Senate Committee Launches Taxpayer-Funded Misinformation Campaign About Gore Movie
Senate Committee Launches Taxpayer-Funded Misinformation Campaign About Gore Movie
Your tax dollars are being used to fund a misinformation campaign about Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a press release headlined “AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie.” It doesn’t substantiate the claim. The AP contacted 100 climate scientists, including noted “climate skeptics,” and of the 19 that had seen the movie, all commended its accuracy.
The Committee release faulted the AP for not cherry-picking the handful of scientists around the world who make a living questioning the scientific consensus on global warming. For example, an Australian scientist named Bob Carter told an obscure Canadian paper that Gore’s arguments are “so weak that they are pathetic.” How could the AP exclude this kind of incisive analysis?
The release is also full of misinformation about global warming science. Here are just three of the most blatant errors:
1. The research of Dr. Michael Mann is “now-discredited.” A report released last week by the National Academy of Sciences, created to Congress to provide scientific guidance, found Mann’s research – which concluded the warming in the last several decades is unprecedented in the last 1000 years — “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.”
2. “Scientific reports” concluded Mt. Kilimanjaro’s glacier is not disappearing due to global warming. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain studies of Kilimanjaro “only support the role of precipitation in the initial stages of the retreat, up to the early 1900’s.†Moreover, “the Kilimanjaro glacier survived a 300 year African drought which occurred about 4000 years ago.†The most likely explanation for why it has almost completely disappeared this time is “anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change.â€
3. A literature review in the journal Science which claimed consensus on global warming is “flat out incorrect.” The release relies on the analysis of Benny Peiser, which was egregiously flawed. Benny claimed that 34 abstracts “doubted or rejected” the scientific consensus. Actually, there wasn’t a single peer-reviewed abstract that opposed the scientific consensus.
Marc Morano and Matt Dempsey, who work for the committee, encourage you to contact them about the release. Please be substantive and polite with any criticism.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
End the War for Oil.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:49 amSeriously, it’s time to storm the Bastille. These Bozos aren’t even hiding who they work for anymore.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:53 amBore should get it over with and join the green party
June 28th, 2006 at 9:56 amDoes it really matter what a couple of whore flacks for the Republicans have to say? What did you expect? As for taxpayer dollars, I’d be a lot more concerned about the never-ending, money eating fiasco in Iraq.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:56 amWhats the surprise? Who said that US didnt have friends but interests? Not even its own people qualify for the interests they are protecting.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:08 amUsing the “White House” definition of “consensus” and balance it’s miraculous that they believe there is consensus on voting intergity and election outcomes being accurate.
Basically, when they White House (or Fox) don’t like something then any disagreement, no matter how inaccurate or unqualified the source, will do to “discredit” and avoid consensus of the real experts.
But when they want an issue silenced and covered up, they ignore all dissent and questions as being vicious attacks/smears and the work of ‘tin-foil hate wearing moonbats.”
The problem is that they always seem to feel they know better than experts. they call experts “crazy” and “conspiracy theorists” but want their own unqualified, unrespected and non-peer approved people to be heard by everyone.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:12 amJohn,
Get a life and start thinking about someone other than yourself.
Bill
June 28th, 2006 at 10:14 amJuan – Aren’t you glad you don’t live here? I’ve not been to Argentina, but the people I met in Brasil were from Argentina were very down-to-earth and not at all stressed about anything. I had dinner with a couple who were explaining to me what the different foods were, a bit about their lives in Argentina, their travels in South America. They were just really very nice people with a different view of the world. It was nice to be around people like that who live in their moments rather than worry so much about what’s 10 miles down the road. I think a lot of people in this country don’t have anything else to compare their lives to, and therefore do not know that there are better alternatives than this work-a-holic, stressed out, desperation television subsistence.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:15 amGlad to see our taxpayer money is going YET AGAIN to protect the interests of the MEga Oil companies……..
The legacy of GWB and crew…….
June 28th, 2006 at 10:18 amIsn’t there a pile of sand somewhere where the ‘Republicans’ can bury their heads?
Isn’t there a place somewhere in the world where ‘Republicans’ can go other than Warshington or the United States? Maybe somewhere in Afghanistan or Iraq.
That’s where they belong. They need an anthropogenic kick.
