VIDEO: Luntz Converts On Global Warming, Distances Himself From Bush
VIDEO: Luntz Converts On Global Warming, Distances Himself From Bush
In 2000, conservative pollster Frank Luntz famously penned a memo that recommended ways for President Bush and his allies to discuss global warming in a manner that cast doubt on the science. Among his suggestions, Luntz recommended the following key point:
Nearly six years later, Bush is still adhering closely to Luntz’s talking points. But the author himself has since backed away from his advice, believing the scientific issues are now settled. In a documentary that first aired on BBC, and was broadcast last night on Canadian television, Luntz said he accepts that humans are affecting the climate, and he distanced himself from the administration’s repudiation of global warming science. Watch it.
More at Tree Hugger and the Sierra Club. You can watch the full documentary here.
Transcript below:
NARRATOR: Today, Frank Luntz says the advice he offered the administration on global warming was fair when he gave it. But, he’s distanced himself from their policies since.
LUNTZ: It’s now 2006. Now I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behavior of humans are affecting the climate.
QUESTION: But the administration has continued to follow your advice. They’re still questioning the science.
LUNTZ: That’s up to the administration. I’m not the administration. What they want to do is their business. And it’s nothing to do with what I write. And it’s nothing to do with what I believe.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
102 Responses to “VIDEO: Luntz Converts On Global Warming, Distances Himself From Bush”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Archives
Bush looks more and more like Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” every day. Loner.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pmGood on ya, Frank. Now, are you going to back off from any of the other poo you were flinging in your 2000 memo?
June 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pmLuntz was not in that 2000 statement talking about finding the truth, he was talking about obscuring it for political gain. This bastard set out to obscure the truth to put his guy in power, and now that it is happened, it is a bit late for repentance.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThis is all well and good but it wont really be news until Dumbya and the Neocon Death Cult distance themselves from the belief there is no such thing as global warming. All the underlings on earth changing their minds wont make any difference until the Emperor himself sees the light. And the only light he wants to see is the rapture light.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pmit is should be it’s.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pmIf he really believed in global warming you would think he would shave his beard, to help keep him cool from that 1 degree temperature jump.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:10 pmHere are some of Luntz’s remarks to the BBC: “It’s now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behavior of humans are (sic) affecting the climate.”
BBC: “But the administration has continued taking your advice. They’re still questioning the science.”
Luntz: “That’s up to the administration. I’m not the administration. What they want to do is their business. It has nothing to do with what I write. It has nothing to do with what I believe.”
Sorry, Frank. Once a turd, always a turd. Can’t take it back now, pal.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pmLuntz is an expert at obscuring the truth. His polls are completely biased, and he so much as admited it on a recent episode of Penn & Teller’s Bulls**t on Showtime. His opinion on global warming should be suspect, not because global warming is not a fact, but because he is a weasel.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pmTherefore, the stupid people, the sheep, can be lied to by you Mr Bush, see they don’t know about concensus, they watch Faux news LOL!!
So they are hypnopaedically handicapped, just the way we like them!
Democracy, Equality and Truth! What a great trick e have pulled over the peoples eyes!
sarcasm on
June 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pmProblem here is this man began to think on his own - and that just won’t do with this administration …”stay the course!”
June 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pmHe’s rather late to the party, and there was scientific consensus already when he was suggesting trying to obscure that. Too little, too late, Luntz. Go crawl back under your rock.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pmYeah. That not being able to sleep at night because of the disaster you’ve helped unleash on the world thing’ll get to you after a while.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmIn the grocery store today, the cashier and the man who bagged my groceries started talking about the impact of global warming raising the sea level.
Mainstream America is catching on…
June 27th, 2006 at 1:21 pmLuntz, who has pimped for Bush for years, has found an issue to back away from?
June 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pmWhen will he publicly back away from all the bullshit he has spewed and “polled” for Bush?
I guess Luntz was against science before he was in favor of. Another hypocrital opportunistic flip-flopper.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pm“That’s up to the administration. I’m not the administration. What they want to do is their business. It has nothing to do with what I write. It has nothing to do with what I believe.â€
What they want to do is their business?
WTF?? Isn’t this a Democracy? Is this how the Bush Toadies think?
It doesn’t matter what I write, if it’s lies or not, because Bush admin will do whatever it wants!
Luntz another “defender” of Democracy. Yeh right.
#
f he really believed in global warming you would think he would shave his beard, to help keep him cool from that 1 degree temperature jump.
Comment by squegeeboo — June 27, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Luntz is a cold blooded reptile, just like the rest of the GOoPers. Of course he has a beard to keep warm.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI don’t see this changing the administration’s views. Lets not forget that the Preznit-wit takes the word of a science-fiction author as the highest authority on global warming (Michael Crichton, lest ye forget).
