On Sunday, George Will published an opinion piece in the Washington Post and other major papers called “Let Cooler Heads Prevail.” The highlight of the piece is a string of citations from the 1970s, which he claims shows that scientists then believed the world was entering a long-term phase of “global cooling.”
Here is Will’s first citation:
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
Gilbert Martinez of the Stanford Democrats blog pulled the original article. He found that Will was being exceptionally dishonest. Specifically, Martinez discovered:
1. The article was discussing the impact of the earth’s orbital variations on global temperatures over periods of 20,000 years or longer.
2. The article’s analysis specifically excluded the impact of humans on the climate. (The predictions “apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends–and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels.”
But Will’s column is deceitful in a larger sense as well. The fact is there was a temporary cooling pattern from the 1940s and the 1970s. Some in the media (notably Newsweek) improperly extrapolated that data into a long term trend of “global cooling.” But there wasn’t a single scientific publication that predicted “global cooling.” In fact, scientists warned against extrapolating the short-term trend into a long-term pattern. (Either through ignorance or malice Will concludes that, in the 1970s, scientists were “spectacularly wrong.”)
Meanwhile, Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.
Question: Is there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
George Will has built his entire career on obfuscation and deception. The only surprise is that legitimate media (sort of) still publishes him.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:26 amWhat makes you assume that George Will is a responsible journalist? He’s not: he’s a partisan opinion columnist who’s (as you point out) more than a little dishonest.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:33 amQuestion: Is there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:35 amNot as long as it remains compatible with the Bushco agenda.
All kinds of mythological beliefs are deeply imbedded into that agenda.
Mental constipation is Mr Wills strong suit.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 amBusted.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 amModern conservatism is all about lying. It’s one lie after another, built on a foundation of lies.
Election result: voter fraud
FOX news: liars
conservative pundits: liars
Iraq war: justified by lies of ommission and commission
Trolls: lie to themselves (if they really believe the garbage they vomit up here)
It’s really quite startling how many people willingly go along with the program. But considering many are evanglicals, they already have a predisposition towards cognitive dishonesty, so that explains at least part of it.
On the other hand, Jack Abramoff cynically played them for the fools they are. So there must be a lot more who go along with this fraud-on-a-national-scale just to make bucks. (Look at FOX, who plays both ends of the moral spectrum on their various networks.)
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 amAnd people wonder why the traditional news media is dying. When you can’t trust the news anymore, there really isn’t much point in paying to get it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 amWhy do Conservatives have no problems throwing their grandkids under a passing truck or bus?
That’s what they are doing. Not only with the climate of our ONLY habitable planet (you got another?). They are doing the very same thing with the National Debt they are leaving others (kids and grand & great grand kids) to pay for. And this is from the folks who claim to be the ONLY voices of personal responsibility and honesty we have today.
Clue to lying hypocritical earth hating cheap bastard conservatives…Be very careful….Your kids and grandkids aren’t as young or as dumb as you’d hoped, even though you’ve tried your very best to ruin their schooling and development.
November elections. It’ll be sooooo sweet.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 amGeorge Will is a disciple of the Big Lie technique in convincing people of your position, even if it is untrue.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 amIs there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
Is there ever a point when it isn’t?
Sure, science fiction (Ray Bradbury rather than Star Trek) can be interesting. But as a basis for setting national policies? Well, the neocons do use the Bible in policy making, so why not George Will? It’s just as tragic.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 amIf you happen to travel to The Yukon and to Alaska, you can witness the die-off of the forest in the permafrost areas. It is quite extensive. When there is a forest fire in northern British Columbia, it burns itself out. You can’t fight a forest fire that is 300 miles from nowhere.
The earth is warming. It doesn’t matter if it is good or bad, it’s happening.
I quit reading George Will years ago. It’s a waste of time.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:47 amThat’s what they are doing. Not only with the climate of our ONLY habitable planet (you got another?).
Comment by kindness — April 3, 2006 @ 10:43 am
They think the rapture is going to occur in tehir lifetimes (just like Ronnie Raygun did), and so they have no conscience about destroying what’s here. Pathetic.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 amWHY DOES THE CLIMATE HATE AMERICA?!
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amHoly Shit! Check This Out!
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amGeorge Will should stick to what he seems to know : BASEBALL .
As far as his political acumen and scientific knwledge they leave much to be disired ,
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 amlike all that love the sound of their voice he becomes irrelevent .
George Will is an economic conservative so he attempts to carry their lies to propo up this years profits, but as Ford and GM show eventually even Lies won’t prop up the bottom line, in fact if they had done what people Will is attempting to discredit had wanted they would be producing the cars today that the public really wants, …SHORT SIGHTED…. sort of the vision of polluting the only planet we have to live on just to make more money, if the planet becomes uninhabitable what is the meaning of a big bank account?
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 am“But there wasn’t a single scientific publication that predicted “global cooling.†”
So his quote from Science Digest isn’t a real qoute then?
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 amglobal warming/climate change really is the issue where the Right’s refusal to acknowledge reality is completely mystifying. what do they stand to gain by denying the overwhelming scientific evidence?
publications also have a responsibility to make sure that scientific data is accurate, not just to wave it through. where is george will’s scientific credibility? selectively quoting from past science articles, while simultaneously suggesting that those who report the evidence of global warming are themselves guilty of distortion (in George Will’s world there is only spin, and no facts) is no better than the age-old practice of selectively quoting the scriptures to advance a predetermined argument.
there was a tornado last night here in TN that killed more than 10 people. last week storms ripped through Darwin in Australia. we shall see what interesting facts and trivia George Will and his fellow deniers come up with if we have a Hurricane Season that rivals last year’s in length and intensity.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 amglobal warming/climate change really is the issue where the Right’s refusal to acknowledge reality is completely mystifying. what do they stand to gain by denying the overwhelming scientific evidence?
http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 amThe next Will column will deal with scientific writings from the 1300’s which conclude thet the earth is flat and the center of the universe. He will draw his readers to conclude that any talk to the contrary is a liberal plot to undermine Ameircan industry.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 amwe shall see what interesting facts and trivia George Will and his fellow deniers come up with if we have a Hurricane Season that rivals last year’s in length and intensity.