A world without ‘Republicans’ is just a better world.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:23 amDan Brown, Al Gore, to the petrosocial conservatives it makes them feel good to attack MOVIES. It’s a God damn movie for Christ sakes. I just don’t get it why people get all worked up over a film. What happened to Conservatives having one of their main tenets: Smaller Government. No need to approve RU486 but let’s counter a liberal film with legislation. #3 Yeah and the Social pseudo Conservatives should get their own damn party and see how many people they could get elected on their own. CINO’s, the lot of them all.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:23 amthe facts have never gotten in bore’s way before. why would they now
June 28th, 2006 at 10:25 amplease contact Marc at 202-224-5762 and Matt at 202-224-9797 and let them know what you think of their press release
June 28th, 2006 at 10:28 amThis is the typical “keep the controversy alive” tactic that the tobacco companies used so successfully. Kudos to Think Progress for noticing the tax-paid press release and researching it.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:33 am#10
June 28th, 2006 at 10:38 amAre you a communist? You prefer one-party rule? You need to move to North Korea or Cuba then, two powerhouse economies where you’ll fit right in.
#8 Unbelievable. Thank you for that post. Yeah, I guess you are right in that we are simple and easy going people. In fact, Argentina, after Cuba is the most well educated (?) or cult country in Latinamerica, so there is a great social conscience in general. However, I must say, even so, we had dictatorships and 300,000 missing persons from 1976 to 1982. After that we had Menem who was the greatest gangster I ve ever seen in any presidency. So, the question is: what is good in being aware about social issues if we dont do anything to overthrow governments that privatize every important industry and gave us a legacy of a huge debt that we will be paying forever to the IMF? We, latinamericans have a curse, in my opinion. We dont respect work as you do. So, there is good and bad things. You (US citizens, in general) are pretty uptight about almost anything and have been brought up in a permanent war atmosphere, (that is why US has grown so much in economy), so the opinions that US should keep its global leadership, no matter whatare understandable. Hopefully, there are brilliant and aware people like you, who is the only chance that US has to change, I guess.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:40 amYou guys really missed the point or you were not looking for it. Gore contacted 100 scientists and only 13 had seen his movie and what ?six? agreed with the theory. I know I went to public school but that s hardly a consensus and it’s not even a majority by any stretch of the imagination. Do you guys use the same method for polling?
June 28th, 2006 at 10:40 amYou need to move to North Korea or Cuba then
June 28th, 2006 at 10:42 amComment by Randy
Communism has not existed in this planet, Randy. Go check your books again.
Stop watching Stallone´s and Dolph Lungdren´s films.
What would Teddy Roosevelt think? The problem I have with this whole argument of whether the science is good or not is this: What harm would it do to actually CONSERVE our resources, the planet included, just a little bit? the sky is not falling but why continue at consumption at the current levels and not just do a little preventive maintenance, just like our health care industry encourages us. I’m more tweeked by the audacity charges from the right than i am from a science dispute. the obesity rate in our country is the ultimate bellwether for me. Bill Clinton’s initiatives aren’t going to put Pepsi out of business. Nor would more fuel efficient cars, less Co polluting engines wipe out GM or the Oil companies, their own poor planning and adjustment to market forces will do that for them.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:43 amWill the smearing of Al Gore by the GOP and Karl Rove ever come to an end on his movie? Global warming scares the crap out of the Republicans, so they want any facts about it terminated!
June 28th, 2006 at 10:45 amNote that the Inhofe document, as well as the op-ed they cite, gets the name of the geologist who wrote the Science paper wrong! This is tangible evidence that those behind this document read the critique, but not the original paper. It is plain for everyone to see that the Committee is interested solely in advancing a partisan agenda, not on discovering the actual science, otherwise they would have bothered to read the original Science letter.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:45 amLet’s face it. Our country is f@cked. What more proof do we need that we have no democracy? We should all walk from now on and let the oil goons drown in it.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:46 amDamn, I really suck at writing English.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:47 amno rrs, you miss the point, the ap contacted 100 scientists, and out of the 100 that had seen the movie, 19, agreed with it. IS that why you joined the army? no critical thinking skills? go see the movie and then make comments
June 28th, 2006 at 10:50 am#17 – Retired Republican Soldier, #24 – freeme,
June 28th, 2006 at 10:53 amIt was the AP, not Gore, that contacted 100 climate scientists and, of those, 19 had seen it and, of those, all approved the science.
