherry picked:

Dave High Says:
February 6, 2007 - 22:42

Noel:

As a liberal, please allow me to explain what is going on in our circles.  There are those among us who knew that Bush’s war on Iraq was based on falsehoods from the very beginning.  I am among those people.  My brother and father, both liberals, were on a retreat with me while Bush & Co. were making the case for war.  Both my father and brother had been scared and shocked by the events of 9/11 and Bush & Company’s subsequent linking of those events to Saddam Hussein.  Here then in a nutshell is the schism, you see.  Good people differed on whether Bush & Co. were telling the truth at the time.  My father’s and brother’s attitudes were, since he is president, he must know more than he is telling us and we must follow his lead.  My attitude was, if he had real proof he would put it forward.  All his bluster is a smokescreen for a lack of proof and concrete evidence.  As it turns out, I was right.

 Fast forward to the present.  The war, by all accountings, is an unmitigated disaster.  It was clearly based on falsehoods, exaggerations, and cherry-picked intelligence.  If you opposed the war, or even Bush’s execution of the war, you were (and still are) at best unpatriotic and at worst a terrorist by Bush Administration and other right wing proclamations. 

 So here’s the paradox.  We were lied to, yet with current knowledge, how can a self-respecting liberal admit that he was cowed by all of this?  It makes you seem stupid.  If you are a liberal media critic or politician, the damage of being an easily deceived buffoon is even worse.   Now, if you are a conservative all is well because you still believe the world is flat and Bush is the greatest King since sliced cheese.  That perspective really makes me wonder!

Side note:  I swear, all of this liberal posturing makes Karl Rove do the happy dance, even without his bud Jeff Gannon/Guckert stroking his toes.  Karl is just thrilled that he could help create such political instability through his crafty lies.

 Regards, Dave High

delete | edit | reply | moderate comments Funny Irrelevant Insightful Troll Abusive/Offensive --- unpublish »

Noel Sheppard Says:
February 6, 2007 - 22:53

Dave,

Well, as a conservative, it's difficult to ascertain how much of the above you wrote with your tongue in your cheek, and how you could have done it with both of your hands patting yourself on the back?

Regardless, in the midst of your certainty concerning how terribly this war is going, do you have any disregard for all of the Democrats that voted for it in October 2002?

After all, either they were stupid enough to be misled by a president that you feel is a moron, or they voted in favor of the war for their own personal political reasons. Whichever, do they also draw your ire and deserve responsibility for the position we're currently in, or like most of your ilk, have you given them all a pass except for Joe Lieberman?  

FYI: 29 Democrats in the Senate and 95 in the House voted for the war resolution. In fact, if the Democrats had all voted against it in both chambers, we wouldn't be at war today.  ns

delete | edit | reply »

Dave High Says:
February 6, 2007 - 23:08

Noel:

When did I ever say Bush was a moron?  When he lost his first election in Texas, it was because his opponent labeled him as a carpetbagger from up North, which of course Bush was.  After the defeat, Bush vowed "never to be out Texaned again."  He then adopted his now famous simple speak, Texas drawl.  Moron, no.  Deceiver, yes. And undoubtedly from birth and heritage.

Regards, Dave High

delete | edit | reply | moderate comments Funny Irrelevant Insightful Troll Abusive/Offensive --- unpublish »

Noel Sheppard Says:
February 6, 2007 - 23:14

Dave,

And the rest of my questions concerning the responsibility of the 124 Congressional Democrats that voted for the war resolution?  ns

delete | edit | reply »

Dave High Says:
February 6, 2007 - 23:27

" ... questions concerning the responsibility of the 124 Congressional Democrats that voted for the war resolution?"

Forgive me, I thought I covered that in my first post.  Like my father and brother, they were deceived.  As politicians, it is suicide to admit a monumental mistake, even though it was based on multple deceptions from the current administration.  For this reason, Karl Rove is doing the happy dance.  He has done lasting damage, as your position proves.  How could I have been more clear?

Regards, Dave High

delete | edit | reply | moderate comments Funny Irrelevant Insightful Troll Abusive/Offensive --- unpublish »

Noel Sheppard Says:
February 6, 2007 - 23:37

Dave,

They were deceived? By whom? They had access to all the same information the president did. All of it. And, if you've listened or read statements by Pete Hoekstra who was responsible for such information in the House, only a handful of Representatives bothered to look at all the information that was available to them.

However, if that's your position, I have no interest in discussing this matter with you further. You posture yourself as someone who knew more than the overwhelming majority of our population, our elected officials, and all espionage agencies around the world while throwing that crap out about Dems being deceived. What a crock.

Adios.  ns

Noel Sheppard Says:
February 7, 2007 - 10:00

SP, Exactly. I like Dave, but he is either lying or stupid. Period. It really does come down to that in my view: Any American that actually believes that members of Congress were deceived by the president is an idiot, and isn't worthy of anyone's debate time. You want to impeach the president because of this war? OK. Then, I want a recall for every current member of Congress who authorized the war resolution. And, I want all of the staffs of said legislators to be permanently barred from government. And all of the President's staff as well. And the Vice President's. And the Cabinet. And the State Department. And we should take away everybody's retirement benefits. All of them. Excuse me, but we have Congressional oversight concerning war for a reason. If these people abdicated their responsibility because there was an election coming up in three weeks, then every one who did so should be held responsible. And anybody on the left that doesn't see it this way isn't worth any of our time, for they are just as bad as anti-war people like John Kerry who voted for this resolution because they thought it would help them politically. ns

delete | edit | reply »

Del Dolemonte Says:
February 7, 2007 - 11:21

Noel, Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters had an interesting observation Tuesday. John Edwards was on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, and had this to say:

"So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. "

In other words, Edwards is saying that he based his vote not just on what Bush's people were telling him, but what his predecessor's people were telling him as well. So according to Mr. High's "logic", Bill Clinton lied us into the war as well.

delete | edit | reply | moderate comments Funny Irrelevant Insightful Troll Abusive/Offensive --- unpublish »

Noel Sheppard Says:
February 7, 2007 - 11:40

Del,

I saw it on Sunday, and thank you for reminding me. This just furthers my point that anyone who believes that 124 Democrats were misled by a Republican president and, as a result, voted for a war that their natural proclivities would make them opposed to is an idiot deserving of absolutely no respect or consideration! Period.  ns

Care to respond now, Dave, that the entire discussion from three days ago is fresh in your mind, for I stand by every word I said and will reiterate in case it wasn't clear: anyone who believes that 124 Democrats were misled by a Republican president and, as a result, voted for a war that their natural proclivities would make them opposed to is an idiot deserving of absolutely no respect or consideration! Period.  ns

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."   - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."   - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."   - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."   - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton.
   - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."   - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."   - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."   - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."   - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."   - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."   - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."   - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

MSM: Arrogant intellectually dishonest LIBERALS teaching those stupid peasants how to vote by way of selective reporting, misinformation, propaganda, and out right lies.