Comment by kingfelix — April 3, 2006 @ 10:55 am
They will say “God did it because he is mad that the middle class isn’t paying enough taxes.”
Sorry to hear about the tornadoes. Hope you’re okay.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 amDosn’t all this make it even stupider to rebuild new orleans at its current location?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:07 amQuestion: Is there ever a point when printing mythology about global warming is incompatible with responsible journalism?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:07 amSure, when you’re writing about examples of irresponsible journalism (like Will’s)
The next Will column will deal with scientific writings from the 1300’s which conclude thet the earth is flat and the center of the universe. He will draw his readers to conclude that any talk to the contrary is a liberal plot to undermine Ameircan industry.
Comment by Mark — April 3, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Funny!
Did you know that something like 20% of Americans already believe this? Seriously. There was a university study done on it last year.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 am“Did you know that something like 20% of Americans already believe this? Seriously. There was a university study done on it last year.”
It’s how we know the moon landing was faked, just like all the other space launches, because they show the earth round instead of as a cube.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 amIt’s how we know the moon landing was faked, just like all the other space launches, because they show the earth round instead of as a cube.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Good morning funny boy.
I actually had a student come to tell me that the Moon Landing was a fake, and he could show me examples with photographs. His examples were really basic common sense things that were easily refuted… like the fact that the gravity of teh moon isn’t strong enough to pull the wrinkles out of the flag they’d just hung up, but he was saying that it was ‘waves’ and therefore ‘proof’ that it was a set up. Stuff like that.
I’ve learned that when people want to believe in something badly enough, they will rationalize damn near everything to ‘prove’ it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 amDoes George Will deliberately lie or does he only see and hear what he wants? The modern Republican and conservative movement has become more of a religion depending on blind faith than on reason. Do we call the religious liars because they believe what they want regardless of evidence or reason?
We like to believe that highly intellegent and intellectual individuals like Will and Buckley would be more logical and reasonable yet the opposite is true. They use thier genius to twist, select, or ignore facts to justify thier beloved preconceptions and many pay them very well to help them do the same.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 amSqueegeeboo are you as STUPID as you sound or do they pay you to post here?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 amConservatives like George Will are nature’s way of cleansing the earth of it’s human cancer. It’s the only explanation for their astonishing stupidity and complete denial of reality.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 amThere is considerable irony in this.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 am29
I believe he was being sarcastic.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 am#29 depends on which comment clif, some are jokes, others are stupidity, care to list specific comments so I can do a break down for you?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:19 am#20
yeah, i guess what the right has to gain is, as usual, $$$, i just find it so hard to reconcile ignoring worldwide scientific opinion and foregoing the chance to Do Something with having your eyes light up over a suitcase stuffed with greenbacks.
is $$$ really that good?
natural justice dictates that george will will be whipped into the sky by a hurricane, from where he can continue to deny the evidence, “this? this is just a stiff breeze, nothing untoward. perfectly normal for alaska in mid-february…”
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 am#25 - well we now know where at least half of the 37% come from!
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 amI’ll just list them as stupid unless they are witty enough to elicit a laugh
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 amReading through some of the information linked in the above article. While the idea that global warming is caused by human activity, it sounds like in the mid-70’s many scientists were unsure. they do say to be careful about predicting long term climate trends. Case in point, during the 70’s was slight cooling. this trend did not continue. I do tend towards the thought that we are causing enviromental problems. How could we not a few million cars, factories etc. I do think it is correct to state, that unless the world as whole implaces the same restrictions, we won’t get anywhere.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am#35 “#25 - well we now know where at least half of the 37% come from!”
I would think that the 20% would be the ignorant in America, seeing how as the majority of HS drop outs are Democractic voters, Something tells me those 20% are in the Bush hating majority.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:30 amI believe he was being sarcastic.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — April 3, 2006 @ 11:19 am
I know, was humoring him. It’s what we do. :)
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:33 am#38 point proven, no link to back up a STUPID comment
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 amis $$$ really that good?
Only if you actually think it buys anything of real value.
natural justice dictates that george will will be whipped into the sky by a hurricane, from where he can continue to deny the evidence, “this? this is just a stiff breeze, nothing untoward. perfectly normal for alaska in mid-february…â€
Comment by kingfelix — April 3, 2006 @ 11:20 am
ha! I’m sure you’re right!
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 amI would think that the 20% would be the ignorant in America, seeing how as the majority of HS drop outs are Democractic voters, Something tells me those 20% are in the Bush hating majority.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Don’t know what urinal you get your ‘facts’ from, but the majority of PhDs are Democrats and independents.
Actually that 20% are strict constructionists of the Bible (i.e. Bush supporters). Read Revelations. It specifically referenced ‘the four corners of the earth’. The Bible also states that the universe is geocentric.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 amDon’t forget the Republican talking point, that democrats are all east coast liberal elite, I don’t think that High School dropouts would associate themeselves with that type of crowd.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 amEven if Will wasn’t being a weasel with the facts, his initial premise is false. He’s basically saying,
“because science was wrong in the past, it is wrong in the present.”
