This is pretty hysterical, folks, and certainly requires all drinking vessels to be placed at a safe distance from nearby electronic equipment. Laurie David, the global warming alarmist and spouse of comedian Larry David (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”), wrote an op-ed published in Sunday’s Washington Post. In it, she stated that the company which produced Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” wanted to donate 50,000 DVD copies of the schlockumentary to the National Science Teachers Association so that educators around the country could brainwash America’s youth with Gore’s junk science. Thankfully, the NSTA said, “No Thanks”: “In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other ‘special interests’ might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer ‘political’ endorsement of the film; and they saw ‘little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members’ in accepting the free DVDs.” Can I get a group “Hallelujah?”
Now, most folks would think that’s a reasonable explanation. However, if you are the type that buys into the global warming myth, reason is not your strong suit. As such, David sees mischief afoot. And, who’s to blame? Well, if you guessed “oil companies,” come on down and accept the keys to your brand new Cadillac:
Still, maybe the NSTA [sic] just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
I bet many of you saw that coming from a mile away. Amazingly, she continued with this conspiracy theory:
That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.
It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ExxonMobil’s going after our kids. Of course, you’ve got to wonder who you’d rather have influence your children: ExxonMobil, or Al Gore, Laurie David, and their ilk. While you ponder, here’s more of David’s rant:
In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.
And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.
Horrors. ExxonMobil has given $42 million to schools by filling shortfalls in public education funding. The nerve of these people! But that’s not all. Read what other awful things ExxonMobil is doing:
The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.
Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.
How despicable. Wait a minute. I thought these folks support genetic engineering. Somehow, I think that sentence got by David and her editors. Regardless, David concluded with the following paranoid caution to her readers:
While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.
Amazing. I don’t know about you, but I’d quite prefer it if anything this woman has to offer is kept as far away from my kids’ schools as possible. In fact, this woman should be affixed with a LoJack so that police departments around the country can make sure that she’s always at a safe distance from schools, ice cream parlors, video arcades, libraries, playgrounds, candy stores, toy stores, bicycle shops, pediatricians' offices, etc., etc., etc.
*****Update: I received an e-mail message from a science teacher and writer named John Borowski. He asked if I had the courage and fairness to post an article that he wrote today with a very different view of this subject than mine. The answer is "Yes": http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1127-20.htm.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How about the hurricane seaso
November 26, 2006 - 19:35 ET by nicksmith112How about the hurricane season we had this year...lol.
Was there even one noteworthy hurricane this year. I can't remember...lol.
Nick
November 26, 2006 - 19:47 ET by Noel SheppardNick,
I thought NOAA was going to release it's final hurricane 2006 report the week before Thanksgiving. Sadly, they haven't, but I will be sharing it as soon as they do. :-) ns
Explosions --Al Gore
November 27, 2006 - 20:00 ET by misterbillThe picture implies to me that Al Gore is a contributor to Global Warming and it is unsafe to light a match or smoke behind him.
Yada yada
November 26, 2006 - 19:48 ET by acumenThe short version; Al Gore can't even give away his propaganda, yada yada, Corporate interests exploiting the chilruns'. How dare these Corporate interests! Don't they realize only those that agree with Laurie David have the right to exploit others.
I wonder who else Laurie is exploiting, yada yada, my deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to Larry David.
AC
November 26, 2006 - 19:57 ET by Noel SheppardHugh,
The hypocrisy here is amazing. XOM is bad because it's giving money to public education. Yet, the libs are always complaining that schools are underfunded. Genetic engineering shouldn't be promoted, but these folks are all for cloning and stem cell research. Absolutely amazing!
The reality is that there is nothing that an oil company can do that will meet with these folks' approval except declare bankruptcy and go out of business. Of course, even then, these folks would protest the layoffs. Talk about a lose-lose situation. ns
Too Funny Noel
November 26, 2006 - 20:11 ET by acumenIt could be worse Noel. Can you imagine what life must be like being married to this space cadette? On the bright side Laurie and her conspiracy-theorist friends must provide an endless source of material for Larry's comedy.
This story is just too funny - thanks for the laughs Noel. Maybe Larry can get Laurie a horse and buggy (with a hand-crank powered DVD to watch Algore's propaganda of course) for a "holiday" present this year.....that Prius in the driveway is just so passe'.
Laurie is married to Al Gore acumen
November 26, 2006 - 21:53 ET by SportPoliticsLaurie is married to Al Gore acumen:
[ Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," is a Natural Resources Defense Council trustee and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org.]
I see, she helped make the movie, is an NRDC bigshot, and is founder of Stopglobalwarming. LOLOLOL
WaPo has another unbiased piece on science and global warming, and Al Gore, and his truther movie. LOLOL
Maybe they dialed 1-800-AL-whine, and Laurie answered.
How can it be propaganda if
November 26, 2006 - 20:07 ET byHow can it be propaganda if 99% of scientists are on his side, how can it be junk , i just dont understand your rationale
Simple 99% of the scientists
November 26, 2006 - 20:11 ET by ChemicalOperatorSimple 99% of the scientists are not on his side. As a matter of fact, there are many scientists who have come out against global warming. Global warming is a myth.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
no your wrong all of the be
November 26, 2006 - 20:13 ET byno your wrong all of the best scientists and scientific institutions are on his side , thats just the facts.
Of course they are
November 26, 2006 - 20:15 ET by acumenOf course they are......
All the best scientists? Who
November 26, 2006 - 20:28 ET by ChemicalOperatorAll the best scientists? Who determines who the best scientists are? Instead of being a sheep to what the MSM wants you to believe do yourself some favors and do research
Here are some articles about the myth of global warming, if these arent enough I have more for you.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
So, 7MS, what are YOU doing t
November 26, 2006 - 21:12 ET by UnsaneSo, 7MS, what are YOU doing to prevent it? Have you stopped driving? Are you reading by candlelight? Are your powering your computer by hand crank power?
If 99.99999999999999% of scientists agree like sheep that the Evil First World is destroying the world via global warming, then maybe you can answer my questions (for some reason the guilt-ridden Left will not answer them):
1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?
2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?
3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes this year?
4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?
5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.
6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?
7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?
8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.
Well?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane, how dare you introduc
November 27, 2006 - 22:18 ET by MikeBUnsane, how dare you introduce facts into the global warming debate. Al Gore said it, 7MS believes it, and that settles it.
While you are at it, 7MS, please explain to me why, if it is greenhouse emissions, and not solar output driving any global warming, are Mars, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto all experiencing global warming, per articles by NASA, MIT, and other sources? Is it your contention that North American white males are also driving SUVs and industrializing these other planets and moons? Could it possibly be that if global warming is occurring on this planet that it has a cause other than America?
By the way, 7MS, where is the Ice Age and accompanying glaciation that was the consensus of "all serious climatologists" in the mid-70s?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Name them.
November 26, 2006 - 21:32 ET by NL207Name them.
Mt. Pinatubo - an inconvenient truth for Global Warmers
November 26, 2006 - 22:32 ET by SportPoliticsMt. Pinatubo - an inconvenient truth for Global Warmers - erupting in 1991 - it lowered global temperatures by nearly 1 degree - now the global warmers can claim that degree for the 1990's- and ascribe it to carbon emissions...
link
The volcano's eruption in June 1991 came after 500 years of dormancy, and produced one of the largest and most violent eruptions of the 20th century.
The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone destruction increased substantially.
____________________________________________
Oh boy, an ozone destruction benefit as well. Libs got a lot of mileage off this one.
Do you hear much the global warmers spouting about Mt. Pinatubo ? You'd think something that affects global temps by nearly one full degree would be important to them in 1991 and 1992 - etc....
I guess not...it's an "INCONVENIENT TRUTH".
Sport, Pinatubo was small pot
November 26, 2006 - 22:37 ET by NL207Sport, Pinatubo was small potatoes as volcanic disasters go. I thnk the eruption was a moderate VEI level 5 event. Check out the damage VEI level 6 and 7 events can do.
Looks like the libs have that VEI 6 or 7 yet to blame on GW
November 26, 2006 - 23:02 ET by SportPoliticsLooks like the libs have that VEI 6 or 7 yet to blame on GW. lol
This chart shows VEI 6 and 7 as 1883 and 1815, and millennia ago Yellowstone as an 8, has Mt' St' Helens as a 5.