June 27th, 2006 at 1:28 pmJerry 101:
I’m 99% sure that they use a Ouija board to have Asimov as a consulting member for Empire building…
June 27th, 2006 at 1:32 pm(For the sarcasm-impaired, the following is a Public Service Parody):
Frank Luntz hates America and wants the terrorists to win! Look over there, a wetback is trying to take your job! Look over there, gay Islamic secular humanist liberal Communist fundamentalists are trying to destroy Christmas!
(Now back to our regular programming)
June 27th, 2006 at 1:34 pmSince when has the administration backed off from a position when it proves to be unfounded? I bet Curveball’s still laughing when he thinks about what he got them to believe or at least act as if they belived.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pmMainstream America is catching on…
Comment by unbelievable
Yeah. But too bad the Bush administration doesn’t. Even after today, when all the rain on the east coast this year made the White House lawn so soggy that a 100 year old tree couldn’t stay rooted and fell over.
Must of been an act of God.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pmAnother year of droughts, woodfires, strenght 5+ hurricanes and else, and even the Oil Companies will let alone Bushy in his AntiGW stance…
June 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pmHey, I just realized it! This guy is a clone of the first mate of the ship Enterprise in Star Trek’s Next Generation Series.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:46 pmWell Duh!
Of course Bush will repeat what he has committed to his little wooden head until something else is put there for him. Remember, no intellectual capacity whatsoever.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhat kind of “expert” only figures out global warming is real in 2006? This guy is a total loser.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWhat kind of expert? An expert in political obfuscation, that’s what.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pmriker? no way. he looks more like ewan mcgregor with a beard.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pmYeah. But too bad the Bush administration doesn’t. Even after today, when all the rain on the east coast this year made the White House lawn so soggy that a 100 year old tree couldn’t stay rooted and fell over.
Must of been an act of God.
Comment by Joe Sixpack — June 27, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
But they won’t blame climate change, Joe.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pmThey’ll blame environmental terrorists.
Or the EPA.
Or activist judges.
Once again we see how bush fixes the facts - how can anyone trust this perpectual LIAR
June 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pmHere at PBS our new policy is “Fair and Balanced” [tm] so I’ll need to check with my copy of State of Fear before making any definitive policy statements.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pmNot that I can easily forgive his willingness to warp data to meet Bush’s political goals, but like they say, better late to the party, than never.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:13 pmMust of been an act of God.
Comment by Joe Sixpack — June 27, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
The rain or the tree falling? Cause, you remember that John Ashcroft once said that he was late for a speech because God decided to make it rain….
Think of the utter lack of personal responsiblity you can have by blaming everything bad on the Devil (or his minions), or crediting everything good to a god (and his angels). Pretty much decribes Global Warming Bush general approach to life…
War - was God’s idea.
Jesus got me re-elected by disenfranciszing all those Democrats.
Saddam is the Devil. And the Devil made me do it (bomb Iraq).
Zero personal accountability required.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:14 pmJames Hansen talking about the US being like the USSR in “censoring” him. Yup, that’s coming from the guy talking in a documentary, the guy who was giving political speeches for Kerry, the guy who has been so “silenced” that he got front page coverage at the NY Times and other places.
Yes, the Bush administration has been “censoring” Hansen’s opinions, so much so that the recent NAS report talks about a “consensus” and he gets to spout his nonsense on a BBC documentary. Good grief, you people will believe anything.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:14 pmOh, and notice the slippery Luntz never actually states what his belief about the issue is.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:16 pm[…] From Senate races to global warming, the press is simply too willing to present two sides to an issue as equally true, when they are demonstrably not. At what point did the role of the media transform from informing the public to merely providing a megaphone for each partisan side? At some point the media’s pious invocations about the importance of a free press ring awfully hollow when the Fourth Estate seems more like a servant to the interests and lies of the others. […]
June 27th, 2006 at 2:20 pmYou said it, Luntz in the piece of newspaper: It is all about the voters. You are disgraceful, no matter what you say now.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pmIf this pollster business doesn’t work out much longer Frank there is always the New Village People. Cowboy? or maybe Leather Biker?
June 27th, 2006 at 2:30 pmThink of the utter lack of personal responsiblity you can have by blaming everything bad on the Devil (or his minions), or crediting everything good to a god (and his angels)
Comment by unbelievable
Well, that is exactly why humankind invented God or gods. To make it guilty of everything and it cannot be accountable for its actions. How cool.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pmOh, and notice the slippery Luntz never actually states what his belief about the issue is.
Comment by Seixon
Oh my god, I hate to do it, but,
Seixon…You…Are…Right.
Ow, pain in my right eye…
June 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pmGlobal Warming Update…
This is the one that you’ll be talking about - a complete turnaround on global warming by the pollster who first told Bush what to say about it….
June 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pmno seixon we don’t believe anything you say.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWhere would this country be without Frank Luntz?