This Orwellian trust-us-not-the-truth panders to their ever-shrinking right-wing base who will never believe in evolution, global climate change, or an Iraqi civil war. Instead, they will happily follow Bush & Company blindly over the edge of a cliff, cheered on by jingoists like George Will & David Brooks.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 amPerhaps George Will should be given a home on the American/Canadian border and a pair of binoculars. When he sees a glacier coming, he’s to warn the country.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:47 am#28, I don’t think Will lies purposefully. I Actually don’t think he believes that he lies. He writes from a conservative view point that any restrictions on business are bad for the economy. I think he reads and writes his opinions honestly for the most part and I respect him far more than most conservative pundits. I also think that he, like most people in American, does not have the ability to actually read scientific papers, even the summaries. I used to read many many papers in my former life as a geologist. They are dry, and technical, not very interesting and difficult to follow if you don’t have the back ground in that field. Sometimes they are very difficult to read even if you do have the back ground. It is far easier to read a summary of a summary written by a non-scientific type to get your view on the subject. Unfortunately there are too many pseudo scientists out there putting out papers that sound scientific, but their main thrust is to pusha pre-determined point across, rather than to advance science. In our world today it seems to me that conservatives do not want any science that they do not believe in to be advanced while more liberal types are in favor of science regardless of the outcome. Will is simply advancing the conservative cause.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 amJawell
Look, the big thing here is that the whole global warming bit is actually only one of the problems caused by air pollution. It gets centre stage because the right decided to fight the relatively long-term issue rather then the short term issues like smog, increased incidence of cancer, and acid rain. There are a lot more reasons then just Global Warming for us to try and clean up our act as a species.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 am#42 If you do the research, you find that HS drop outs vote democrat, 2-4 year degrees vote republican, graduate level on vote Democrat again. Trying to google it for the sources I had seen a month or two ago, but busy day, so it might take me a bit to cite them, but don’t worry, I will.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 amMr. Boo - the level of a person’s education is not indicative of an individual’s level of intelligence. My mother has never taken a college course, however, she has read three newspapers a day and I do not know haw many books she reads weekly - it seems she is lways reading. She is one of the most intelligent people I know.
The we have W. He is supposedly well educated…..well we all know the results here!
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 amScience has the solution. Just listen to science and everything will be OK
31 March 2006
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker’s direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest’s may be the only record of what was said. Forrest’s account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker’s remarks.
If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science.
Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist. Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter.
Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.,
MacArthur Fellow,
Founder and Executive Director,
Society for Amateur Scientists
http://www.sas.org/ tcs/ weeklyIssues_2006/ 2006-04-07/ feature1p/ index.html
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 amMark;
You said
I don’t understand this. What does belief have to do with science? Just because you don’t like a fact doesn’t mean it isn’t true and doesn’t have to be handled. I don’t like snow and transcendental numbers and both of them still exist. And the snow still has to be shoveled.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 ambut don’t worry, I will.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 11:53 am
Oh, that is something I will never worry about…
I think the reality is that the educations ends of the spectrum vote Democrat and the middle votes Republican. But will hold my breath waiting for your links ; )
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 amI would think that the 20% would be the ignorant in America, seeing how as the majority of HS drop outs are Democractic voters, Something tells me those 20% are in the Bush hating majority.
Comment by squegeeboo
squegeeboo - You are a stooge!
You know as well as everyone knows that these 20% are Bible thumping Republicans. Science to them is like kryptonite. Not only are they ignorant, but they are aggressively and willfully ignorant. They cannot accept any facts that would contradict their fantastical world view. Not only do they not want knowledge, but they would rather others not have it either.
Remember why God punished Adam and Eve? That’s right - for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge. Apparently, God hates sciency know it alls too.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 pmShe is one of the most intelligent people I know.
The we have W. He is supposedly well educated…..well we all know the results here!
Comment by Jules — April 3, 2006 @ 11:57 am
I have a couple of friend who are in their forties and never went to college. One works in a gym and the other drives a bus. Both read more in a month than the average college student. I call them self-educated. And it’s just as valid as earning a degree the traditional way.
However, they both voted Republican prior to their se;f-education, falling within the general spectrum that most in the middle vote conservatively. Of course there are always exceptions as both of my friends, like your mom, are presently Democratsl.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 pmWill has a long history of half-truths and distortions in his opinion pieces. I recall his famous “review” of Al Gore’s Eath in the Balance, which was so full of logical errors, distortions and outright lies that I used it for years to teach critical thinking!
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 pmApparently at the speaker’s direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest’s may be the only record of what was said.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 3, 2006 @ 11:57 am
Enough said.
Though, if this were true, one whack job does not speak for all of Science. Just like you do not speak for all of well, anything really.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:06 pmI-RIGHT-I
So your friend of a friend said a scientist said something nasty at a convention which was conveniently un-recorded. Oh and he can’t actually describe the contents of the speech.
Yep that thar is what we call reliable reporting!
Seriously, your war on rationality is a losing one dude.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm#50
according to everyone but the offended scientist, Pianki was putting forth a theory on what could or might happen, not “advocating” killing off %90 of the population. Besides, according to daily Kos Pianki has been reported to the DHS.
http://www.dailykos.com
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmYet scientists are now extrapolating in exactly the same fashion as in the 1970s, mostly due to ignoring the effects of the Sun on the temperature on Earth. That Martinez has found someone back in the 1970s that did not accept the alarmist predictions of others does not discount that the media and many scientists at the time were all over the “global cooling” angle. You can find scientists today that will tell you much the same thing about the current warming trend. That doesn’t disprove that many scientists today, or at least their PR advocates, speak uncritically of an impending doom.
The truth is that the same people are doing the same thing as in the 1970s. Just look at new TIME magazine. The media is overplaying their hand for headlines and sales, while honest scientists are a lot more cautious about predictions.
This is also why James Hansen of NASA is so pissed off and claiming he is being censored: he wants his personal theories to be stated as fact, even though his own institution isn’t willing to back him up on it.
We simply do not have enough reliable data to be making the sort of predictions that are being made, or relying so heavily on models that don’t take into account things as important as the Sun.
When the Sun’s activity goes down, so will our temperature. It doesn’t get any easier than that. So the UN’s ICCP concluding that the temperature will increase 1-6 degrees by 2100 - this assumes that the current trend will continue unabated.
That is just as foolish as the scientists and the media of the 1970s. Which was the whole point being given by Mr. Will.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:08 pmLike I keep on saying, global warming is really just the sort of long term effect of air pollution. Nobody ever argues about smog, acid rain, cancer…
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pmI-RIGHT-I
I heard that during a recent White House meeting George W. Bush admitted to being a Murderous Chicken-Fucker.