Yes, I'd say "as the earth warms", a few years and of course the crust- mostly a solid like rocks that need to expand as heat is applied - will thrust open a few gigantic VEI 6's and 7's and that will cool the whole earth down again...
Oh well, so much for a "special needs lib Earth", maybe it will bark up it's own self sustaining solution - like a conservative. lol
Given the high qualilty of 7M
November 26, 2006 - 22:59 ET by i was just thinkingGiven the high qualilty of 7MS' abilities to express himself (or herself) in writing, could it be that "7MS" stands for "7th grade middle schooler"? I teach middle school students. His/Her arguments don't sound much more intelligent that theirs.
"all the best scientists
November 28, 2006 - 15:40 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"all the best scientists and scientific institutions" is code for: The ones I agree with.
Along the lines of because I own a certain brand product, it of course is the best.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
The sad truth is the US Supre
November 26, 2006 - 20:21 ET by whitetopThe sad truth is the US Supreme court is going to hear a suit to force the Bush administration to regulate CO2 emissions. It is truly amazing how far an idiot like AlBore can take an issue based strictly on emotions and not backed by any scientific fact. Any one who calls themselves a scientist and back this idiot's ploy is interested in one thing; getting government funding.
wrong again scientists are
November 26, 2006 - 20:27 ET bywrong again scientists are not business, people they need money to seek answers not to buy houses and stuff , usa had better catchup with the rest of the developed world or it will find itself a 3rd world country.. forget politics on this issue , embrace the facts.
Hmmm, Why dont you give us
November 26, 2006 - 20:48 ET by 1sttofightHmmm, Why dont you give us some facts.
You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet
November 26, 2006 - 21:30 ET by acumenHere are some facts for our factless friend. Fact 1 - Per the National Center for Policy Analysis, the earth has warmed one degree F in the last century (that's one hundred years for our factless friend).
Another fact - Per the BBC, the UK is almost alone in Europe in honouring Kyoto pledges to cut greenhouse gasses. Ooops - that ain't gonna work, but as long as Europe is talking the talk....
Another fact - Europe is wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion - hat tip to Mark Steyn -- America Alone.
Yeah, if the US could only be more like Europe, the Islamic radicals could go on an extended vacation, get a fantastic tan (because of global warming of course) just in time to goosestep into NY (hope it isn't gay pride parade day) in twenty years like they own the place. Maybe that will be because they in fact do own the place if they succeed in bringing the US to the same sad state that Europe finds itself in now while our young Americans are running around chasing Algore ghosts. Sounds like great fun being Europe-a-doped but meanwhile we have this global warming thingy to get all freaked out about here in the US, right?
Please don't take my word for any of the above. Read an opposing view for yourself and make up your own mind (I won't tell any of your friends). As the years now seem to fly by, I probably won't be around to witness the inauguration of your new fanatical dictator, high ayatollah and all around bad guy running the show in the former developed world. So either get up to speed or start picking out a nice prayer rug while it is still possible for you to make decisions for yourself. If you think global warming is a problem, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Correction
November 26, 2006 - 22:45 ET by acumenOooops. I must apologize for assuming fact 1 above was correct but some new information has come to my attention from of all places, the liberal UK. I realize the traditional wait period in the establishment media for offering a correction is somewhere between right after an election to never; however; being a stickler for the truth, I am compelled to retract my "fact" #1. I apologize for any environmental discomfort my comment caused and offer the following correction to my embarrasing wrong "fact" #1 posted above:
New Report Refutes Global Warming
A recent report from Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern warned of the devastating economic effects global warming could have on the world in coming years.
But a British researcher has added his voice to those saying the "hysteria" over manmade global warming distorts the truth.
Stern — former chief economist at the World Bank — cautioned that if greenhouse gas emissions weren't significantly reduced, by 2050 the global economy would shrink by up to 20 percent, millions of people would be permanently displaced and droughts would plague the earth.
Now journalist Christopher Monckton, who was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has published a detailed report attacking the manmade global warming theory from various angles — including the so-called "medieval warm period."
The United Nations, which has issued a widely quoted report on global warming, "abolished the medieval warm period — the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A.D.," according to Monckton.
A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in Britain's Sunday Telegraph.
"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . .
"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.
"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.
He calculates that global temperatures will rise only .18 to 2.5 degrees in the coming century, "well within the medieval temperature range."
And he suggests that rather than point to greenhouse gases as the culprit behind any measurable global warming, we might blame the sun. He cites a scientist who maintains that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.
Monckton's conclusion: "Politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St. John the Divine than of science."
He also remarks: "Al Gore please note."
Laurie David might want to note this as well......
Scarey what the GW crowd comes up with isn't it acumen
November 26, 2006 - 23:35 ET by SportPoliticsScarey what the GW crowd comes up with isn't it acumen.
It proves the massive left wing liberal bias to me. It's amazing how many retardolibs they get clinging to their coattails. It's a great hate the USA whine. That's where it's power comes from. The haters, and their stupidity.
No repsonse to the Medieval warming period neccessary, the loonballs have hundreds of methods of changing the topic to another lie or coverup they have concocted. "Communism" and it's false propagation is alive and well.
What's sad is the true believers don't have the common sense or the IQ to go read the lies of their own global warming heroes. I wonder what they actually think when Eric the Red is brought up. It must be a standard "rejection". They must internally shriek " right wing necon warlord conglomerate corporate pollution greed master!"
They like to believe fantasies, it gives them a sense of separation from real issues. If they can screw around in fake ideas and playful imaginings then everything else must be "just fine". The time to waste on their crap makes their existence " happy and feeling free " . They have their "struggle against the evil man", a lifetime goal, a real revolutionary dreamscape. They "know better" than those more powerful and connected than they are, those they can never beat, except by collective self deception. lol PATHETIC
Good Stuff SP
November 27, 2006 - 00:31 ET by acumenSP - I would find their antics a bit more amusing if we were not in the middle of a world war with Hitleresque genocidal fanatics while most of the rest of the developed world (I think we used to call them allies) have long-ago had to forgo defense spending to support their lavish socialistic programs. This is starting to get interesting Sport - at least to the grown-ups.
7ms???????????????????
November 26, 2006 - 20:51 ET by 1sttofight7ms???????????????????
BTW, I am a scientist and think algored is full of crap.
Scientists are not a business
November 26, 2006 - 21:15 ET by UnsaneScientists are not a business, huh? Too bad you fail to understand that they are out to feed at the government trough of cash too. Therefore they have a vested interest in saying "global warming!" to keep the cash and grants rolling in for research.
Actually, it is YOU, 7MS, demanding the U.S.A. become a 3rd World Country...all to assuage your guilt in living in the world's most advanced economy.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane
November 26, 2006 - 21:23 ET by Noel SheppardUns,
I'd also be interested in seeing a breakdown of scientists in the private versus the public sector. With all the tech, biotech, pharmaceutical, engineering, aerospace, etc., companies out there, could there actually be more "scientists" working for corporations than actually doing research at colleges and universities? ns
"embrace the facts"
November 26, 2006 - 21:23 ET by NL207"embrace the facts"
You should try this some time.
The fact is, the alarmst global warming predictions made 10 and 20 years ago have simply not come to pass. The predictors got it wrong. These predictive models are inaccurate. They were known to be flawed from the get-go. All of them that I have ever seen fail to correctly regress over the 1920-1940 global data set.
usa had better catchup wit
November 26, 2006 - 21:33 ET by ckc1227usa had better catchup with the rest of the developed world or it will find itself a 3rd world country
a. Would that be the rest of the world that is only paying lip service to the Kyoto treaty that they signed because they finally figured out that 1. it is basically worthless and does nothing to solve the alleged problem of man made global warming and 2. it is a death sentence to their economies?
b. Last time I checked, the rest of the world was trying to catch up to us.
c. We may be on the way to becoming a third world country, but that has more to do with the unchecked invasion from the third world country to our south than global warming.
and finally,
d. If you have to create facts to prove a point, like al bore does, then you obviously don't have much of a point to begin with.
There is another way we may b
November 27, 2006 - 20:03 ET by danboThere is another way we may be on the way to a third world country status. 1) create unnecessary restriction on industry to restrict CO2 which aids in plant growth. Then 2) not put those restrictions on other nations as India and China.
And the dems were complaining about exporting our jobs.
Let's send out jobs to china and india. After all. The chair of IPCC (an Indian) says we have to save the world from western co2. (Indian CO2 is healthy for you.)