Just for grins I googled conservation: Results 1 – 10 of about 335,000,000 for conservation [definition]. Yeah Al Gore’s movie is the definitive answer isn’t it? What is it about counter view points and criticism the Right is so thin skinned about?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:03 amDo you guys use the same method for polling?
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Get a clue, pal. You can always find the “Frank Luntz” type of guy in the crowd. Obviously you get your talking points from the likes of Michael Savage and the rightwing attack-pack. Why don’t you do a little SCIENTIFIC research and quit falling for the far right’s cherry picking information from a few researchers re-shaped and distorted clap-trap.
BTY, as a former US Marine and US Army airborne grunt myself, am I supposed to be impressed with your handle?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:04 amRRS and Freeme are wrong. out of the 100 scientists contacted only 19 had seen the movie and all 19 agreed on the accuracy so the numbers can be swayed both ways. Only 19% of the scientists even cared to view it but it gets 100% accuracy rating from noted scientists.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:05 amThe repugnicans must be really afraid of the impact of Gore’s movie.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:05 amThe interests of the oil companies must be protected at all costs.
Spend taxpayer money on personal interest causes whenever possible – so sayeth the repugnican leaders.
Why RRS thinks we should count people who hadn’t seen the movie is beyond me. *ummmmm* Oh, yeah, forgot, the maladministration regularly contacts CWA, FOTF, AFA, and the likes for information on drug effectiveness and birth control….
Cheers.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:07 amJuan,
Your English beats my Spanish :)
Of course no place is perfect and everyone has tehir demons. But I guess I notice that the more you expose yourself to in this world, the more options you have to select from when finding solutions. Knowledge is, after all, power. It’s just how we use that power that matters.
I am including a presentation to my class in the Fall on the architecture of Havana. In all the inages I’ve seen so far, although the city is obviously poor and unable to maintain itself, the people were mostly carefree, dancing, laughing, outside and talking to one another. It was like that here when I gre up with a 100 million less people. People knew their neighbors and weren’t afraid of life. Now, we are afraid of everything. It’s sad really.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:07 am#25 and #28,
June 28th, 2006 at 11:13 amthanks for the correction. although what you said is what I meant to type, I obviously was not being clear. now I look like and ass and it’s well documented in cyberspace, oh well.
Dear Sirs,
I find it amazing that a Senate committee would find the time and the motivation to publish (with taxpayers dollars) a press release that is so patently off the mark. The journal of Science has documented that not one peer reviewed abstract written about climate change since 1993 has even doubted two facts:
1. Global Warming is in fact taking place.
2. Human activity is the most likely cause of it.
I did take note of one of the skeptics you quote in your press release, one Bob Carter who’s analysis of the science in An Inconvienent Truth is so harsh, that he calls “pathetic”. I did some research (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm) and Professor Carter has not published ONE scientific research paper on the subject of Global Warming. It begs the question, if he has found the scientific conclusions by VP Gore so “pathetic” why hasn’t he written a research paper about it? “Pathetic” is a very strong word, and Professor Carter should be forced to back it up with research of his own, rather than relying on his title to assuage any doubt. It also makes me question his true intent, and yours, for using him as a source. Why didn’t you do any research to see what scientific conclusions he has made?
Now I must address one Dr.Richard S. Lindzen, who’s credentials are quite extensive and are beyond reproach, except if you count this fact:
Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; and his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC. Furthermore, in November 2004 Lindzen was quoted saying he’d be willing to bet that the earth’s climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. “There isn’t much money in climate science and I’m still looking for that gold watch at retirement, A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension.”
Please explain why your committee chose these two people as viable “skeptics” while the above information is readily available to anyone who looks, and then tell me why my tax dollars are paying for it.
Sincerely,
June 28th, 2006 at 11:16 amLet us review:
Retired Republican Soldier is a moron who cannot read.. “Gore contacted 100 scientists and only 13 had seen his movie and what ?six? agreed with the theory. I know I went to public school but that s hardly a consensus and it’s not even a majority by any stretch of the imagination.”