His comments weren’t actually recorded in any way, and are therefore not actually verifiable, but I am certain that he said these things.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pm#38 #40 #42 #48 Finally found a few sources, 2k election, and 2004 election, for some reason I’m having a harder time than usual googling this one.
http://www.cnn.com/ ELECTION/ 2000/ epolls/ US/ P000.html
http://www.cnn.com/ ELECTION/ 2004/ pages/ results/ states/ US/ P/ 00/ epolls.0.html
Although it does look like Bush is closing the gap on HS drop outs, so maybe in 2008 you guys can claim the uneducated vote republican.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pm#56, I’m surprised that Adolf thinks there’s a point to be made there: he’s advocated for the painful death of at least 50% of the world’s population (muslims, Chinese, Russians, French, Venezuelans…non-dominionists, Jews…gays..).
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmI always loved the Pogo Comic Strip. Pogo always knew the enemy. “We are the enemy!” We, being the multitude of people who accept a class of elites in political parties who try to control our thinking. As a Biology major in the 60’s we discussed the green house effect, the warming of the planet but more importantly the distruction of habitat. Politicians are paid to stay in business and protect those who support them.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pmAny poltician worth his salt can pay for enough scientific data to support anything needed for his clients. While we have an ever changing earth humanity contributes to already existing ecological problems not just global warming. Cutting back on carbon dioxide touches the energy billionaires.Energy related politicans can’t have a change in attitude regardless of the reprecussions to the environment. Money talks loud in Washington. Just wait until Washington starts to tax the air you breathe.
When the Sun’s activity goes down, so will our temperature. It doesn’t get any easier than that. So the UN’s ICCP concluding that the temperature will increase 1-6 degrees by 2100 - this assumes that the current trend will continue unabated.
That is just as foolish as the scientists and the media of the 1970s. Which was the whole point being given by Mr. Will.
Comment by Seixon — April 3, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
The sun maintains a relatively consistent temperature. It’s the process of nuclear fusion (where hydrogen atoms ‘fuse’ into Helium atoms, thereby giving off heat and light at a relatively consistent rate within the scale of a human life. The sun is slowly burning its;ef out, but over the course of 10 billion years. Nothing we’ll notice that much.) Solar flares and CMEs are not hot enough to maintain increases in temperature. If anything, they mostly disturb satellit communications and cell phones.
The reality of Global Warming is a resultof the Greenhouse Effect. And recent scientific drilling at the polar caps have examined 600.000 year old ice cores that capture the history of Earth’s cooling and warming cycles.
And it is based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and not the sun.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 pmAlthough it does look like Bush is closing the gap on HS drop outs, so maybe in 2008 you guys can claim the uneducated vote republican.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Nah, Bush can have you ; )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 pm#65 Wait the Suns going to burn out? I’ve got to start planning for eternal winter/night. winght I’ll call it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmActually that 20% are strict constructionists of the Bible (i.e. Bush supporters). Read Revelations. It specifically referenced ‘the four corners of the earth’. The Bible also states that the universe is geocentric.
Comment by unbelievable
Flat earth again. I thought I fixed your little problem with reading comprehension. The term “four corners of the earth” was a figure of speech then as it is now. They knew very well that the earth was a globe. It’s the same as when I call you an air-head. We all know that your head isn’t made up entirely of air.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmUnbelievable you are talking science to those who profess the earthis 6000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe. Kinda makes global warming hard to understand for them…..
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm#65 Wait the Suns going to burn out? I’ve got to start planning for eternal winter/night. winght I’ll call it.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
the course of 10 billion years.(it is currently 4.5 billion years old)
I would worry about global warming and the $9,000,000,000,000 public debt first
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pmI heard that during a recent White House meeting George W. Bush admitted to being a Murderous Chicken-Fucker.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — April 3, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
You do like saying that don’t you? ; )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:29 pm#65 Wait the Suns going to burn out? I’ve got to start planning for eternal winter/night. winght I’ll call it.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
You should see how it freaks out the kids. Then, after I assured them that none of them will be around in 5 billion years to experience it supernova (do you wanna know about that part?), they start trying to problem solve their way off the planet and out of the solar system to escape it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm#59 Just one thing: how many times weather forecasts have increased precission since the 1970s? Maybe those magic thingies called computers, who have multiplied the prediction capability, give to the actual scientifics a better hability to say what would happen in some few years than the ones of 35 years ago…
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 pmGeorge Will is part of the problem. These people who still question global warming (whether it be because of special interests, stupidity, energy company ties, etc.) are going to inhibit this country, and the rest of the world, from aggresively addressing the largest, most complex threat to mankind ever. Global warming is a weapon of mass destruction if we don’t start dealing with the problem quickly. Please read this short article:
Earth forum hears dire warnings of environmental collapse
George and the like are in for a big wake up call.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmOnce the sun goes nova, we won’t have to worry about the environment anymore.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmback to my point in #18 that I haven’t seen anyone tackle yet
“But there wasn’t a single scientific publication that predicted “global cooling.†(long term)
Then, inside of Will’s article “Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”"
I would think that the Science Digest would count as a scientific publication, but havn’t actually heard of it, is it more of a laymans journal covering science, or does that count as a single scientific publication predicting “global cooling”
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:37 pm#72 “You should see how it freaks out the kids.”
It gave my brother nightmares for weeks when we first found out as youngins. I was more concerned with more immediate threats though, like the closest monster, or my brother beating the snot out of me for no reason. Ahh, childhood, how I miss it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pmFlat earth again. I thought I fixed your little problem with reading comprehension.
No, you made some general gesture about you relying on the Bible and then refused to answer my questions More than once. I might be a lot of things, but telepathic is not one of them.
The term “four corners of the earth†was a figure of speech then as it is now.
All figures of speech have a basis in reality.
So, then, by the same token, the Creation stories could be a figure of speech for evolution. Except that the Y chromosome is a variant of the X, and not teh other way around (man came from woman, not woman from man). Don’t burst a blood vessel now.