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
I can't begin to tell you how
November 27, 2006 - 00:07 ET by Scout FinchI can't begin to tell you how disappointing it is when someone here asks you to show a link to prove your facts, and you come up with a big fat nothingburger. Usually folks like you either cease posting on the topic, or you reply to another post while leaving the original post dangling.
Either put up or join the echo chambers you typicallly visit like Koz or DUh.
Of course you don't
November 26, 2006 - 20:12 ET by acumenOf course you don't.......
99% of scientists are not on
November 26, 2006 - 21:19 ET by NL20799% of scientists are not on Al Gore's side. Huge tracts of scientists remain unconvinced one way or the other. Many who were convinced have growing doubts. Some who are global warming evangelists have recently revised their dire predictions drastically DOWNWARDS. One in particular: Dr. James Hansen.
I don't understand you rationale.
Maybe education would be le
November 26, 2006 - 20:31 ET by sarcasmoMaybe education would be less of a political target/problem if less government were involved altogether, rather than just less Al Gore or less Laurie David.
JMR
Sarc
November 26, 2006 - 21:36 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
Is this Internet-assisted home schooling? ns
It's that and much more. It
November 27, 2006 - 07:07 ET by sarcasmoIt's that and much more. It's a movement against public schooling, which -- rather than needing new, "conservative" leadership, needs to be entirely dismantled because government does not provide kids with good schooling any more than it can provide them with good milk. This is true regardless of the self-interested screams of public-schooling-bureaucrats (or 'private' dairy farmers -- who tend to all be on agricultural welfare, come to think of it) addicted to sarcasmo's tax-money. In other words, it's a stealthy small-l libertarian plot to get rid of yet-another aspect of government and thereby pay less taxes while getting better results (see the past few decades of continual homeschooler asskickings on everyone-else at the national spelling bee). To me, public schools are just like the FCC -- both are in the growing: "something government needs to quit-doing entirely" category of government, and both are practically-holy to their defenders.
JMR
Oil companies have done a won
November 27, 2006 - 12:53 ET byOil companies have done a wonderful job about saying that there is no global warming and no pollution...hmmm I wonder why they dont want us to know that burning carbon causes increases in co2?? They have already indoctrinated this site with the typical nonsensical talking points that 98% of scientists also realize are illogical.
neos love to attack public schools but never the military??
"It's a movement against public schooling, which -- rather than needing new, "conservative" leadership, needs to be entirely dismantled because government does not provide kids with good schooling any more than it can provide them with good milk"
Since most of the wealthy 1% send their kids to private schools which often are better because of the types of students that are only allowed at the school, these wealthy would just as soon as soon not spend more money. Isnt it better that we continue to spend all of our money on the military and finance another country??
"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."
E. Murrow
Oil companies have done a won
November 27, 2006 - 13:34 ET by UnsaneOil companies have done a wonderful job about saying that there is no global warming and no pollution...hmmm I wonder why they dont want us to know that burning carbon causes increases in co2?? They have already indoctrinated this site with the typical nonsensical talking points that 98% of scientists also realize are illogical. A hearty thank you, neohayes, for showing once again that the global warming issue is NOT about global warming to Leftists...to them, it IS about destroying producers, like oil companies, and assuaging their guilt that they have because they live in the world's greatest and most advanced economy.
neos love to attack public schools but never the military?? The military does its job...the Stars and Stripes still flies. The public schools fail at theirs...they turn out people who, if not illiterate, cannot critically think, do not grasp basic subjects, and are otherwise not prepared for the real world. Next.
Since most of the wealthy 1% send their kids to private schools which often are better because of the types of students that are only allowed at the school, these wealthy would just as soon as soon not spend more money. Isnt it better that we continue to spend all of our money on the military and finance another country?? Well, at least we know you still despise people more financially successful than you are, just because they are more successful. What did Iago say about jealousy? Something about it being the green-eyed monster?
Oh, and if MORE MONEY is the only solution to have better educational results, I eagerly anticipate your explanation of the DC school system.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
DC Public Schools...should be
November 27, 2006 - 13:46 ET by kwDC Public Schools...should be the poster child for public education. I mean they spend a ton of money per student, DC is 90%+/- liberal, school district and government is run by the liberals, there is no conservative voice of dissent to stop the "progressive" thinking...why does this school district FAIL OUR CHILDREN?
Victory for Rhayes!!!
November 28, 2006 - 05:15 ET by sarcasmoOk, this clinches it. This hysterical Rhayes character now beats MassLiberal -- even at his nuttiest when I managed to make it into his sigfile. (Calling the likes of ME a "neo," hallucinating that I mentioned the military when I spoke instead only of public schools, spreading myths about how the wealthy school their kids...) You get the "biggest nutcase" title, buddy, and Manny must face nutcase-defeat in absentia. Anything goes to change the subject from the ever more expensive failure of socialist schooling, I suppose, even unintentionally-hilarious non-sequiturs. But hopefully this will make someone click the link above & discover why private enterprise works best for educating kids just like it works best for getting milk to them.
JMR
That's quite a large number
November 26, 2006 - 20:51 ET by marvlThat's quite a large number of preposterous claims by Laurie David, and she offers not a single reference or shred of documentation to back her claims... not unlike what Al "ManBearPig" Gore did with his absurd docudrama.
Say, what is a nitwit like Laurie David doing writing op-ed pieces for the Washington Post? Have they considered letting someone more qualified write those, like Jessica Simpson or Kevin Federline?
Well they did open the moon
November 26, 2006 - 20:55 ET by 1sttofightWell they did open the moonbat gate when they let algored write one.
Listen if 99% of all the do
November 26, 2006 - 20:57 ET byListen if 99% of all the doctors in the world told you that you had cancer and had to treat it immediatly you wouldnt give a crap about that 1%
Care to back up that 99% garb
November 26, 2006 - 21:19 ET by UnsaneCare to back up that 99% garbage? I have had classes with scientists who aren't impressed with global warming theory (but like good scientists they are open to the possibility).
Trusting scientists and doctors to do your critical thinking for you will simply lead you into trouble. Even if 99% of doctors were crying to me that I had cancer, I would STILL seek a second opinion, because I live for critical thinking.
I am waiting...what are YOU doing about it? Or are you demanding we assuage your self-inflicted guilt FOR you?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Science is like any unregulat
November 26, 2006 - 21:26 ET by NL207Science is like any unregulated commodity. It is like medicine used to be before state licensing, back when the local doctor was often also the undertaker and the local dentist was the barber.
I would first try to figure out which of these 'doctors' were actually doctors and which are quacks.
Striking similarity
November 26, 2006 - 21:38 ET by acumenSimilar to the rational 99% of the commenters here disagreeing with you and you only give a crap about your 1% psuedo-global-warming-panic attack. Is that you Laurie?
Thank you.....
November 26, 2006 - 20:59 ET by JamesonLewis3rdI needed a laugh and I got a few from your post and a few more from the comments.
Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3
You believe that damn bible
November 26, 2006 - 21:03 ET byYou believe that damn bible with no proof at all. strange.
Run along little boy, your
November 26, 2006 - 21:24 ET by 1sttofightRun along little boy, your 5 minutes are up.
No proof?
November 26, 2006 - 21:30 ET by Wonder95I gotta jump in here. 7MS, you definitely don't know what the heck you're talking about here. You wanna debate Bible proof, you found the right person. Whether you're talking about historical, archeaological, scientific, or any other kind of proof, the Bible will stand up to any ciriticism you've got, and from the other comments I've seen you leaving in this thread, it's obvious you don't let things like facts get in the way of your opinions.
Insofar as Archeology is able
November 26, 2006 - 21:30 ET by NL207Insofar as Archeology is able to ascertain, the stories of the Bible appear to be true. The flight of the Jews from Egypt is a case in point, references to which still exist from Egyptian sources.
Hey 7MS, You're a pretty brav
November 26, 2006 - 21:48 ET by idahoguyHey 7MS, You're a pretty brave guy to insult the "damn bible" that way. I dare you to post to an islamic group about how they believe the "damn quran" with no proof at all. Be sure to leave them your name and address. Post the link here so we can check it out. Since you're so brave and all.
IG
November 26, 2006 - 21:57 ET by Noel SheppardIG,
I second that. Here are a few options for our new member:
Go with Allah, my son. :-) ns
Strange Gaze
November 26, 2006 - 22:04 ET by acumen"You believe that damn bible with no proof at all. strange."