If I understand correctly, Luntz helped Newt Gingrich come up with the “Contract on America”. He also helped devise the list of words you should always try to use when talking about your Democratic opponent. (Words like “sick” and “pathetic”.) He also said that if you ask a focus group ten questions, and you don’t like the answer on two of them, then treat it like a defense lawyer and don’t use those two questions (pretend you never asked them.)
So, when asked how I would complete this sentence, I said:
Without Frank Luntz, the country would be
A) better off.
B) worse off.
I chose answer A, Mr. Luntz.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pmThe CBC links to BBC that tell us this:
“The planet’s climate is constantly changing. The global average temperature is currently in the region of 15C. Geological and other evidence suggests that, in the past, this average may have been as high as 27C and as low as 7C.”
“There are anomalies however - parts of the Antarctic appear to be getting colder, and there are discrepancies between trends in surface temperatures and those in the troposphere.”
“There are also indications that the west Antarctic ice sheet may have begun to melt, though scientists caution further research is necessary.”
“We don’t know exactly what proportion of the observed warming is caused by human activities or what the knock-on effects of the warming will be.”
“The precise relationship between concentrations of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) and temperature rise is not known, which is one reason why there is such uncertainty in projections of temperature increase.”
Climate change is cyclical. It’s not unusual, as this graph clearly shows:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
TP ignores these facts.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pmdebunk the seixon bunk;
On June 23, 1988, as director of the NASA Institute for Space Studies, Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong “cause and effect relationship” between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. [1] This bold statement garnered him a cover story on the New York Times and national attention.
The man didn’t get posted on the front page because he was being censored, but because of the statement he made above.
Sexion, If you were my paid troll I would fire you for being such a lame troll
June 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pmSeixon aka George Gooding, age 23 or 24, is a known neo-fascist who abandoned the US for Norway and believes Ann Coulter is more thruthful than Michael Moore. He runs a ultra right-wing blog. He merely is here to cause problems, nothing more.
-the doc-
June 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pmYeah, if you give Seixon any bait, he’ll post incredibly long (and inane) posts to refute every single word and comma. Too bad he hasn’t facts in his favor or any logic thinking hability to do it intelligently. So he posts volumes on nothing of value in the end. He finally declares victory, even having being beated and rebated badly.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:58 pmIs he chaning his position because he now believes Global Warming is an undeniable fact…or simply his position that it is okay to LIE about it now that the public is less confused than before?
From reading that clipping, it sounds like he always believed in global warming, but was encouraging Bush to lie about it becuase the people were already confused. Since the people were already confused, that note basically tells Bush to feed on that confusion rather than stating the facts and clearing up the confusion.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pmHippie, I encourage you to review the facts.
Let’s look at the graph you link to:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
The temperature goes up and down with the concentration of CO2. Let’s see, if we increase the concentration of CO2…. the temperature goes up!
There are anomalies however…
Yes, different places are warming at different rates. This page is also from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ shared/ spl/ hi/ sci_nat/ 04/ climate_change/ html/ climate.stm
We know for a fact that the temperature rising is linked to CO2:
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
As for the rest of the paragraphs in the BBC article, give us a link so we can see the context.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI don’t think that George Gooding, AKA Seixon, ever directly addressed my earlier suggestion that he is being paid to post at TP. Well buddy? What’s in it for you? Are you being paid to write propaganda, or are you just auditioning for the job?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:16 pmWe also know for a fact that increasing temperatures cause CO2 to increase. The relationship between temperature and CO2 emissions is interactive. That’s a fact.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928017.stm
Your heatsonline source is ignorant garbage.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pmHippie,
Yes, climate has varied over geologic periods. No one disputes that. But there is a granite-hard scientific consensus that humans are forcing climate change at a rate unprecendented in the history of our species. Rapid climate change is not something to be ignored or toyed with. It tends to cause things like mass extinctions.
We are running a vast uncontrolled experiment on our atmosphere, the final outcome of which no one knows, but with possibly deadly consequences. We need to slow down the experiment.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:24 pmYour heatsonline source is ignorant garbage.
Forget heatisonline. The page links to scientific studies that have nothing to do with the site itself. Also, the reporter who runs the site won a Pulitzer Prize.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:25 pmHippie. The page you link to says the following:
If nothing is done to reduce emissions, current climate models predict a global temperature increase of 1.4-5.8°C by 2100.
MIT has a page that displays this graphically: http://web.mit.edu/ globalchange/ www/ wheel.degC.html
Hippie, is this risk acceptable to you?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pmAnd Seixon, it’s possible that I’m being a bit harsh. But this is serious stuff. And I feel like you treat it cavalierly.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pmCan someone on the left please convince Al Gore to run as the global warming president? We need his help desperately! Please. Please.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pmCan someone on the left please convince Al Gore to run as the global warming president?