They knew very well that the earth was a globe.
Actually, at that time, they did not. But it doesn’t address why they called the earth the center of teh universe when i is not. I’m pretty certain there’s nofigure of speech for that.
It’s the same as when I call you an air-head. We all know that your head isn’t made up entirely of air.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
It’s not me you call an airhead, it’s the bimbo who served you cold pizza. If you can’t tell the difference, you should get used to being single.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:40 pmUnbelievable you are talking science to those who profess the earthis 6000 years old, flat, and the center of the universe. Kinda makes global warming hard to understand for them…..
Comment by Clif — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Good point.
You think they know where babies come from yet?
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:41 pmSeems the less educated ones went for bush this from your own link
VOTE BY EDUCATION 2004
BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL
No College Degree (58%) 53% 47%
College Graduate (42%) 49% 49% 1%
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pm#79
given the restrictions on when you could have sex with your wife in the bible, I would say they knew where babies came from.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm#80 I believe my one you wanted cited was on HS drop outs, which voted for Kerry by a slight margin.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmYou think they know where babies come from yet?
Comment by unbelievable — April 3, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
I heard some of them telling their kids about a stork but I can’t figure out how a bird fits into the equation. (maybe that is where GWB got his human animal hybrid quote from his SOTU speech, cause he ain’t figgered it out yet either )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmIt gave my brother nightmares for weeks when we first found out as youngins. I was more concerned with more immediate threats though, like the closest monster, or my brother beating the snot out of me for no reason. Ahh, childhood, how I miss it.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
I’m glad I was the oldest. My youngest brother is 34 and still talks about how much he was beaten up as a kid.
You over the closet monster yet??? (My guess is a resounding ‘no’ considering that you voted for Pedro in 2004 : )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pm#79 Toddlers come from Paris, France (a common saying in Spain). If true, it would make many repugs hate themselves, and call themselves “freedom newborns” or something alike.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm#80 I believe my one you wanted cited was on HS drop outs, which voted for Kerry by a slight margin.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Not statistically significant, only a 1% difference between the two, what is the margin of error…EVERY POLL has one.
However the difference between the # of with college and without gave GWB his margin of victory, Home schooled probably, most do not go on to higher education there,
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm#83 #79 From what I remeber from health, they come from one of two places, my mom having sex with the stork, or we can pick up your unwanted ones from the clinic and finish growing them :)
“You over the closet monster yet???” Of course I am, what do you think I am a baby? I’ve moved on to the cellar monster now, you have to run up those stairs quick before he grabs you from between them.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm#80 I believe my one you wanted cited was on HS drop outs, which voted for Kerry by a slight margin.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
And was even higher among those with graduate degrees.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 pmFrom what I remeber from health, they come from one of two places, my mom having sex with the stork, or we can pick up your unwanted ones from the clinic and finish growing them
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Which version do you tell yourself………………………………………………………………………………………..
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm#86
the home schooled go on to unaccredited universities. think Bob Jones. Their are others. I read a report about a Christian Fundamentalist school, I think in Maryland that had several of its students work as interns on the GWB re-election campaign during the 2004 election. I will see if I can locate the article. it makes for interesting reading.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 pm#83 #79 From what I remeber from health, they come from one of two places, my mom having sex with the stork, or we can pick up your unwanted ones from the clinic and finish growing them :)
Contrary to your homeschooled science lesson, all liberal women do not have a revolving door relationship with the abortion clinic (though, for your information, I was conservative the first 33 years of my life, and religious). But, as someone who believes in no afterlife, I am far more respectful than to create an unwanted child. Unlike the good Southern Baptist girls in my high school who used abortion as birth control, I’ve never been pregnant.
Of course I am, what do you think I am a baby? I’ve moved on to the cellar monster now, you have to run up those stairs quick before he grabs you from between them.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Is that your term for Satan? : )
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pmGeorge Will looks exactly like a man who hasn’t taken a decent sh|t it fifty years.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pmhttp://www.newyorker.com/ fact/ content/ articles/ 050627fa_fact
I found the article. It is a new yorker piece.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pmCliff - I have no problem admitting the Highest level of education vote dem, the facts are there to support it. I think Unbelievable was right with the “I think the reality is that the educations ends of the spectrum vote Democrat and the middle votes Republican” statement. Which if you go back to the 200 election I posted above shows HS drop outs voting decidedly Dem, and in 2004 voting barely Dem, so it would be interesting to see the ‘98 or ‘02 break down to put it into more context, as well as what happens this novemeber.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pmI think Unbelievable was right
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
Mind if I highlight that? (I figure it’s a first - and a last :)
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pmCreationists can’t be trusted to do science. Will is just another example of how people disqualify themselves from meaningful discourse when their only objective to make pre-approved noises that mean nothing.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm.
#95 I don’t know, if that gets around Tundra might start hating me too.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm#95 I don’t know, if that gets around Tundra might start hating me too.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
You’re safe. He’s agreed with me several times already. You, just this once :)
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm#76
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmWhen he talks about scientific publication he is talking about a Scientific paper concerning the specific point of long term global cooling. He is saying that no paper was produced therefore no publication(magazine) printed a scientific paper on the subject. If a publication wrote an article about the subject does not mean it is a scientific peer reviewed paper.
#94 13130 respondents They do not poll every person, and which states were polled? You are taking a suggestive poll which do not have a lot of statistical basis and attempting to expand it to fit your preconceived notion, the poll only allows 263 people from each state or a very small number to expand to a large population, a statistical anomaly from one selected area could skew the numbers a lot, thus find a larger sample that would not make the statistical anomalies so large or your off base using the polls as fact.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm#100 I’ve already cited two that agree with me, now its your turn to cite ones that disagree if you want to continue that, although yes, there could be a statistical issue with the 2004 poll that would throw it one way or the other, the 2000 seems pretty solid due to the % difference. For voting results, what else can you use besides polls?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:16 pmI found the article. It is a new yorker piece.