Let's talk strange. Yeah, it's that "damn bible"......that's the problem. Some people actually thinking the ten commandments are good advice? How wierd. Treating others as you would like to be treated yourself? How absurd. Loving others, even your enemy? Get real.
Why believe that garbage when we could (and probably will if we follow the "new direction" the Democrats want to steer America) all be embracing the new, improved, radical Islam printing (RIP) of the Koran. I especially like the part where women are to be treated special because they are the most comfortable piece of furniture in the house. Not to overlook the zingy hate everyone that doesn't agree with us part. Oh, those whacky jihadists. And I especially look forward to the feast days where the saintly mullahs cut off an infidels head and stuff it in the mouth of a pig (alive of course). But I digress, no, it's still that "damn bible" we Americans are stuck with. Yeah, that's a real problem if not strange indeed. BTW - How is that beginners course in suicide coming along?
I'm an athiest here. Also a B
November 27, 2006 - 16:06 ET by danboI'm an athiest here. Also a BA in archaeology/anthropology. And I think fairly well versed in the science and history of climate.
That being said. My personal opinion. There is at least as much if not more that can be backed in the bible. Than in "An Inconvient Truth". The story of the flood probably documents the reclaiming of the Black Sea, much as what will happen in the future with the Great African Rift Valley. Babel sounds like an incident as the 1908 Tunguska explosion. That's after looking back millinea.
Where as Mann's Hockey stick is an example of tortured data. That forces us to ignore the past.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Dan
November 27, 2006 - 17:00 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
Interesting you bring this up. I took a Bible as history course in college, and was fascinated by the accuracy of much of the Old Testament as it pertains to documented historical fact. ns
The bible and religion is a
November 27, 2006 - 18:49 ET by danboThe bible and religion is an issue of faith. And won't argue over that. Though I differ from religous people of the faith issue. I find the bible an interesting study and source of information on history. Though written from the view of the jews. Much originally from oral history. There is as you point out a lot of history there. Including some very real, though, rare natural events (Remember there is a year without sun in the history books.)
AD 535
The dark ages may be appropriately names, not just because of the darkness of science and enlightenment. But also because they started "dark".
Likewise a climate change of global proportions may have triggered the biblical exodus
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/MarkTwain40627.htm
The warmers want us to forget the extremes of climate. The quickness of change. They wish to forget the raw power of nature. And worry about the tailpipe of my pickup.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Note to Laurie David and Al B
November 26, 2006 - 21:04 ET by nicksmith112Note to Laurie David and Al Bore.
Why note spend your time and money coming up with an alternative to fossil fuels.
Hey Al why waste jet fuel flying all over the world doing interviews when you can stay home and use a web-cam?
Remember you invented the internet.
Ah, I remember my school years
November 26, 2006 - 21:27 ET by TexasOptimistThroughout my middle- and high-school years, I and my fellow students' science classes were filled with doom and gloom scenarios. I remember in 7th grade when we spent several weeks watching a "documentary" called "Race to Save the Planet." It was hosted by Meryl Streep, and it claimed that we had no more then ten years left before the earth was too hot, no longer inhabitable.
Well, that was more than 15 years ago, and I'm still here.
The Reagan conservative formerly known as Texaswolf77.
I am not a Trot, that was an act.
TO,I'll see you, and raise yo
November 27, 2006 - 00:48 ET by Indiana JoeTO,
I'll see you, and raise you. When I was in middle school, about 35 years ago (sigh!), the environmental scare was global cooling, and the Coming Ice Age!!!
Caused, IIRC, by these same "greenhouse gasses." Only they didn't call them that then, since the term implies heat. The argument was, "pollution" would reflect the sun's heat into space, causing the Earth to cool.
Funny how the same gasses now cause the exact opposite effect.... ;^)
acid rain
November 27, 2006 - 01:05 ET by entAnd let's not forget Acid Rain, which was going to completely annihilate our ecosystems. I don't think I've heard a peep about AR in a decade.
Yeah, but AR was MURDER on Yu
November 27, 2006 - 01:14 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, but AR was MURDER on Yugos and Chevy Vegas.
Drove them to extinction.... ;^D
Come to think of it, acid rai
November 27, 2006 - 01:55 ET by TexasOptimistCome to think of it, acid rain also was one big danger we learned about, in addition to global warming (which back then was referred to in our lessons as the "greenhouse effect"). I do remember both being blamed for our yet-to-be-seen demise.
The Reagan conservative formerly known as Texaswolf77.
I am not a Trot, that was an act.
Manmade Global Warming = Bunk
November 26, 2006 - 21:37 ET by ent7MS:
There is plenty of disagreement among scientists about the causes of global warming. I have a science background and I have done some digging and my conclusion is that the contribution of humans to global warming is little to none. I suggest that you do some digging yourself, instead of accepting the claims of a politician who is running for president and says that he knows how to save the world. Or the claims of know-nothing media scaremongers who stifle (or attack) anything that doesn't fit their far-left worldview.
Here's are some very interesting links:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
(You might have to use Firefox to view the last one.)
There are many, many more such pages to be found on the Internet, if only you would look. Don't expect to find anything useful in the mainstream media.
Even the oil companies are st
November 26, 2006 - 21:58 ET by crsheddEven the oil companies are starting to get it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361.html
"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?" (my emphasis)
"And on Nov. 2, the company (ExxonMobil) announced that it will contribute more than $1.25 million to a European Union study on how to store carbon dioxide in natural gas fields in the Norwegian North Sea, Algeria and Germany." Why spend that amount of money if there isn't SOMETHING to all this?
Damn those liberals at Shell!!
way to go cr! yeh these damn
November 26, 2006 - 22:12 ET byway to go cr! yeh these damn liberals rigged the elections and now they have brainwashed 98% of the scientists and even our terminator repub Arnold.
"While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable."
and the next confession by the oil companies is their interest in middle east black gold!
"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."
E. Murrow
Why are *you* an accomplice?
November 26, 2006 - 22:16 ET by Free StinkerWhy are *you* an accomplice?
Hayes, your non-sequiturs are
November 26, 2006 - 22:34 ET by NL207Hayes, your non-sequiturs are legendary.
Do you realize there are more proven oil reserves in the Canadian tar sands than there are in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined?
here the neos bring up canadi
November 26, 2006 - 22:40 ET byhere the neos bring up canadian tar sands...dont you think oil companies already have connection with our ally? Do you think they dont have connections with australia ...currently do they have connections with Iraqi oil?? What imbecile said that oil would pay for this war ?? did they think that terrorists would pay for the war with oil?? neologic astounds me!
"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."
E. Murrow
RHayesbat - don't you get tir
November 26, 2006 - 22:42 ET by Free StinkerRHayesbat - don't you get tired of making no sense, even to yourself?
That Turban Look
November 26, 2006 - 22:50 ET by acumenCut em' some slack FS. I think that Turban look is going to work for Rhayes.
;-)
November 26, 2006 - 22:51 ET by Free Stinker;-)
Hayes, I trampled your sorry
November 26, 2006 - 22:50 ET by NL207Hayes, I trampled your sorry ass into the sand on the forum. It will be a pleasure to repeat the performance here.
If oil were actually the primary motive for war in Iraq, there would be no war in Iraq. The war would have occured elsewhere. The presence of oil in Iraq does not by itself demostrate a cause and effect relationship between that oil and war. There is more readily obtainable oil in half a dozen other locations. Were your thesis true, there would be war there as well. But there isn't.
Correction: Logic astounds you.
What, no broken links for u
November 27, 2006 - 00:19 ET by Uncle JohnWhat, no broken links for us?
Liberal Bushbots?
November 26, 2006 - 22:16 ET by acumenI don't dare presume the outrageous hostility directed at "big oil" has anything to do with this PR move which was delivered (coincidentally of course) at the notoriously "unbiased" National Press Club.
This was my favorite part from the article: "Paul M. Anderson, Duke Energy's chairman and a member of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, favors a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. His firm is the nation's third-largest burner of coal."
What's this? A member of President Bush's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in favor of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide?
Those damn liberal pro-environmentalists at the Bush Administration!!
I notice that Hofmeister was
November 26, 2006 - 22:32 ET by NL207I notice that Hofmeister was speaking to the National Press Club when this statement was made. Seems to me he was trying to gain some favorable prees before the liberal politicians who have announced their intention to INVESTIGATTE THE OIL COMPANIES for price fixing take power in January.