Looks like John Kerry is going to beat him to it:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062606R.shtml
http://journalism.emerson.edu/ jsons/ mp3/ john_kerry_062606_energy.mp3
June 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pmI met Luntz at a conference in April where we discussed the Bush Administration at pretty good length and he very clealy stated his belief that this form of Republicanism (Bush/Cheney/Rove) was going to go away come November and, he hoped, would never return. He is not a fan of this new breed of Republicanism, which is something to be noted. I suspect there are a lot of traditional GOP-ers (the Reagan Republicans) who view the Bush Administration in something akin to horror as all the tenants of the Republican Party (small, limited government; focus on domestic affairs) have been tossed aside. That’s something the Democrats should take a look into exploiting because there’s a reason Bush has about a 35% approval rating - he’s being abandoned by the Frank Luntz’s of the world.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:45 pmNow if only we could get some of Bush’s former supporters to testify to some of his particular crimes under oath… nice to have them coming out weakly in opposition., but I’d like to see some witnesses at the impeachment, thank you.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:07 pmSeixon aka George Gooding, age 23 or 24, is a known neo-fascist who abandoned the US for Norway and believes Ann Coulter is more thruthful than Michael Moore. He runs a ultra right-wing blog. He merely is here to cause problems, nothing more.
-the doc-
Where did you get this information?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pmSeixon claims to be a moderate who votes Green… I never bought that. The Green Party is ultra-liberal, and he’s never once uttered anything that was even remotely liberal, much less ultra-liberal.
Norway has anf ultra conservative party that is mostly archaic dinosaurs who are about to kick the bucket. Most peope there are liberal. Would make sense he went there to join up with a dying cause - hoping to bring new life blood to the party. Delusions of Granduer, no doubt.
Seison, I won’t read whatever nonsense you post in response. Skipping your posts has been too wonderful to stop now.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pmLOL if Luntz believes in global warming, then Bush butt is in big trouble?!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pmSeixon is George Gooding a neo-fascist who fled to Norway?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:31 pmFaiz:
Nice work, and I want to give credit where it is due. There was a post on thread about the mendacious Wall Street Journal article by Lindzen attcking a Science review of the literature on global wrming journal artilces that really hit home anfd can be useful as a distilled reply to the right wing ostrich-like attitude on global warming. it follows.
nicely done by Whammer
June 27th, 2006 at 4:36 pmJust google “George Gooding Seixon” and you will find this link to the American Spectator site that identifies Seixon as George Gooding:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8228
You will also find a few other links to his rubbish.
George has repeatedly denied being conservative, but George is also a prolific liar who even lies about lying (an old Ollie North trick). George is just another pathological lying young Republican creep.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:21 pmRandy,
Can someone on the left please convince Al Gore to run as the global warming president? We need his help desperately! Please. Please.
They say a sucker is born every minute.
Everyone else,
I love how you’ve all violated my privacy to dig up info on me that has 100% nothing to do with the topic. It shows you are not interested in debate, but rather would smear me and lie about me.
I don’t even want to address all the numerous lies just told about me in this thread alone, but I might have to for fear that they will be accepted as truth.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:46 pmPost 66 Seixon > chill out > you gave us a challenge on here to find out about you in Norway! You are a young college guy and a very clever person with blog designs > I admire anyone who is good at Internet activities > means you have a creative side to your nature!
All of us are more curious about your defence of Bush Regime members on TP threads?!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pmSeixon you lie every time you claim to be non-partisan. If you stopped pretending to be moderate, ease up on the arrogance you might not be so disliked. I realize you ego may not allow you to do so, but just me suggestions
on that note, I have nothing else to say.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:03 pmI love how you’ve all violated my privacy to dig up info on me that has 100% nothing to do with the topic.
Comment by Seixon
Are you confirming the information…um…George? :-D
June 27th, 2006 at 6:12 pmI don’t even want to address all the numerous lies just told about me in this thread alone
June 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pmDont worry. We could not care less.
Jay,
I never challenged anyone to find out anything about me. Even if I had done so, I never consented to anyone publishing any personal details about me. You are all currently being dealt with as I write this.
Also, I do not defend the Bush administration from anything other than lies. I think it is abominable for anyone to make up stuff about the president, because there’s already plenty of room for debate on the issues without doing so. Lying about Bush takes everyone’s focus off the real issues and puts it on Bush instead. There is no need to obsessively blame Bush for every tiny little thing and lie about the guy. If you all cared about your country, you would spend more time trying to fix it rather than worry about whether Bush wrote a note to Condi Rice asking her if it would be diplomatically acceptable for him to take a bathroom break during a UN conference.
Krazny,
I am non-partisan and I stand by that. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat (not anymore, anyways). Due to the fact that Think Progress, and you, are highly partisan, you will see every attempt at me trying to make you less partisan as a partisan attempt.
I am not pretending to be a moderate, I am a moderate. You don’t even know my position on many issues, so I find it a bit sad that you think you know I’m not a moderate without knowing my position on various issues.
I will admit that I do have a self-confidence that may be off-putting, but when people are smearing me and calling me a liar, that’s what I fight with. Being confident in the things I am saying is critical when I have to fend off literally dozens of people at the same time.