Obviously, your “public education” was a waste. The article (not Gore, btw) states:
“The AP contacted 100 climate scientists, including noted “climate skeptics,†and of the 19 that had seen the movie, all commended its accuracy.
That’s almost 20% of the contacted scientists, and of the ones who’d seen the movie 100% commended the accuracy. Typical republican chickenhawks are just misstating the truth. Remember republicans: typing is not for the stupid.
As far as “John” is concerned, he just does inaccurate, brainless driveby comments and is inconsequential.
“Doubt is their product.”
June 28th, 2006 at 11:17 am#33, wonderfully put!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:30 am#29
You really are a moron if you think for a moment that Republicans are worried about Al’s little ol movie. But go ahead and make yourself think there is a crisis and hide under your bed. Run with it. Go go go!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:32 amWhy is there even any controversy? The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations around the world have concluded that global warming is in part do to human activities. Even the NASA’s website reports that the vast majority of climatologists support this view.
Now who should I believe; these folks, or big oil and their “in the pocket” politicians?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:36 amMy husband wrote the following letter in response to this article:
Dear Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Morano,
I wish to clear up a few misconceptions regarding the issues that you
have made with the scientific facts behind the movie “An Inconvenient
Truth.” Firstly, it is a widely accepted scientific fact that humans
are having a significant impact on the Earth’s climate (IPCC, 2001), and
likely have been for thousands of years (Ruddiman, 2003). The linkages
between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and atmospheric
temperatures are clear, as are the clear linkages between human
activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gasses. These linkages are undeniable.
Furthermore, the evidence suggesting that the changes occuring in our
climate today are outside the scope of natural fluctuations is
startling. This is not to say that the Earth’s climate has not changed
this rapidly in the past; we know that it has. It has just never
changed this much this rapidly. In other words, we are in the midst of
one of the largest and most rapid climate changes that has possibly ever
occurred. The idea that a few politicians, with little or no scientific
training can be making claims which cause confusion and help support
their inaction are what is most disturbing about climate change.
Regarding the vanishing tropical ice cap of Mount Kilimanjaro, while it
is true that Georg Kaser, a personal friend of mine, and others (2004)
have claimed that it is too cold atop the mountain to cause the ice to
melt, Lonnie Thompson, also a personal friend, has photographic evidence
of huge pools of melt water forming on top of the ice caps, with huge
ice dams collapsing. Kuhn (1979) showed that significant melt can occur
on a glacier at temperatures well below freezing (-10ºC) given other
conditions which likely exist on the summit of Kilimanjaro today. Yes,
it is true that much of the ice has sublimated (change directly from a
solid to a gas) and that some of the retreat is caused by lack of
snowfall, but these, too, are consequences of global warming. It takes
nearly 8 times as much energy to sublimate ice, which is what Kaser et
al. claim is happening. There was not enough energy 150 years ago to
cause this much sublimation. Today, however, increased greenhouse gas
concentrations are increasing the longwave (infrared) radiation reaching
the ice caps. This is the dominant energy causing the changes we are
seeing on all glaciers, and it is directly caused by the concentration
of greenhouse gasses. These gas concentrations are increasing because
of human activities. Still, linking the melting of a single glacier to
global warming is more difficult and less significant that making the
link between the widespread global retreat of glaciers and secular warming.
Finally, claims that there is still scientific doubt regarding global
warming are wrong. Of every literature search of peer-reviewed journals
in the past decade, not a single article has disputed global warming.
I did note one glaring mistake in Al Gore’s movie, however. On one of
his slides, he misspelled the name of our planet. While the correct
spelling is “Earth”, he had misspelled it “earth”, which means dirt.
This is as common an error as the claim by the US media that there is
still a debate on global warming. Still, I plan to let him know so that
he can correct this in his slide shows.
In the future, please check all of your facts with scientists who are
not funded by special interests.
Sincerely,
June 28th, 2006 at 11:37 am# 36– Hardly anyone was talking about this problem before Gore’s movie and publication of a number of recent books.
You can tell the Republicans are worried, why else would they go through the trouble of censoring James Hansen?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:39 amYou really are a moron if you think for a moment that Republicans are worried about Al’s little ol movie.