Hofmeister is not a scientist. He is a business executive. There is a large difference there.
Why spend money as Exxon-Mobil is? To buy off the politicos. The oil companies are the targets of a propaganda war funded indirectly by the government. they have no hope of winning on their own, so they are trying to by favor. It won't work, but I can understand why they are tying.
The plain simple fact is, 98% of qualified scientists are not convinced the CO2 levels are the problem the alarmists claim they are. All of you clowns on the left continue to trumpet about his 'consensus', yet not one of you tripe vendors can identify five scientists by name who say this CO2 increase will produce a global catastrophe. I can produce something greater than 10,000 who say it isn't. You need to produce 490,000 who say that it is a serious problem for the 98% number to be true.
Care to debate the science?
Care to debate the science wi
November 26, 2006 - 22:52 ET by crsheddCare to debate the science with Science Magazine?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed (that means papers researched and pulished in scientific journals) literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." (myemphasis)
Here we go with this "pe
November 26, 2006 - 23:12 ET by UnsaneHere we go with this "peer-reviewed" business again!
Guess what, crshedd? Peer-review doesn't mean a damn thing! A peer-reviewed article can be JUST as wrong as one that is not. You MAY remember the whole tussle that occurred earlier this year in South Korea over cloning claims...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Yes, I remember that South Ko
November 27, 2006 - 00:04 ET by crsheddYes, I remember that South Korean fiasco. It was a study that did NOT survive peer-review. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. (Wikipedia)
The South Korean fiasco fell apart during peer review. Thank goodness scientists don't just take someone's word for something. Maybe that is why it is called science and not faith.
Peer-review...the #1 excuse from critical thinking
November 27, 2006 - 13:37 ET by UnsanePeer-review is just another excuse for you to turn over your critical thinking skills to someone else. It is not foolproof.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Get your facts straight. The
November 27, 2006 - 16:27 ET by danboGet your facts straight. The Korean research fell apart not because of peer review but because of bloggers started ripping it appart.
Oreskes, failed my own personal peer review. I've looked at her research. Her design.
Do you know enough about research to tell me where the problems are in her design?
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
crshedd - here debate the discredited Naoimi about her politica
November 26, 2006 - 23:26 ET by SportPoliticscrshedd - here debate the LONG discredited Naoimi about her political goals.
[ A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused "global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.
"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.
"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.
"Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication (Science Magazine) demonstrates either a new low in desperation or a new generation believing there are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told CNSNews.com.
"I was surprised to see Science publish an article crowing over the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and then advancing the non-sequitur that political action is therefore needed. Neither is a point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated Dec. 6.
"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.
]
_____________________________________________
YEAH , LET'S DEBATE IT BONEHEAD.
Oh, well, one guy says Scienc
November 26, 2006 - 23:43 ET by crsheddOh, well, one guy says Science Magazine is crap. Must be true. Oh, maybe if you find two then we might as well shut down every science program in the country.
This comment from one who is
November 26, 2006 - 23:51 ET by UnsaneThis comment from one who is ready and eager to turn all of his critical thinking skills over to the said magazine, and anyone who agrees with him that global warming is happening.
crshedd, how's that wheelbarrow of guilt treating you? Kind of hard to push around, isn't it?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
crshedd - not correct again.
November 27, 2006 - 00:00 ET by SportPoliticscrshedd - not correct again. Three people are quoted, one of which was surprised Science magazine posted such a lame article.
One pathetic article doesn't make a whole magazine crap forever does it ? Under that rule of thumb, your idiot posts would make this whole site worthless, is that what you argue ?
( You do, because you're a lying gasbag.)
Please stop shacking the tr
November 27, 2006 - 00:22 ET by Uncle JohnPlease stop shacking the trolls. You don't want them to go away, do you?
Geez, 3 people against global
November 27, 2006 - 00:29 ET by crsheddGeez, 3 people against global warming? Man, you got me convinced.
In case you don't understand sarcasm, my 'crap' comment was a sarcastic response to a post saying that a single (or 3 now, don't know if the other 2 were scientists or not) British scientist (Social and Sports! Anthropology) said that the peer review article in Science Magazine was crap.
So science is a popularity co
November 27, 2006 - 00:31 ET by UnsaneSo science is a popularity contest now? Can we vote away gravity and Keplerian physics as well?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Science mag, the lib $$$$ delay for Global Warming crshedd
November 27, 2006 - 04:17 ET by SportPoliticsScience mag, the lib $$$$ delay for Global Warming crshedd - see the truth my friend, global warming is not a problem, who gets the $$$ - specifically who chooses the distribution routes can wait till at least next year...LOL... as the world burns....
[ GLOBAL WARMING:
U.N. Conference Puts Spotlight on Reducing Impact of Climate ChangeRichard Stone and John Bohannon
NAIROBI--Here at the annual U.N. conference of nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, delegates fleshed out an Adaptation Fund that will funnel assistance to developing countries that bear the brunt of climate change. But disagreement over who will control the money will delay implementation until next year's meeting at the earliest...]
Well, the spotlight is obviously on the dollars, not on "reducing global impact", as their first paragraph outlines, outing their titled LIE. Next year sometime(at least that long away) they will figure out who to dole out tens of millions to. I hope EXXON gets the biggest cut.
LOLOL - Is the the time a lib pipes up shrieking it's all about the money ?????
I guess not, no, no, no, not when it comes to libs saving the world from the coming "human extinction" Al Gore's dire predictions warn of...
Hey Al, can we just forget the Social Security "IOU trust fund - aka -we owe more taxes "- since we're all going to start cooking to death within the now in less than ten years "unstoppable" exponentially multiplying heat destruction of the earth ? You're not operating by filling liberals with intense FEAR, are you Al ?
(It's ok chicken little lib, the big bad US military will save you once again )
About a month ago. I think d
November 27, 2006 - 20:31 ET by danboAbout a month ago. I think different ones of us came up with the names of about 100 if not more scientists who seriously questioned anthropogenic global warming. Give us the names of those who say it's rea and that it's serious.l.
I'll give you one name right now. A man who believed anthropogenic was real. But that there were benefits we didn't see in it. He was Al Gore's mentor. Dr Roger Revelle.
He co authored, " What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap," with Drs Singer and Starr. This became embarassing to Mr Gore so he tried to force Dr Singer to take Dr Revelles name off the paper after his (Revelle) death.
The Gore/Revelle/Singer story.
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
There has been at least one list of 40 this time. Let's see your list.
Or are you all talk.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
End of Story
November 26, 2006 - 23:56 ET by acumen"Care to debate science with science magazine?"
A less sinister and more truthful question should aptly be proposed as; Care to debate science with the author, Naomi Oreskes?' After all scientific consensus on any issue is in of itself not science which could hardly be endorsed by a science magazine. This article is merely an opinion of one author, not the magazine itself due to the simple fact any scientist should realize at the start, consensus science is not science. No quantification, no replicability, no falsifiability - no science.
The Oreskes abstracts (Oreskes is the author of the article linked by crs)
Naomi Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 – 2003) using the keywords “global climate change.” However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts.
The same ISI database that Oreskes used was searched and the same key words as Oreskes but used all documents listed therein. While Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, she later confirmed that she had limited her search to “articles”, while this researcher included “all document types” in the initial assessment. This difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the “928” abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents later found and considered, although her figures don’t add up, one way or another.
Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the ‘consensus view.’
In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover - and despite attempts to deny this fact - a few abstracts actually doubt the view that human activities are the main driving force of “the observed warming over the last 50 years.” Source
Amazing. There isn't (not that this is even possible) even a scientific consensus of the supposed scientific consesus (not that this is even possible) on man-made global warming. The consensus on climate change (however defined) does not tell us who has a right to speak, what science is relevant to action, or what actions are possible or worthwhile. Efforts to use a scientific consensus as a means to achieve any of these ends will like harm both science and the prospects for action. End of story.
Yes I do care. The writer of
November 27, 2006 - 03:09 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYes I do care. The writer of this article is an asshat. This is an essay done by a liberal about a liberal science group funded almost wholly by the UN.... a bunch of effing liberals. But they don't support any agenda like kicking the US in the balls now do they? Oh no, their motives are as pure as the wind driven snow. If you want to know the motives of many who purport to support global warming.... you have only to look at where the money goes... funding this study, funding that study, millions are going into that and it's always easier to study extinct species, geology, climatology, the sun and any other thing they can somehow link to global warming to increase the dollars coming in. Scientists are no less susceptible to the lure of money than anyone else. But, this report and the many others before and sure to follow in no way prove that a plurality of scientists agree on manmade global warming.