Zookeeper,
As I have already written, there are many lies being peddled about me, and I will not address anything that has to do with my personal details. This is strictly not allowed under Think Progress Terms of Use for anyone to be digging up info about me and posting it here.
Juan C,
I know you don’t care when people lie about me - you usually join in. You’re in the mob, not the one being mobbed.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:38 pmSiexon you are for more partisan then me, and most of the moderate posters here. I don’t know why it is so important to you to claim non-partisanship, but it is very clear you are not.
Please for the love of god admit what you are.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:52 pmSeixon > did you or did you not on a TP thread a few weeks ago say that google had information on you? You told people on here you lived in Norway, but refused to say why! Every poster who defends the Bush Regime on here is asked WHY! File complaints all you want on everyone on here if you so desire, but that is being childish! Act like an intelligent adult on here please!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:52 pmKrazny,
Again, who am I partisan for, and how? Coming on Think Progress and noting that TP is taking people out of context can hardly count as being partisan. Most of the commenters here do not sound like they are moderate, as moderates typically don’t go for the whole “Bush is evil” angle. I am a non-partisan, and my voting record reflects that. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Nader in 2004. And no, I did not vote for Nader because of his politics, but because I wanted to support a third alternative in American politics.
Jay,
Yes, of course Google will provide information on me, and most people who have done anything on the internet. So? Does that mean it’s OK for you and others to dig stuff up on me and post it here? No, it’s not.
What I tell people about myself is my prerogative because it is about me. You and others cannot decide what is OK to publish about me here. You can do whatever the hell you want on your own blog, but under Think Progress rules, you cannot publish or dig up info on me.
You say that I am acting childish for wanting people to follow Think Progress rules? Wow, OK. So following the Terms of Use is childish? Since when? Being concerned about my own privacy is childish?
I have already filed a complaint with Think Progress, and they are supposedly taking care of it as you read this.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:01 pmBullshit Seixon,
you are constantly defending the Bush administration whether it is over global warming, warrantless wiretaps, or data collection. I don’t believe you voted for either Gore or Nader. It sounds like a crap smokescreen to somehow make you more non-partisan. You constantly deride anyone who says you may not be right.
You are a partisan for the repblicans plain and simple. Deal with it, we all have beliefs.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:05 pmKrazny,
The issue of global warming has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration. Well, it doesn’t if you are non-partisan, but partisans such as yourself make everything about Bush. I speak about global warming from my own personal belief and according to the research I have done on the subject. Bush plays absolutely no part in that, as obviously Bush has no clue about global warming anyways.
On warrantless wiretaps, again, it has nothing to do with the Bush administration. It is solely on the basis of the issue, where I deem it acceptable for the government to conduct surveillance on phone calls between Americans and foreigners who the government deems to be connected to terrorists. I wouldn’t change my position on the issue whether it was Bush og Al Gore as president. It’s about the issue - not about the president. I’m sure this is hard for you to understand, since you are too emotionally tied to making everything about Bush.
You can believe whatever the hell you want about my voting record, but if you speak to anyone I know, they’ll tell you. I even argued AGAINST Bush in 2000 with my friends, and stayed up all night on voting day hoping that Gore won. I remember the next days of uncertainty and wide discussions on what was going to happen.
I voted for Nader because I didn’t want to vote for Bush nor Kerry. I didn’t want to vote for Bush because, although I supported him on the war, I do not support his conservative values nor his stance on some issues. I didn’t vote for Kerry because he was just a complete phony moron. The Democrats really screwed the pooch in selecting him as their candidate. Hopefully they’ll learn for 2008.
A moderate is someone who supports things on both the conservative and liberal sides. Unfortunately, Think Progress deals almost entirely with things that are AGAINST conservative things, and it just so happens that I agree with the Republican side of things on some of those issues.
You might want to have a peek at the flag-burning threads, where you will see that I am firmly against a flag-burning ban.
You seem to be scared to actually ask about my stance on various issues, because you’re afraid that I will prove that I’m a moderate Independent.
In conclusion, I think you could learn a thing or two from this story.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:16 pmI JUST POSTED SOME GREAT (if dated) LUNTZ GOSSIP HERE:
http://www.hotpotatomash.com/2006/06/luntzgw320240mo.html
It involves beer pong!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:26 pmSeixon. It is not about you, whether you are in Oslo or not, whether you appear in Google or not. It is about what you post. You may or may not agree (in fact, you always disagree with TP) but that is ok. What you do is to copy huge amount of information (good or bad, that is not that important) and your reasons always fall in two lines at most. Maybe you are very well informed but your opinions are somewhat…well, boring, I guess. Take it from a guy who is really boring, I might add. Dont make this personal, I guess most of people here dont even care where you live or what you eat, it is what you think.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:46 pmSeixon,
#50, buddy. Fess up.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pmSeixon,
If you have a problem with someone tying your name to your troll handle, blame your pals at the American Spectator (which, last I checked, is a pretty conservative place to hang out). You are acting like we published your home address and phone number, or something. Googling “Seixon” isn’t exactly invading someone’s privacy. And for that matter, it was doing exactly this same thing, mining with google, that earned you so much praise over there at the American Spectator. Live by the sword, die by the sword, eh buddy?