Comment by krazny — April 3, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
From the article: “In her sophomore year, Muench had become the first—and, so far, the only—woman at Patrick Henry to run for a student-government executive office, when she entered the race for vice-president. Campaigns are unusually intense at Patrick Henry; candidates hire pollsters and form slates. One of Muench’s friends, Matthew du Mée, was on an opposing slate, and the race caused a strain. (Both lost.) Muench’s internship with Rove has given her a reputation, much envied on campus, as someone worth knowing.”
This makes me want to puke. It’s like reading the quarterly sorority update that sounds like a snobby patronization of those who aren’t perfect while ignoring the real world and real issues.
I have an idea for a reality television show. Take some of these sheltered rich folks and move them to New Orleans without their cellphones, credit cards, or attached umbilial cord. Now that would be a reason to turn on the set again!
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:19 pmWhat scares me more, is the push to create a Christian Fundamentalist country. We seperated church and state for a reason.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmI quote the poll numbers or questionnaire from 2000, polling 263 people per state is not enough to form a very much of a trend, in KY that would amount to about one person per county for the smaller counties like mine if the numbers were spread by population, thus not statistically large enough for spreading the numbers because too many differences through out the country and what places were the polls conducted, what states and what regions of the states makes a big difference….I know you want this to be true but a larger cross section of the country would be necessary and I doubt CNN had people all over the country they just did larger areas where they(CNN)actually exist and extended the results.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmOnce again for those not listening - an individuals level of education DOES NOT MATTER.
There are many well informed people with a low level of education and just as many highly educated that could not even name the sec of state.
Personally, I would much rather have individuals informed on issues. I do not believe education means you are making the best use of your vote.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:26 pmRe: Voting patterns, say what you want about uneducated people, but they were the ones initially against Vietnam and the Iraq War. The so-called educated people were for it. They may not be the most educated, but they are probably the most humane. (Note that in “Red States”, the lower class votes Dem while the middle/upper vote decidedly GOP–more so than wealthy in “blue states”.)
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm#105 I agree, but how would you go about determining that, I’ve always favored some sort of polling test that shows basic understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates before being able to vote, but apparently that makes me a ‘fascist’ or other such term, beyond its complete infesiablity due to language and time issues.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pmHas anyone looked up the “Science Digest” article?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:34 pm#105 I agree, but how would you go about determining that
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
By reestablishing the fairness doctrine that Reagan gutted what he took office, That would allow the opposing view points out and allow the citizens not the media (which in the case of GWB until late 2005 gave him very good press) to make informed decisions. And to force the federal government to stop from classifing everything that is embarrassing like Reagan and Bush41 presidential papres.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm#107 while I agree that an every citizen should know what issues are affecting the world, a test is not the answer.
Who would write it? What questions would be asked? Who would score it? What is considered a passing score? How would it be monitored? Who would pay for it?
We have this great piece of paper called the constitution that gives the citizens of the US the right to the exercise of the franchise. But of course, when has a little thing like the constitution ever stopped a republican!
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm#110 the fairness doctrine infinges to much on capatilism, unless the US wants to start paying for the dem/rep opposing views of every radio/tv station they have no right to enforce something like that. The declassifing would be nice though, although at least some of what they classify has to be for national security reasons, but how to tell? Interesting enough, conservative libertarian Neal Boortz regularly asks his readers/listeners to support Air America, because he’s afraid if it fails, the fairness doctrine might be re-established.
#111 come on now Jules, when has it ever stopped a democrat either?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 pmThe religious right does not care about the Earth because they all expect to crowd into those few reserved seats during the End Days and watch their friends, neighbors, parents, sons, daughters self destruct! These “good people” have an expectation to meet, and if it means bringing on the end of the Earth with whatever means they have at hand, well, that’s just the price of the show! It’s actually very convenient to them to have so much power that they can help bring about the destruction of the Earth. They are pleased to be able to stand in the way of the rest of us trying to save the planet. This is what they have been praying for! Why would they stop now, just when everything is going their way?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm#51, way to take it out of context. The guy is not advocating extinction, the guy is saying the world could be ripe for another extinction event. But good job on making the incorrect assumption that he is calling for genocide. You prove the point every time you talk, regardless of what the point is. Also you seem to be all for accountability, except when it comes to republicans.
#52 your words are exactly my thoughts. I fully believe that you can deny things all you want, but that does not make them not true. There are literally millions of pages of documentation on evolution, yet the right chooses to take the few words against it and use that to bolster their opinion. There are literally millions of words and documentation supporting global warming, yet the right chooses to take the political opinions as fact. In neither case does ignoring what you do not want to believe make it untrue.
#69 Figure of Speech? Are you denying the word of god? You bastard! No wonder christians think christianity is under assault with the likes of IRI out there. First he advocates almost everything that the bible is against, and now he denys the word of god.
#77 Science digest is to science what readers digest is to clasical literature. It’s more science fiction and what if stuff rather than scientific research. It is something a layman might read as opposed to Scientific American or some discipline specific journals.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:12 pmSqueegie - I suppose you would call the Swift Boating of Senator Kerry fair?
This thread had some meaning earlier. the tangents have taken it where who’da thunk?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pmOk. Everyone stop in their tracks.
Any scientist with an agenda can pull the data either way. The fact is we don’t have enough data to know if we’re warming or cooling. We don’t even know what “normal” is.
Should we try to take care of the earth? Yes.
Should we be conscious in our waste of resources? Yes.
Should we react to a scientific subject emotionally? No.
To quote Penn Jillette, “It’s sexy to save the world.”
Here’s an example of misguided people meaning well. Tell you what, let’s treat the Earth in the same way our nature loving North American ancestors, the Indians (or Native Americans for you politically correct). Oh wait, they RAZED the forests! While we try to conserve the forests by putting out forest fires, all we do is cause them to burn more and more harshly due to all the overgrowth. Think it’s a coincedence all those lovely homes outside LA are burning up each year from the surrounding forests uncontrollably burning?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmWhether you are polluting or conserving, stop trying to manage nature! It’s a tough cookie and it bites back!