The fact is they interchange the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" constantly, blurring the lines for those who actually don't pay attention too much since they have other things to do.
A point that almost all scientists agree on is that Climate Change is real, it's happening now, and has happened in the past. It's not the "if" we argue over. It's the "how" and "why". And we contend you liberal blowhards have gotten it so wrong, so often, and for so long that you have zero credibility. You're a bunch of Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling. And what's worse, you want to be paid for that crap.
I've got news for you CR and RH.... Climate Change is happening. There I said it. Are you shocked? I also have some more news you likely won't believe.... the weather is caused by the SUN and the complex relationship of solar output and proximity.... but you would already know that... right?
You will be sorry you asked.
November 27, 2006 - 03:29 ET by NL207You will be sorry you asked. That article you cite is not science.
I am not impressed with Science magazine. They and Nature are supposed to be the two top scientific journals published in the US, yet Science Magazine in 2004 had to publish a retraction. They were totaly taken in by Hwang Wu Suk, the Korean who faked a huge body of 'stem cell research'. Message here: Science is far from 100% reliable, especially in matters with a political agenda, such as Embryonic Stem Cell research or Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The Author, Naomi Oreskes, is an historian, one with a well known prior association with liberal causes. Just look at her extensive affiliations with PBS.
The paper itself is flawed. Oreskes chose to sample exactly one online publication listing service: The ISI Database, which is a product of the Thomson Web of Science. The public at large cannot access this database. It is by subscription only. It is also NOT the most widely used scientific publication database. Scitex is. I believe this choice was intentional for two reasons. First, Scitex contains the publications of the Society of Petroleum Geologists and several other contrarian bodies who either reject the notion that Global Warming is Anthropogenic or believe that the Anthropogenic portion of global climate variation is relatively small compared to natural variations. Second, if the database is not widely available, then the blogosphere will have great difficulty impeaching the results.
Most importanly. Oreskes results cannot be reproduced by other researchers using the methodology she describes in her paper. One attempt is described here. This means that Oreskes paper is not science at all, because it is not reproducible.
Let me reduce this to layman's terms: The Oreskes paper is Bulls***.
Now, would you like to debate the science yourself instead of relying on the defective work of some other non-scientist who is blowing smoke up your arse?
crshedd
November 26, 2006 - 22:36 ET by Noel Sheppardcrshedd,
Thank you for pointing this article out. I may actually write about it after the football game is over, because it's a marvelous example of a newspaper cherry-picking someone's speech.
It took me all of one minute to find the text of Hofmeister's address. You should try it some time -- actually finding what somebody really said as opposed to what a journalist reported. You'll find it quite enlightening.
For instance, of the 3,610 words in his speech given a month ago, this is all Hofmeister said about greenhouse gases:
That's it. 180 words out of 3,610 -- or 5 percent. Want to know what he discussed 95 percent of the time? Well, expanding deep-water drilling in the Gulf, shale exploration in Colorado. You know, things like that which are going to need Congressional approval!
As such, what Hofmeister did in front of a group of journalists -- after all, this was the National Press Club -- is he politicked. He threw them a nice bone even as he admitted to not supporting a restrictive bill in California. But, in reality, he didn't say very much at all on this issue.
In the end, he accomplished exactly what he wanted, and WaPo bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Now, even someone as astute as yourself is thinking that the big, bad oil companies might not be so bad. Multiply that by all the others that saw this article, but didn't see the other 95 percent of what he addressed that day, and I guarantee that Hofmeister and all of his board of directors were laughing their heads off yesterday much as I am right now. :-) ns
Green helmeted Cherry Pickers?
November 26, 2006 - 22:57 ET by acumenOuch.....now that's gonna leave a mark. I'll be looking forward to your follow-up piece on this story Noel to see if those cherry-pickers were wearing green helmets.
First, don't buy his line tha
November 26, 2006 - 23:08 ET by crsheddFirst, don't buy his line that "Shell was involved in discussing AB32 in California." They fought it tooth and nail, just like all the other oil and gas companies.
And then there is this in the same speech (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC2=/us-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/speeches/2006/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/us-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/speeches/2006/jdh_pressclub_102306.html, "And what about the CO2? The CO2 can be captured as well. And that CO2 can then be managed. Rather than simply emitted into the atmosphere, that CO2 could be captured and sequestered."
Gee, isn't that what Al Gore is talking about? The amount of CO2 humans put into the air? Now why would Shell care how much CO2 emissions there are if there was absolutely no problems caused by it?
Maybe Al Gore is only half right. Still can get pretty scary if we just sit back and say that everything is great.
Conservatives always fight anything that is pro-environment. The latest I've heard is that it is too expensive to address global warming. If it is too expensive now, why would it be cheaper later?
Hell, GWBush won't even keep the Enviromental Protection Libraries open. Why not?
I have not heard of a SINGLE peer-reviewed article opposing global warming. Please point one out for me.
So, conservatives fight anyth
November 26, 2006 - 23:19 ET by UnsaneSo, conservatives fight anything pro-environment, eh? Guess you don't know too many hunters and outdoorsmen. Those I have known here in TX and in AK are conservative to the core but are big-time conservationists all the same.
Not to mention people like me who seek out common-sense environmental alternatives, like recycling programs and weather-stripping homes (to save me money, not so much to save the planet, but the outcome is environmentally sound, no?).
If Leftists were ALL about stopping global warming, they would point to France's example and highlight it 24 hours a day. Do you know where France gets 70% of its energy from? Nukes. Yet I don't hear too many Leftists demanding more investment in nuclear energy. (Proof again that it is NOT about the environment and all about the destruction of capitalism, and above all making the United States a Fourth World nation in the name of guilt.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
First of all, I am impressed
November 26, 2006 - 23:29 ET by crsheddFirst of all, I am impressed that a conservative is saying we should be more like the French!
Second, if someone is concerned about the environment WHY IN HELL WOULD THEY WANT NUCLEAR POWER????????????????
And that is the trouble with conservatives. It's either oil or nuclear. There is NOTHING else. Well, when we used water for power, there didn't seem to be anything else and look what happened.
WHY would finding alternative power lead to the destruction of capitalism? Your logic there is extremely flawed. New science leads to new opportunities which leads to new wealth and jobs. That sounds like a ringing endorsement of capitalism, not it's final throes.
Are you sure you recylcle? I believe it was the hippies who REALLY pushed that idea in the '60's. And of course the conservatives at the time laughed at them.
Oh, I recycle. I drink my b
November 27, 2006 - 00:00 ET by UnsaneOh, I recycle. I drink my beer out of glass bottles that go into a blue bin, along with cans, #1 and #2 plastics, and paper products, and get taken to a recycler every Thursday.
I also recycle my used oil from oil changes. Believe it or not, in this reddest of red states, that is THE LAW here, and rightfully so. Listening to you, I would think you have a vision of me pouring my used oil down a storm drain maniacally laughing the whole time.
Point is, I like common-sense approaches to environmentalism, and I carry out such approaches whenever possible. My town encourages people to use electric powered lawn mowers for instance...another reason to expand the STNP at Bay City...
SAY! Explain your objections to nuclear power. The Socialists in France think its great! They get SEVENTY PERCENT of their power from nukes! They have NO PROBLEM with this arrangement!
And by the way...they are PROVEN. Granted, I see plenty of windmill parts head down the highway here for West Texas, but out there, they use them on small scales. They are great for powering small towns and electricity co-ops, but a disaster for powering an entire city like Dallas, Houston or San Antonio alone. I visited the Kamoa Wind Farm near Ka Lae, HI, and it didn't seem to be working out to well for the Hawaiians (though I could be wrong; but that wind farm looked in BAD shape). I know wind will be brought up because Leftists will always bring up these impractical solutions instead of what works.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Listening to you, I would th
November 27, 2006 - 00:04 ET by balboaListening to you, I would think you have a vision of me pouring my used oil down a storm drain maniacally laughing the whole time.
I figured you put it in squirt guns and used otters as target practice. :p
LMAO, bal. The mood needed l
November 27, 2006 - 01:25 ET by Indiana JoeLMAO, bal.