This is so typical of Rethuglican crybabies. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:15 pmJuan C,
That’s completely BS. Most of my posts are filled with my own words, only sometimes do I post excerpts from things to prove my point whenever it is necessary to do so. Also, if it wasn’t about me, why are so many people on here obsessing about me? Half a dozen commenters here have published personal details about me and asked me all sorts of questions about me as a person. Maybe you don’t care about all that, but many people here are so caught up in me because they can’t respond to my points.
RealScientist,
From your witch-hunt mentality, I’m almost certain that you comment under multiple names here, alas I will never know. Think Progress could check, but they probably don’t care.
I do not get paid to post here, only desperate hacks who don’t have a real argument would resort to such allegations about people they disagree with. It indicates a fragile mind in many of the people who comment here, they can’t even believe that someone who does not share their opinion would dare enter an obviously hostile environment to engage in debate. It is a testament to the sheer brainwashing that occurs at places like this. It’s groupthink and living in a bubble in the worst sort of way.
If you have a problem with someone tying your name to your troll handle, blame your pals at the American Spectator (which, last I checked, is a pretty conservative place to hang out).
I don’t “hang out” at American Spectator, they published an article about a scoop I had on George Galloway lying his ass off. Does that make me a conservative?
Yes, they did publish my name but they had permission to do so. You did not, and you violated Think Progress rules by doing so. I allowed them to print my name because I am the one who gave up with the story. My name has no relevance to anything being discussed here. The only reason you and others have printed it is in order to intimidate me and conduct ad hominem attacks.
You are acting like we published your home address and phone number, or something.
Someone printed the city I live in, that’s close enough as I have not disclosed that on my blog nor on this website at any time. I never consented to anyone publishing that information on this website, which is therefore a violation of Think Progress rules.
Googling “Seixon†isn’t exactly invading someone’s privacy.
No, but publishing what you find there in a public forum that has rules against it is doing that. There’s a reason I, and you, don’t go under our real names here. I respect your privacy in commenting here, why can’t you respect mine?
And for that matter, it was doing exactly this same thing, mining with google, that earned you so much praise over there at the American Spectator. Live by the sword, die by the sword, eh buddy?
I can write whatever the hell I want on my blog, sir. You can’t write whatever the hell you want on Think Progress, as you do not own the site. They have rules against posting personal details about someone here, and you violated those rules.
More importantly, my personal details have absolutely nothing to do with anything taking place on this website. Me digging up George Galloway’s lying has everything to do with George Galloway lying his ass off.
This is so typical of Rethuglican crybabies. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
Ah, so I published personal details about you and others here?
You violate the Think Progress rules, violate my privacy, conduct ad hominem attacks based on these violations, and then call me a crybaby? Wow, just wow.
What you and others did is inexcusable, immoral, and most importantly has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion taking place here. You are all simply trying to intimidate me and smear me instead of debate. I’d say that shows you guys are all out of ideas and arguments.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:30 pmSomebody get Seixon a pacifier…
Like he doesn’t habitually violate TP rules with his personal attacks on posters? Please, if he wants to cry foul, then he must also accept being foul. Just like Rush preaching the sins of drug-users while abusing drugs.
Let’s everyone demand Seixon receive in equal every time he violates site rules…
June 27th, 2006 at 8:48 pmunbelievable,
That is hilarious. It’s always you guys who start attacking me, not the other way around. Every single thread will prove this hands down. I always enter a thread completely on topic with a response to the post. Then all you attack dogs start alleging I am paid by Rove, ask me what I’m doing here, call me a liar, attack me personally, and now you’ve degenerated into publishing details you dig up on me.
Now I see that you guys have no shame. You will violate the rules and my privacy, and then evade responsibility after doing it. Now you’re pretending that I’m the only one who uses heated words now and then, when it is always you guys who start it.
Regardless of that, hurling insults at each other is entirely different from digging up personal details on someone and posting them for absolutely no reason other than to intimidate.
You guys have just proven that you have absolutely no morals and will do just about anything to smear and intimidate those you disagree with.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pmSeixon writes: From your witch-hunt mentality, I’m almost certain that you comment under multiple names here, alas I will never know.
I don’t. I use this same nickname everywhere I post.
Seixon writes: publishing what you find there in a public forum that has rules against it is doing that. There’s a reason I, and you, don’t go under our real names here. I respect your privacy in commenting here, why can’t you respect mine?