#115 Just as fair as the fake memo or the claims that Bush was stupider then Kerry in college.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmI’ve always favored some sort of polling test that shows basic understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates before being able to vote, but apparently that makes me a ‘fascist’ or other such term, beyond its complete infesiablity due to language and time issues.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 3, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
That idea sucked the first time when it was called Jim Crow.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pmHmm. Much Jacking Of Jaws.
Think about this.
The Earths Electromagnetic Field keeps us from getting crispy Crittered Right?
Did you Know that the Strength of the EM field has decreased by Half in the Last 6000 years or so?
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm#73- That reminds me of an episode of “The Twilight Zone”. In it the Earth has begun moving closer to the Sun, and ‘the end’ is inevitable, but she turns out to have a raging fever, and it was just a dream. BUT instead the Earth was really moving away from the Sun, and ‘the end’ was still coming. Now THAT was a scary episode!!!
As to Mr.Will, he must have a fever himself. His Editors should consider putting a “disclaimer” at the top of his Editorials, saying how his “opinions” are his own, and do not represent the views of the rational people of the world, or something to that effect. Just to clarify that he is not an “expert”, and is just offering his “opinion”.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:54 pmIf the Field Decreaes due to Precession of the Fields Wobble, then Is This a Natural Cycle yet one of long duration?
SO 1 degree every 72 years?
Thats 360X72 for a Full Circle? =25,920
25,920 years for the Sumerian Circle to Complete.
Anyway this is my View, As always feel free to extrapolate from this analogy,
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm#116, You are right any scientist with an agenda can make the facts seem to fit what they want them to say…in writings that are not peer reviewed. Reality based science has to go througha review process whereby papers are put through the rigors. If they do nto survive, then they scientifcally get relegated to the junk pile. It is hard for a scientist with an agenda to get a paer through, but it is not hard for apolitician with an agenda to pick up on faulty work and treat it as gospel. The premise of your post about agenda’s is the rrepublican party take on all scientists and scientific studies that do not match republican ideology, and that is to cast doubt on the scintists themselves. Remeber Darwin was not happy with his own conclusions and it pained him to come to those conclusions, yet he publ;ishedd anyway, not for ideologyu, but for science and knowledge sake.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm#117 re: the fake memo don’t forget that the secretary who typed the original said yes I typed one that said those very things, however this is not it. So there was a memo, and now it is gone…hmmm
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:02 pmunbelievable,
Yet the scientists are now warming up (no pun intended) to the idea that the Sun has a lot more to do with the warming of the Earth (wow, who would have thought?) than they thought. If you look at the graph over temperature vs time vs the Sun’s output you will see a very direct connection. If you look at CO2 vs the temperature, the connection is not direct, other than a general upward trend since 1980.
From 1930-1970, the CO2 kept going up, yet the temperature went down. How do the scientists explain this? They don’t - they ignore it.
It’s funny, because the CO2 was increasing about the same amount per year as it is doing now back then, and then they were screaming about “global cooling”. Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent?
Well, not if you look at the Sun’s output, which followed closely with the temperature trend.
Mars has also experienced a warming trend the last decade. CO2 or the Sun? Hmm, let’s take a wild stab at it, shall we?
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:03 pmBUT instead the Earth was really moving away from the Sun, and ‘the end’ was still coming. Now THAT was a scary episode!!!
I have not seen this movie..
Yet, I THINK you speak of the Galactic Horizon, the Big 12 of the Universal Clock that we shall pass thru.
Aye But Those words have been Written before, the challenge becomes for you to find where this is said.
“Creation Runs in Reverse”
Why Does this then mean that our thoughts Run Forward?
LOL, Make ya think!!
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:07 pmIt’s funny, because the CO2 was increasing about the same amount per year as it is doing now back then, and then they were screaming about “global coolingâ€. Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent?
Man Made CO2 and that Produced by Volcanoes DO NOT break down is Nature the Same, People fail to realize that and see Carbonated Beverages as GOOD Co2. Actually thats man made CO2
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:09 pmWe can keep taking Stabs at it, but WHY?
Wouldnt it be Prudent, since we dont Know, to go with the SAFE BET, and do all that we can to Avert this, if indeed it is manmade?
Perhaps its actually it’s two problems? One the Naturally Diminishing field, and secondly manmade co2?
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmAXIOM,
Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? I talk about A, and you talk about Z. WTF? LOL.
If CO2 is the thing that has warmed us up, why wasn’t it doing so during the “global cooling” period between 1930-1970? The CO2 trend has been virtually linear for the last 100 years. The temperature has not at all. Anyone want to explain?
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm#127 and all the swift boaters stand by their comments on Kerry, but theres more of them backing up their story then there are of secretaries backing up the memo.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:30 pmSeixon,
I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers. Just because CO2 increased, doesn’t mean an immediate effect on the temperatures. It’s an accumulative condition.
“Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.
The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.
Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.
Treasure dome
The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.
Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.
“One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context,” said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.
“We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pmSeixon shows why CONservatives get worse grades in school than liberals do. Reading comprehension, reason and logic are always the tools of last resort for them. Anecdotal beliefs, preconceptions and trying to ‘fix the facts’ to their beliefs is standard fare. Seixon is an idiot.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:51 pmSeixon,
Before you ‘pretend’ to know something, go do your homework FOR A CHANGE. May I suggest this graph which shows CO2 emissions? In particular the automobile and modern power generation from the electric grid shot up dramatically in the 1940s onward, and over the decades added a slow and steady increase in CO2 until threshold levels were crossed.