Comment by Randy — June 28, 2006 @ 11:32 am
I usually skip your nonsense, but accidentally read this one. Now that I’ve stopped laughing, I can say that you might deny it, butthe normal behavior a human being exhibits when it is indifferent is indifference. However, when feeling threatened, the typical human response is to either ‘fight or flight”. This looks like fighting – hence, fear.
Unless you’re saying that you Republicaons are not human?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:46 am#12 , #17 and #24 …
How about a little “Reading Comprehension 101″
This is from the findings of EPICA – The European Project for Ice Coning in Antartica:
“Experiments conducted on Antartic ice cones indicate carbon dioxide is at its highest level during the past 650,000 years.”
Okay – let’s review. This is a FACT from EPICA. Not a THEORY by Al Gore or anyone else.
Let’s continue.
EPICA also found that “CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time and methane is 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exception: for CO2 – 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
or Google “CO2 highest for 650,000 years” “Richard Black” “BBC News”
Let’s review again –
First, this again is a quantitative finding by EPICA. Al Gore is simply a messenger.
This should be easy to understand.
For example, former tennis champion and current tennis broadcaster John McEnroe may say that Roger Federer has won 42 consectutive matches on grass court. He would not say that it is his theory that Federer has won 42 straight matches – because Roger’s 42 straight wins on grass is a fact.
Okay, let’s move on.
#12, #17 and #24, taking on the following essays would make this discussion much more interesting:
“The fact that CO2 is 30% higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years is irrelevant because …”
“The fact that methane is 130% higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years is irrelevant because …”
“The fact that the rate of increase for CO2 is 200 times faster than at any time in the past 650,000 years is irrelevant because … ”
One last task – you must address how these things are irrelevant despite the fact the human population and industrialization are also as high as they have ever been.
Looking forward to your well thought out responses.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:47 am#27 Joe sixpack You are not a redneck Republican anymore? I am wondering what change your thinking.
Welcome to the Dems side.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:48 am“absolutely exception” should be “absolutely exceptional”
June 28th, 2006 at 11:50 amGore has said over and over that if you look at the data from 1992 until today on temps in Greenland, it proves that Global warming exists. Of course, if he would have looked at data from 1991 until today, he could have concluded that we are headed for an ice age.
When Greenland was first colonized by Eric the Red (Vikings) (year 986) it was warming then it is today. In fact, the vikings colonized it because Greenland (at the time) was a great place to raise cattle, grow hay and grains, and also harvest herring. This lasted for about 300 years and well before auto’s were pumping out Co2 emissions.
Of course all that is meaningless because it doesn’t support the idea of Global warming. Anyways, just forget those facts and carry on with the fun!!!
June 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pmJoe Sixpack was never a redneck republican – he only posed as one for sarcasm.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#31 Unbelievable. You know what surprise me most? You are the most informed people in the world. You probably know everything about everybody. The bad thing is that US gov uses that for no more than expand its own market and products, or just get some oil. About 9/11, my father doesnt believe the theory that it was an inside job. He says that because: US doesnt need to convince anybody in order to invade or attack a country; it moves freely in the world. Well, I guess it was an inside job, precisely because it had to convince somebody: US citizens. Again, I think the only enemy those murderers have are critic, coherent and brave people like a lot of guys in here. Then 9/11 was all about to bring fear into US citizens. Fear = consumption. It would be interesting to know how much money war and protection companies (not the big ones, just the small ones) made after 9/11. A state of permanent fear in scared-to-death people is a free highway for breaking all kinds of freedoms.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pmAnd yeah, Havana is a magical place with so vibrant people. There is a terrific film: Suite Havana, a documentary about 10 people´s lives in Havana. I admire the way you teach your class.
#44 When Greenland was first colonized by Eric the Red (Vikings) (year 986) it was warming then it is today.
Yawn. Another old canard:
Objection: Greenland used to be a lovely hospitable island when the Vikings settled it. It was not until the Little Ice Age that it got so cold and it was clearly not the frozen wasteland it is today.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
From the release:
Do they really want a voice vote on global warming and its causes? Because the count is 928 to zero so far.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:15 pmAnd yet another unbelievable piece of leftist drivel that is so slanted and COMPLETLY INCORRECT, and yes I do know that its a movie but this trash is being presented as fact when its just a bunch of BS and as accurate as anything that moran Michael Moore has done.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:16 pmIf you’re going to call someone a moron, shouldn’t you at least spell that word correctly?