I disagree with you on the interpretation of the policy, since you have voluntarily allowed this information to be published at American Spectator, but the policy is ambiguous about what is actually allowed. I will take me chances with the monitors, and if they ban me, so be it. These are critical times for the world, the stakes are high, and it is important to call propagandists like you out for what you are. You may not believe what you do is lying, but wingers like you have pushed the boundaries on the definition of lying so far out there that it is damn near impossible to lie in your view. I happen to believe that your sort of pathological intellectual dishonesty constitutes lying, so that is what I am calling it.
As for your remarks about brainwashing, groupthink, and me being a desperate hack, take a look in the mirror. I am an accomplished scientist with over 50 papers and invited book chapters published in leading scientific journals and professional reference works, and an internationally recognized expert in computer simulation of coupled fluid dynamics, heat and mass transfer (yeah, that’s pretty closely related to what the global climate modelers do, and though I do not model climate myself, I have an intimate understanding of the mathematics and methods they use). I am not here to debate you on any of your pseudo-scientific claims. Intellectually you are way, way over your head with me. If you are feeling badgered and harassed here, take your clown act somewhere else.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pmThis is whyt he left should stand up to the Right and expose their filthy little lies. Becuase there are so many of them lying. And then demanding privacy when they are exposed. You’d think he’d be okay with invasion of his privacy of he has nothing to hide… After all, this is war… And we (left) have a right to fight the enemy (Seixon and his neocon ilk)…
I think RealScientist did the right thing. He didn’t post any information that wasn’t already published in a public forum. The rule only applies if he posts a phone number or email address.
And Seixon wants a political career with anonymity? Ha… Contradictory logic - just like every single one of his posts.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:46 pmJust for the record, I want to clarify that it was “the doc” who first reported this information about Seixon in a previous thread, but I take full resonsibility for repeating and amplifying it.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pmI read your comments with some humor. I remember when the Republicans were so mad at Bill Clinton that they lost the 1998 elections as a result. In reading blogs like this, so many of you are so blinded by your anger that you too may find yourself having blown 2006. You don’t win with anger. You win with intelligent dialogue and better arguments. Insulting each other doesn’t cut it at the ballot box.
Frank Luntz
June 27th, 2006 at 9:57 pmFrank,
We are angry with our eyes wide open. You are a professional propagandist, and should take responsibility for your role in the precipitous decline of this great nation. But you don’t, because you are a moral and ethical cripple.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:46 pmMany people wonder how Mary Matalin and James Carville could possibly marry each other. People wonder this because they themselves have beliefs and values they care about, that are part of their essence. Given my values and beliefs I could not possibly marry anyone who espouses today’s Republican values, and many other people feel this way with respect to their own values and beliefs. But it appears, sadly and repulsively, that many big time political consultants don’t really believe in anything, except winning at all costs, and in a personal philosophy that the ends justify the means. So is it any surprise if their ends are constantly changing, while their means stay depressingly the same?
June 27th, 2006 at 11:02 pm[…] For more on Frank Luntz you can start at his site. (I don’t think you could afford him, though — even though he is a recent believer in Global Warming.) […]
June 28th, 2006 at 1:22 amPost 92 RealScientist > I appreciate all your posts on here and you have contributed a great deal on TP issues! I for one am very perplexed that Seixon claims he wants to be anonymous on TP threads, but at the same time publishs articles on other Internet sites in his real name?
June 28th, 2006 at 1:47 amOnly reason I found out his bio information was from an article he posted on Dagbladet, which also has a photo of him too! He is a mystery wrapped in an enigma > lol.
an internationally recognized expert in computer simulation of coupled fluid dynamics, heat and mass transfer
June 28th, 2006 at 8:23 amComment by RealScientist
Who are you? I am also in thermofluids field, but dont like the numerical approach, I may say. I celebrate your way of thinking.
Juan C:
I am not comfortable divulging my name in this forum. I am a soft-money researcher at a public university, which means I am supported entirely by research grants. Most of this money comes from federal agencies. In the past I have been publicly critical of two of these agencies. In 1999, in response to Republican posturing that grew out of the Wen Ho Lee case, the Clinton administration ordered heightened security at national research facilities. As a consequence, one of these agencies ordered national agency checks (NACs) for all researchers using their computers, even those used to conduct unrestricted, unclassified research at an academic institution. Although I have no problem with security clearances when appropriate, legal, and necessary, I am convinced that this actiion was unconstitutional, because it was clear that the federal government had no compelling reason to impose these clearances. I refused to go through the NAC out of principle, and wrote letters of protest to university officials and to my federal representatives. The federal agency stripped me of my privilege to use the computing facilities, which was a significant blow (we’re not talking about desktop computers here, but state-of-the-art parallel supercomputers). The research group in which I work continued to receive funding through this agency, but only for a while (I don’t lead this group; the principal investigator is a professor who is internationally renowned in his discipline). It wasn’t too long, however, before the “reorganization” occurred. Our funding was stripped in a way that was obviously political and punitive. My boss has been very supportive even though this was a blow to the group. I have grown more cautious since then, however, especially since a large amount of our current funding comes from a particular federal agency that has become highly politicized.