The mood needed lightened a little here. Good one. ... ;^D
Spying on me?
November 27, 2006 - 01:54 ET by UnsaneHow did you know I did that in AK? :-)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Recycling
November 27, 2006 - 00:05 ET by BlondeUnsane,
Here's a little assignment....if not for you, then for your new debate friend, crshedd.
What, exactly is the cost/benefit of recycling regular household goods?
Everyone thinks they know...how it's oh so beneficial....but is it actually cost-effective?
What do you think?
Good point. Recycling is NOT
November 27, 2006 - 00:12 ET by crsheddGood point. Recycling is NOT cost effective, especially with plastic. It is one of those myths we all believe.
crshedd,I KNOW about this top
November 27, 2006 - 00:17 ET by Blondecrshedd,
I KNOW about this topic, but why don't you research it a bit, and prove to all here that the liberal mantra is crshedded.....
Can you do it?
Gee, sorry I agreed with you.
November 27, 2006 - 00:22 ET by crsheddGee, sorry I agreed with you.
http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html
crshedd,You've taken my posit
November 27, 2006 - 00:27 ET by Blondecrshedd,
You've taken my position.
How is it that recycling is a boon to the ecological movement? Saving the planet, and all that?
And if that MYTH gets exploded (as you seem to have agreed with me, above) why should anyone agree with the myth of Global Warming?
You have proved it beyond a s
November 27, 2006 - 00:54 ET by crsheddYou have proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, Blonde.
You have put me in my place and I see no way out. Because recycling is not all it's cracked up to be, global warming is false. That must mean that Galileo Galilei was wrong and the Church right.
Blonde, you always have coherent and well thought arguments, but, I am sorry to say that this isn't one of them.
Wrong, crshedd,I asked YOU to
November 27, 2006 - 00:57 ET by BlondeWrong, crshedd,
I asked YOU to disprove the thesis.
Which you didn't do, at all.
You lose. Sorry.
Of course not
November 27, 2006 - 03:08 ET by terrigBlonde, they don't know what research is if they can't find it on Sesame Street.
I don't have the numbers in f
November 27, 2006 - 00:13 ET by UnsaneI don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can tell you this: there is a reason why only #1 and #2 types of plastic are accepted. It is impractical to recycle the other types, as I read MANY years ago.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"90-plus percent of the
November 27, 2006 - 03:05 ET by Bricklayer"90-plus percent of the world's leading figures..."
notice he didn't say "leading scientists"?
"When the policymakers decide it's a problem, it's a problem."
iow, we don't agree, but we'll play the game on your terms... instead of debating the science, we'll debate the policies.
honestly, i see little to nothing in his speech that says Shell agrees with, or is supportive of, global warmingism. in fact, it sounds like Shell is just playing along with the fantasy world policymakers are living in. it seems like a pretty dangerous game to play, though... hopefully the illusion will vanish as we watch weather trends over the next decade or so.
Maybe this is because self-lo
November 26, 2006 - 23:09 ET by UnsaneMaybe this is because self-loathing, guilt-ridden Leftists such as yourself only talk up global warming as a way to destroy capitalism. And guess what your favorite targets are? Why, oil companies!
If you guys can somehow tie Wal-Mart, Starbucks and MickeyDs to global warming and make them targets of your rage, you will cheerfully do so.
It is quite amazing the lengths the Left will go to in order to steal from companies and people who outstrip them in production and contributions to humanity without breaking a sweat!
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Why would adressing global wa
November 26, 2006 - 23:19 ET by crsheddWhy would adressing global warming be a blow against capitalism? When we went from water power to the internal combustion engine, it created vast amounts of wealth and jobs. Isn't that what capitalism is all about? Isn't it possible that if we create new forms of energy that a new capitalism will emerge with vast amounts of wealth and jobs? Wouldn't that enhance capitalism?
Or is protecting our current capitalists more important than addressing environmental issues.
Why so much anger against the environment? When JFK called for us to go to the moon within the decade, did we yell and scream that it shouldn't be done? And, man oh man, look at the jobs, technology AND wealth that was made from that. Why not call a nation to arms against environmental damage and create more jobs and wealth? Or are we just not up to the task?
What you perceive as anger ag
November 26, 2006 - 23:24 ET by UnsaneWhat you perceive as anger against the environment (absurd) is anger against approaches that violate common sense, especially when the only reason we are doing it is to assuage the guilt of Leftists who do NOTHING to help but whine, cry, scream, howl, and yell. I don't see too many Leftists parking their cars for good and turning Luddite now, do you?
If you Leftists are so pro-environment, where are the calls for the increased use of nuclear power? Why is it that all Leftists want to do in the name of the environment is attack the producers in this society, especially oil companies?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Nuclear power is environmentl
November 26, 2006 - 23:31 ET by crsheddNuclear power is environmently friendly? I've got some land I'll give you free in a small town called Chernoble. Or maybe you can get some land REAL cheap on the site of Three Mile Island.
No, I don't see leftists turning Luddite. But, I see leftists doing what they can to reduce their 'carbon footprint'. I see conservatives laughing at that idea and doing what they can to increase their 'carbon footprint'. See the tax break of GWBush which gives people a deduction for up to $100,000 dollars when buying SUV's. http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-2005-basics.htm
I am so glad you brought up C
November 27, 2006 - 00:11 ET by UnsaneI am so glad you brought up Chernobyl. Time for a lesson in democracy.
Chernobyl was a horrible reactor accident that occurred partially through bad reactor design and EVEN GREATER incompetence, and that tends to happen when people are not held accountable, as they weren't in the Soviet system. If the town of Pripyet had any concerns about the reactor, the Soviet authorities could tell them to get bent or ship them to a gulag. Chernobyl resulted in the release of 50 MILLION curies of radiation, and even so, the Soviets wouldn't talk about it. How was it found out about? Radiation meters outside reactors in Sweden, Finland and elsewhere started going out-of-site, and the trail took them further and further east to the Soviet Union who finally fessed up days later!
At TMI, a minor accident occurred that resulted in the release of 15 - 15! curies of radiation, and that prompted a whole round of bitching and firings and investigations - what democratic societies do when things go wrong. You know, that's about the worst that's happened in this country? And why is that? Accountability.
France wisely uses the virtually identical reactor design on all of its reactors, making them easier to maintain. When was the last time France had a nuclear accident? I can think of Swiss or British ones, but not French. I'll consult an almanac shortly and get back to you. Additionally, they have a train on permanent standby to react to the scene of an accident: they can be on scene anywhere in France in hours or anywhere in Europe in a matter of days, depending on where.
Yet, you still are afraid of nuclear power and want to gamble the U.S. economy on unproven technology. Why?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Afraid of nuclear power? No
November 27, 2006 - 00:17 ET by crsheddAfraid of nuclear power? No. Afraid of fallible humans running nuclear plants? Yes. Afraid of corporations taking shortcuts in safety and maintence to increase profits? Naw, NO corporation has EVER done that! Afraid of what to do with spent rods? Definately!
And thanx for the lesson in democracy. I can rest assured that my government has NEVER lied to me, covered up mis-deeds or anything else like that.
Afraid of living?
November 27, 2006 - 00:20 ET by BlondeAfraid of living?
Time for me to club you with
November 27, 2006 - 00:30 ET by UnsaneTime for me to club you with this, crshedd. Why are you so fearful of corporations, but blindly devoted to government? Why do you want to turn over all of your freedoms - and mine - to government so badly???
Why do you have this fear of corporate entities that are extremely democratic and as fragile as mayflies, but are oh so willing to turn over everything and anything to the State?
It's really quite simple. Corporations exist because people WANT to buy the products they produce. If there was no market for them, they would quite quickly go away. So people vote on them daily by purchasing the products they make. Additionally, ANYONE can own shares in a corporation, thus owning a part of them, and thus having a say in how they are run.
If you hate a corporation so damn much, why not stop buying from them? Why not buy influence in them - you can by purchasing shares in one, and it is quite legal - and change them from within? (Yes, maybe not one man alone can do this, but you can band together with others to do this, correct?) Or, why not set up your very own corporation that does things the way you would like to see them get done?