June 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pmMore of the same shameless lies, being paid for by the american taxpayer. Clearly tuolumnejim has bought the lie hook line and sinker, and thinks this is a great way to use his tax dollars.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:21 pmIts a little DU tongue-in-cheek.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:22 pmthat is so slanted and COMPLETLY INCORRECT
June 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pmComment by tuolumnejim
Would you please tell us why?
And why did Gore choose 1992 instead of 1991?
The answer:
1992 was a very cold year and using it can show an increase in the temp. Using 1991 would actually show that Greenland is colder today and I guess to be used to show that we are headed for an ice age.
Continue on!!
June 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pmNo matter what the hell the repukes do to argue the whole issue of global warming, sit tight, they are being proven wrong EVERY FREAKIN’ DAY. If they aren’t tuned into this planet and everything connected to it, then I have nothing but pity for them. Let them lie. Because in reality, they are just plain STUPID.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pmYou know what surprise me most? You are the most informed people in the world. You probably know everything about everybody.
But the Average American has stopped paying attention and instead prefers inane television shows where people are humiliated and rejected. They forgetthat there are other countries with other cultures. They only care about owning the latest trendy gadget.
About 9/11, my father doesnt believe the theory that it was an inside job. He says that because: US doesnt need to convince anybody in order to invade or attack a country; it moves freely in the world. Well, I guess it was an inside job, precisely because it had to convince somebody: US citizens.
I agree with your Dad. Arrogant people don’t shoot themselves in the foot on purpose to get attention. They love themselves too much – and they think everyone else already does. You hear people all teh time ay that we were attacked because other countries envy us? That’s pure arrogance. And ignorance.
It would be interesting to know how much money war and protection companies (not the big ones, just the small ones) made after 9/11.
Only the rich got richer and they would have anyway (see Big Oil). No need to invoke 9/11 as an excuse, considering the 9/11 terrorists had nothing to do with Iraq.
There is a terrific film: Suite Havana, a documentary about 10 people´s lives in Havana. I admire the way you teach your class.
Comment by Juan C — June 28, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
I’ll have to check it out.
I’m lucky, I found a school district in Georgia that actually teaches evolution and about the genocide of the Native Americans at the time of Columbus. I’m excited that I’ll be able to expose the students in my classes to other ways of life through architecture. Subversive, perhaps, but only in the best interest of the students and the future of our planet. I’m also starting off the semester with a project where they have to use only ‘found objects’ or recycled materials. They cannot buy anything. I want to teach them to start thinking in terms of conservation and sustainability.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:30 pmThe left and right will ALWAYS remain at an impasse. Even though what the left believe is truly righteous as far as humanity is concerned, and it is so frustrating to hear the lies and ugliness coming out from the right, it is just no use. I hold hope, though, because I think that more people have gone from being on the right to being on the left, more so than the other way around.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pmJoe sixpack You are not a redneck Republican anymore? I am wondering what change your thinking.
Comment by Mary Poplins
Joe Sixpack was never a redneck republican – he only posed as one for sarcasm.
Comment by Marie
Well, Mary, you and Marie are both partly right. I don’t think I ever said I was a republican, only a rightwing redneck dipstick. I’ve reformed every since I discovered how to read and think deeply, and to stay away from the Fox News Network.
Now I am only a dipstick. But at least I’m a progressive one. Still, that vile, mean, nasty conservative streak is still there and it sometimes lashes out in filthy curse words as it often does in lowborn, proto-types like Randy, I-RIGHT-I, and others. But I’m working hard to reach the next level of evolution.
Thank you for asking.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pmThe right doesn’t always do so well, did anyone notice moonbat patrol and mighty aphrodite going after each other on one of the threads yesterday? it was freaking hysterical.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:36 pm1992 was a very cold year and using it can show an increase in the temp. Using 1991 would actually show that Greenland is colder today and I guess to be used to show that we are headed for an ice age.