In any case, who I am isn’t important here. What is important is calling out propagandists like Luntz and Seixon for what they are.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:37 amFrank Luntz wrote: You win with intelligent dialogue and better arguments.
Is Frank Luntz seriously suggesting that what he does in any way fits this description? Or is he just a monstrous hypocrite?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:41 amOr is he just a monstrous hypocrite?
Comment by RealScientist — June 28, 2006 @ 9:41 am
They all are. They have that WAR mentality that means to them that they are constantly in attack mode with any means necessary to WIN! They think in absolutes and there is never any room for compromise or concensus. It’s a win or lose situation tothese people, who fail to recognize that they aren’t in this alone. Or that the causes they champion are destroying their planet as well. And no amount of money will save them. There is no water on Mars or the Moon, and Venus cannot sustain life. They aren’t getting away either.
When I first came here at the end of last year I tried to have intellient debates with the other side. But, it is impossible. They base the majority of their opinions on emotion and a belief that the universe is this fairytale fantasy land where they are the most important creatures who will be saved by invisible idols when they are done messing up the place like a gaggle of juvenile delinquents. It’s nuts. And I’m finding the best any of us can do is just give them back what they give - by debunking their nonsense and standing up to their lies and threats. They are nothng more than scared little ignorant sheep in wolves clothing.
It’s nice to know there are other people who also stand on their principals. Inspite of the consequences. I wish there were more. Then perhaps things might never have gotten this far down a really rocky road…
June 28th, 2006 at 10:07 amI have grown more cautious since then, however, especially since a large amount of our current funding comes from a particular federal agency that has become highly politicized.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pmComment by RealScientis
That is one of the curses of US universities. Do research as companies tell you to. I am really sorry about your group.
Wow…this thread sure got hijacked. Looks liek the heo-con trolls have once again done their job of throwing everyone off track. So here are ac uople points:
F. Luntz. Assuming it is really you, I notice you made the trouble of making a troll post with little substance while ignoring my own direct question. Are you now a supporter of Global warming theory and that is why you believe the Bush admin shouldn’t be using your past comments…or were you always a believer in global warming and simply now feel the public is more informed and that the Bush makes an error in continuing pushing the lie you originally believed they could get away with but no longer? I believe this is a valid question towards your motives and your supposed change of heart.
Second, Bush’s loyal supporters are neither moderate, bi-partisan, or objective as they claim. They are not “patriots” eiterh although they would love to be known only under that title. The loyal Bush supporters are “NATIONALISTS.” Nationalists have a long history of ignoring reality and believeing and spreading misinformation to push their own agenda. Ironically, one of the best works on the subject is an essay by George Orwell called “Notes on Nationalism” in which he details how and why nationalists are able to knwoingly lie and deceive while still believing ABSOLUTELY that they are right and not doing anything wrong. I would recommen it to anyone here who is tired of listening to the likes of the willfully ignorant such as Seixon and other loyal Bush supporters who spread misinformation as supposed moderates.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:42 pmYet you had absolutely no problem divulging mine for no other reason than to intimidate me.
My intent was to point to the inappropriateness of someone just out of college distorting things that scientists 35 years your senior have spend years of their lives doing.
Not a single person actually apologized for tossing around personal details about me that they had no consent to publish here.
I wrote to TP and asked that they delete the post I made that pointed to your full name. They did that.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:11 pmSeixon translation “WAH!! I’m telling my mommy on you! WAH!!”
June 28th, 2006 at 9:17 pmSexion, you are a complete idiot. Do you think we are supposed to feel sorry for you now. What the hell do you mean it is not about george bush? Are you that stupid or just looking for sympathy? George bush has hijacked this country and the Constitution. GB says there is no such thing as global warming, or science for that matter. He is still living in the 16th century. If your supposed to be so smart how can you make a staement like that. GET A CLUE, HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., he has made himself dictator exempting himself from all laws. You say you voted for Gore in 2000, now you redicule him. I hope i’m around to see this all come back to bite you goofballs in the ass. Oh, this post isn’t about you just the issues. How does it feel to have no privacy? better get used to it bush backer. And you say you agree with him on the war and you are in the green party. Go try to lie to someone else we’re wise to you riechwingers like you in here
June 28th, 2006 at 11:22 pmHis change of heart probably corresponds with his research money drying up!
June 30th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThis man will be heavily responsable for the death of millions of people in the coming two decades
July 21st, 2006 at 6:30 am[…] Robertson now joins the likes of Republican talking point manufacturer Frank Luntz in accepting the truth of our global warming problem. Luntz was the person that originally encouraged the GOP to pretend that the existence of global warming was debatable and not settled in the scientific community. The Bush Administration and its allies in Congress still cling to the talking point as the inventor of it has since abandoned the negligent spin. […]
August 4th, 2006 at 2:23 pm