If you aren’t as stupid as you normally are, you might find this graph useful to help you understand why your statement (lies) that you posted are so stupid.
http://www.pewclimate.org/images/figure7.gif
Learn something before you speak, or STFU you moron.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:55 pm#125- Hardly. “The Twilight Zone” that I was referring to was a T.V. show. I think they still show it on the Sci-fi network. As to the rest, whatever, Dude.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:19 pm#129 My favorite swiftbaoter is the one who made the claim that he served on the same boat as Kerry and feels that Kerry is unfi to lead our country. Yet when the truth is revealed turns out he did serve on the same boat, just not at the same time. Most of those swift boaters never served one second with Kerry as there was only one guy on his boat who worked agaisnt him and that guy pretty much admitted that it wasn’t Kerry it was his being a democrat that was the probelm. God could run as a deomcrat and that guy would have voted aginst him. So the whole swift baot thing is a pack of lies pretty much and for them to continue to stand by them even as they are disproved is a remarkable thing.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:35 pmGod could run as a deomcrat and that guy would have voted aginst him.
Comment by Mark — April 3, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Though, I’m beginning to think that that’s who it will take for the Dems to take over in 2008.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:46 pm“and all the swift boaters stand by their comments on Kerry, but theres more of them backing up their story then there are of secretaries backing up the memo. Comment by squishypoop”
And there are more soldiers backing up Kerry’s side, than those who say Bush ever served in his duty. Heck, a financial reward was offered for soldiers who would back up Bush’s claims of him meeting his service requirements in the NG, and no one remembered him. Yet virtually every soldier who served direclty with Kerry backed him up, as did the FULL release of the military records last year - after the election. But why would you care about ‘facts’, you’ll just do what most reichwingers do and ‘fix’ them to the fantasy you want to live in.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:10 pmCOFFIN’S NEAT LITTLE ROWS speak loudest of this deception… How sad for the world…
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:12 pmOn the “It is hard for a scientist with an agenda to get a paper through” comment.
Take two things into consideration:
1. Slanted scientific papers are published every day from pharmaceutical companies to universities.
2. Most university environments are heavily liberal slanted so the general reaction, “Global warming is a danger” is easily accepted by their peers. Not that caring is a bad thing, but science isn’t about emotion.
I’ve not said there isn’t global warming, just that we don’t know if there is. Climate changes happen over hundreds or thousands of years, not decades. We don’t have enough data. Anyone, I repeat, anyone who tries to take a stand on the data is just plain wrong.
Check out the science surrounding Eugenics in the 20’s. It was just like global warming, fear spread by scientists, PSA’s by celebrities, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill openly spoke about the danger of it. It was all supposedly “Scientific fact”.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:26 pmThen they actually discovered genetics and it was all proven wrong.
Look it up and you’ll find out an even better reason why you never hear about it.
I’ll give you a hint, a Jewish painter in Germany used it and fear to do some pretty nasty stuff.
#136 Ryan, “But why would you care about ‘facts’, you’ll just do what most reichwingers do and ‘fix’ them to the fantasy you want to live in.”
Still waiting on you to prove that Bush committed a crime with the wire tappings, once you manage to do that one then you can talk about twisting facts.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:34 pm“I’ve not said there isn’t global warming, just that we don’t know if there is. Thought”
Actually we DO know there’s global warming, how bad it will get, or whether it will snap back into a ‘big freeze’ is what we don’t know.
“Check out the science surrounding Eugenics in the 20’s. It was just like global warming, fear spread by scientists, PSA’s by celebrities, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill openly spoke about the danger of it. It was all supposedly “Scientific factâ€.
Then they actually discovered genetics and it was all proven wrong.
Look it up and you’ll find out an even better reason why you never hear about it. Thought”
And that’s what you get for ‘thinking’, it was proven wrong through peer review of the ’science’, and genetics came along much after eugenics was trashed. The difference? Global warming IS peer reviewed, and the science holds up under scrutiny. In the 1920s reichwingers like yourself didn’t know much about what ’science’ was, so you bought off on Eugenics because it told you a simple story. Just like you buy off today from the ‘global warming naysayers’, and not because science supports your position, but because you don’t understand science.
Aren’t you glad that there are smarter, and better educated people to stop you guys from making stupid moves like Eugenics and the global warming messes you’re creating? You should be - but you’re probably too stupid to appreciate it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:36 pm“Still waiting on you to prove that Bush committed a crime with the wire tappings, once you manage to do that one then you can talk about twisting facts. Comment by squishypoop”
That’s easy:
Warrants on americans are guaranteed by the constitution - there is no provision for ‘in case of war ignore this’, and the president is ARTICLE II, of the constitution, meaning he has less power than Congress.
Sorry, but this has long since been proven, but only people who are too stupid, or too much denial, or too much anti-american like yourself would dare claim it wasn’t. You’re a fool, a coward, and an idiot.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:39 pmWarrants on americans are guaranteed by the constitution - there is no provision for ‘in case of war ignore this’, and the president is ARTICLE II, of the constitution, meaning he has less power than Congress.
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 3, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
I actually got a letter from one of my elected neocons - Nathan Deal (the crook who swift boated Max Clelland to take his job), and of course it was a form letter. But it was a bunch of nonsense trying to convince me that the Partiot Act gave Bush the authority over the Constitution! But he’d be sure and keep an eye on things. What a load of crap…
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:45 pm#141 And where in that does it cover telephone calls to/from foreign countries? And you’ve seen the secret provisions that may or may not give him the authority to do this?
Whats that? You don’t have access to the secret provisions? Oh my, so it could be legal, just like it could be illegal, innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country or just not to ‘Reich’wingers or ‘CON’servatives?
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:53 pmInnocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to democrats. Witness the Bill Clinton witch hunt.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:56 pm“#141 And where in that does it cover telephone calls to/from foreign countries? squishypoop”
You forgot the part where the NSA admitted that several of the tapped phone calls were 100% domestic.
Once again, lies, deceptions, and ignoring of the truth. You make a great Nazi you know.
“And you’ve seen the secret provisions that may or may not give him the authority to do this? squishypoop”
You’ve been watching too many spy movies - Secret provisions? Bahaha, you’re a fool. No ’secret provision’ can trump the constitution - PERIOD. MORON.
“Oh my, so it could be legal, just like it could be illegal, innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country or just not to ‘Reich’wingers or â€