Do you have a chart or reference or peer reviewed article that puts this claim in context? It’s a complex problem, and I’ve often found factually true things being presented out of context to muddy the waters. Especially in this debate.
i’m not suggesting that you are doing this Gary, but I’d like to see where you are getting the information.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:36 pmMatt Dempsey is a 20 something Republican operative who has been arrested and convicted for his political behavior.
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/printable_article_generation.asp?article_path=/news/02/news021028_4.htm
June 28th, 2006 at 12:43 pmhttp://www.westword.com/issues/2003-08-14/news/offlimits.html
It turns out that our Mr. Carter is a shill for off-shore oil drillers. See below.
Marine and Petroleum Geology
Volume 13, Issue 1, 15-February-1996
Marine and Petroleum Geology Vol. 13 (1) pp. 61-77
Copyright (c) 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Marshall Paraconformity: a mid-Oligocene record of inception of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and coeval glacio-eustatic lowstand?
Craig S. Fulthorpe
University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, 8701 North Mopac Boulevard, Austin, TX 78759-8397, USA
Robert M. Carter
Geology Department, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
Kenneth G. Miller
Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University, Wright Geological Laboratory, Busch Campus, PO Box 1179, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1179, USA
Julia Wilson
Department of Geology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Received: 23 April 1994; Revised: 14 March 1995; Accepted: 23 March 1995
Abstract
The sedimentary fill of the Canterbury Basin, New Zealand, is the product of a long-term (80 Ma), tectonically controlled relative sea-level cycle with a megasequence geometry analogous to the sequence stratigraphic model of Vail (Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Stud. Geol. No. 27, 1, 1-10, 1987). The condensed section of the megasequence, resolvable in detail in outcrop and on seismic profiles, comprises a basin-wide pelagic to hemipelagic limestone interval. A regional mid-Oligocene unconformity, the Marshall Paraconformity, lies within the limestone interval onshore and correlates with hiatuses in at least two, and possibly three, offshore exploration wells and with a temporary lithological change from limestone to quartz sand at a fourth. Strontium isotopic age estimates confirm that a 2-4 Ma hiatus is associated with onshore outcrops of the Marshall Paraconformity (between 32 and 29 Ma), which correlates with the opening of the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean and the postulated mid-Oligocene sea-level fall of Haq et al. (Science 235, 1156-1167, 1987; Spec. Publ. Soc. Econ. Paleonotol. Mineral. No. 42, 71-108, 1988). Lowering of base level, coupled with cooling and enhancement of current activity, may have caused the temporary cessation of limestone deposition and a regional hiatus. This hypothesis reconciles the apparently contradictory palaeogeographical evidence for a regional highstand. The Marshall Paraconformity may exemplify the signature by which similar glacioeustatic events can be recognized in offshore platform facies.
Keyword(s): sequence stratigraphy; sea-level changes; Antarctic Circumpolar Current
June 28th, 2006 at 12:44 pmMarc Morano is of course another Republican operative with a solid Right resume such as working for Limbaugh.
http://www.rightalk.com/other_shows.php?show=cnsnewsreport
June 28th, 2006 at 12:47 pmYes I read an interesting article recently about the Vikings in Greenland > they refused to eat fish, so when it turned too cold to sufficently grow hay for their cows, and grow vegetables, they basically starved to death after eating all their livestock and even their dogs! A old Viking settlement was found in Greenland with the bodies/skeletins of the villagers in their beds with animal bones thrown on the floor > after they ate their last meal of the pet dog, they climbed into bed and died of starvation or froze to death! They refused to fish like the natives so they died of stupidity > I bet they were Republicans > lol.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:54 pmGary and Co. I’m not seeing much clarification on your comments. If you are going to take a position you do need to back it up a little. I guess thats tricky when practically all the evidence supports climate change, it can take a while to dig out obscure references to contradict the consensus.