Here you are screaming about how corporations are the ultimate arbiters of evil, yet corporations have a extraordinarily long way to go to match the death toll at the hands of the other entity you blindly trust and want to turn over all of your economic freedom to - government. The benevolent tyrannies of Europe have so successfully stifled incentive and capitalism in general that those countries are rotting before our eyes. The more malevolent ones spill much blood in order to accomplish their twisted ends, and for your pleas they could care less. Whereas corporations merely take money to make go away, governments take another much more precious currency - blood. And in too many cases in history, they require lots and lots of blood to be removed from the earth.
Please put down the Dickens novels. (He sucked anyway.)
And you know who screwed up much of the South Texas Nuclear Project here? Why, Houston Lighting and Power! A government-protected utility! They lost their asses in a lawsuit a decade ago for their bungling of the project. Yet, it is humming along nicely today, and safely, powering cities across southern and eastern Texas.
And as for the spent rods and other waste? The French reprocess it and again don't seem to have too many problems with it. Hell, they reprocess waste from other European countries and even Japan routinely! (God, I can't believe this Leftist has put me in the position of saying nice things about that pathetic country; I normally sneer at France profusely!)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
1) If the Kyoto Protocol addr
November 27, 2006 - 01:50 ET by Unsane1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?
2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?
3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes this year?
4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?
5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.
6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?
7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?
8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.
Well?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
crshedd, when Blonde chimes i
November 27, 2006 - 03:48 ET by PeskyDanecrshedd, when Blonde chimes in on this topic, school is definately in session. She has product and industry knowledge miles ahead of most of us.
Now, having said that, and with full knowledge that I am coming late to this party, I have to address a few of the points that you and Middle Schooler have alluded to.
First, as another poster on here wrote, today's environmentalism/druid/natureworship is ALL ABOUT the destruction of the U.S. economy. If is were not, then we would have blanketed the the Mohave with solar panels, treed the the coastlines with windmills and thermal tapped the living daylights out of the prarrie. If you, albore and all your phoney friends would endorse doing so, then maybe we could say "the debate is over." As it is, the debate rages because you just won't come clean.
That damned market again!!!
November 27, 2006 - 13:48 ET by UnsaneThere is a great article in The Economist about how PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is plunging money left and right into solar and wind energy, among others. Among other things: wind power generation costs have dropped "from 8-10 cents per kWh to 3.5-4 cents since 1990 due to better turbines and higher volumes". Solar power once cost $200 per watt to generate; last year it had declined to $2.70 per watt.
That damn private sector! That damn market!
Although the article goes on to say "Climate chage is a real problem..." Really? Since when? I realize this mag is published in Britain, but are the Socialists hijacking this thing too? Well, at least keep up the world news coverage...although you MAY want to re-evaluate this "climate change is a real problem" business. It didn't seem to hurt the Scandinavians of the early Middle Ages...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane - here is my dream env
November 27, 2006 - 16:58 ET by PeskyDaneUnsane - here is my dream environmental solution: You-know-who's company finds a way to use eminent domain to condemn half of Martha's Vinyard and turn it into a glorious meadow, and then we put up a windmill forest in front of the Kennedy compound.
Actually Dane. If the so call
November 27, 2006 - 16:43 ET by danboActually Dane. If the so called climate change were as great a threat as these people think. We should call out the army. Invade China and India and force them to cease in their growth.
Instead they want to raise taxes on things. the UN will tax us. And Exxon will pass the tax on with a little for themselves.
The end of the world has been postponed till after the taxes have been collected.
Exxon isn't this arrogant.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
You're killing me... :-)
November 27, 2006 - 16:52 ET by PeskyDaneAlso, I refer you to my list
November 26, 2006 - 23:27 ET by UnsaneAlso, I refer you to my list of questions on the previous page. I answered in response to 7MS's whining about how we need to stop civilization now because of "global warming". I would cut and paste them but right now my laptop is giving me difficulties in that regard.
They are very simple questions pertaining to global warming that NO Leftists wants to answer. I can't figure out why...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Wait a minute. I thought thes
November 26, 2006 - 22:33 ET by GalvanicWait a minute. I thought these folks support genetic engineering. Somehow, I think that sentence got by David and her editors.
Great catch, Noel! You're spot on. The Left cries out louldy against alleged dangers of genetically-engineered foods --- scientific innovation which has enabled greater yields and increased harvests per season to reduce world starvation -- but they unquestioningly embrace the genetic engineering of human beings.
They hold rallies and concerts to support the 'oppressed' peoples of the worls, but when the US liberates tens of millions of those oppressed, the US is labelled as an imperialist bully.
They preach to us about diversity and multi-culturalism, but sit in silence when those cultures treat woman as an underclass devoid of most civil rights, abort female fetuses becasue male children are preferred, sell women and children into slavery, etc.
Even members of the Global Warming industry own multiple homes, drive SUV's, and fly around in private jets, as they tell us tha tthe Earth is doomed if we keep such practices going.
Nothing is all, all is contradiction!!!
November 27, 2006 - 00:17 ET by Unsane"VISION WILL BLIND!!! S3V3RANCE TI3S!!! MEDIAN AM I!! TRU3 AR3 ALL LI3S!!!" - M3shuggah, "Sum"
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Laure David
November 27, 2006 - 01:19 ET by pbthinkerThese people are very successful at what they do. We haven't built a nuclear power plant, in the United States, in 30 years, they got DDT banned, and now they're working on this. These DVD's will sit in storage until we have another bad hurricane season then they can bring them out again and say "I told you so." even if it's down the road a few years.
These people don't want to debate, they want their way and they're bound and determined to get it. What harm can they do? Just look at what banning DDT did and multiply that by 10. All the lives lost because of these people and they refuse to take responsibility for anything, just like they won't on this subject.
al you the man
November 27, 2006 - 05:15 ET by foolnomoreok' bro,, let me get this straight ,, so when i'am rubbing two sticks together, real hard i'am going to get heat ,then there's going to be smoke ,so then ignition,then flame, who'? then global warming?? so that's why you keep throwing water on me> oh,ok," you the man" who's this guy you want to meet with in the morning?? billy gates,, sounds good ta me,say good night ,,,"al "
Sure folks... Laurie David
November 27, 2006 - 13:47 ET by Jack BauerSure folks...
Laurie David is to... science, as
Michael Kramer Richards is to... race relations.
If Laurie David didn't exist Larry'd have to invent her.
(Isn't that pic of Gore having a brain fart totally inspired. Give that illustrator a medal.)
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Like Totally Jack
November 27, 2006 - 19:40 ET by acumen"Isn't that pic of Gore having a brain fart totally inspired."
Like totally Jack. ROTFLMAO
rhayes has a date with Helen Thomas! Hooray!
November 27, 2006 - 16:19 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSo how much oil was wasted making those 50,000 DVD's sitting in a warehouse and how much oil will it take to incinerate them at the trash incinerator?
DSG
Mean temphttp://cdiac.ornl.go
November 27, 2006 - 17:18 ET by danboMean temp
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=229426&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TAVE&minyear=1835&maxyear=2002
Max temps
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=229426&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMAX&minyear=1835&maxyear=2002
And Min.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=229426&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMIN&minyear=1835&maxyear=2002
Somehow. Global warming seems to have missed me. Guess it's not totally global. The warm periods of the 20's really look warmer. And the rate of change faster. Too many model T's. But does look like urban heat iland effects caused by rising min.
To check for your own area.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangedebate/message/3630
and
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/usa_monthly.html
Why not make a difference?
December 14, 2006 - 00:54 ET by FSUKellyFirst...the CDIAC website is the global change information analysis center of the U.S. Dept of ENERGY (DOE). Of course their analysis is not going to emphasize the problems caused by the greenhouse effect, they produce greenhouse gases and negatively affect the environment.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
check out figures 1 and 2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html
AND WITH VIRTUAL CERTAINTY...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html#cite1
Scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming:
"The current scientific consensus is that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities."
"The Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife." - Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Even with the rollbacks, Bush can't deny global warming... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change:
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone)
There is obviously an issue with global warning and it's the result of emitting GHGs. Do we really want to wait it out and see? Seems like a bit of an unethical experiment if you ask me. Lets potentially endanger the lives of millions of people and animals (as well as the planet) to prove that GHGs are NOT harmful? Is it really that hard to believe? Why dont those disbelievers go stand by a power plant for an hour.
What is the harm in trying a little solar power or other alternatives? And don't tell me because they hurt the economy.
So what does Al Gore do with 50,000 DVDs?
November 28, 2006 - 07:33 ET by directorblueSo what does Al do with 50,000 DVDs? I've got some eco-friendly suggestions.