Yeah it’s a tough gig, why not support the reality and help us turn things around. You’d be happier.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:00 pmJune 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Anyone have the link about how the energy from the sun has not changed in the last mellenium? I am sure the “sun is getting hotter” argument has been adequatly refuted at this point.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pmA point by point refutation on my blog:
June 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pmhttp://ifthenknots.typepad.com/weblog/2006/06/attacking_the_m.html
Wednesday Hodgepodge…
Further evidence has come to light that the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq:
Iraq WMD red flags ignored, ex-CIA aide tells paper
A former CIA officer says he made repeated efforts to alert t…
June 28th, 2006 at 1:22 pmHere’s the lead researcher on solar radiaiton at the Max Planck Institute, Sami Solanki:
June 28th, 2006 at 1:24 pm“Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide.” Max Planck Society Press Release
The warmth in Greenland and Vineland was due to a configuration of the Atlantic Current at the time. The total mass of ice on Earth, then, was a bit more then it is today. This is supported by the location of salt harvesting ponds in Italy and Great Britain. Sometime in the late 1400’s, the Atlantic Current (This consists of the various ocean currents which originate from the Gulf Stream.). shifted south and climate changed in the northern hemisphere. This precipitated a mini ice-age from about 1560 to 1850AD. Northern Europe is still taking a hit from this change while enough of the Atlantic Current sweeps up just past Ireland before proceeding south and the warmth from these waters is enought to make most of Europe very habitable while the bulk of the countries there are actually north of the Canada’s southern border.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:26 pmMore evidence of global warming extends back with the discovery of the frozen remains of Oetzi which extends the depth of the ice cover in the Alps by about 5000 years.
Arrogant people don’t shoot themselves in the foot on purpose to get attention
Comment by ubelievable
Sorry to differ. These people dont care about people. 300 jews called in sick or fly away that morning. 3000 “non important” people died that day. It is all about the cost/benefit ratio.
Subversive, perhaps,
June 28th, 2006 at 1:28 pmIs there anything better than that?
Republicans fear radical Islamic terrorists.
This at least is true. The rest of your post however was something of an embarrasment, you’ll need to up your game. Unless that was comic relief? Not half bad as comic relief.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#64 ….an interesting article recently about the Vikings in Greenland …
Comment by Jay Randal
Great post and story. And so were the comments by play_jurist #70 and #71 WaltTheMan. Thought-provoking and well written.
But comment #66 by earth2moonbats was some lame, gradeschool level shit.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:37 pmInhofe’s war on science…
Senator Inhofe (R, Exxon) has responded to the AP story on how top climate researchers say Gore got it right. Drudge pimped it, so it’s all over the place now. Inhofe’s press release starts with a straight lie: AP INCORRECTLY……
June 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pmAnyone have the link about how the energy from the sun has not changed in the last mellenium? I am sure the “sun is getting hotter†argument has been adequatly refuted at this point.
Here yah go.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html
It’s been soundly debated. As with all sceince, some grey areas remain, but the consensus is that the sun is not the primary source of global warming.
A taster : According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pmI can’t tell if Juan C is joking or not. I hope you he doesn’t believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” or that anti-Semitic myth about Jewish people did not show up to work at the World Trade Center that day. If it is a joke, it’s a poor one.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pmThanks Brian.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:47 pmJoe Sixpack. There is no such thing as a former Marine. Therefore you are not one. Let me guess, because I have met many like you, you could not hack the Corps and got dropped from boot, thus claiming to be one. Semper bye my friend…
Retired Republican Soldier. Thank you for your service to this great country. It is men like you whose dedicated service and selfless devotion to the protection of our freedoms that allows these goodhearted but mislead people to express their opinions freely without fear of retribution. You sir, allow them a dissenting voice and they should thank you as well.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:53 pmI can’t tell if Juan C is joking or not. I hope you he doesn’t believe that 9/11 was an “inside job†or that anti-Semitic myth about Jewish people did not show up to work at the World Trade Center that day. If it is a joke, it’s a poor one.
Comment by Exley — June 28, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
For the sake of the rare moment of agreement, I’ll go with you on this one. I’m skeptical of all conspiracies because the governmet (any government) is so incapable of keeping even the most basic stuff secret. There is no way a government agency could pull something like this off … and keep all the genuine evidence under wraps. It’s not going to happen.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:56 pmAs far as Global Warming.. Human activity DOES NOT cause global warming. The SUN IS GETTER HOTTER.. But MAN is NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
Oh ok. Now that you’ve USED THE CAPS LOCK, I believe you. All those scientists DON’T USE THE CAPS LOCK in their papers. That’s a sign that they’re some sort of SISSIES and SHOULD NOT be listened to.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:57 pmGee tom, it must be hard to type with a dick in your mouth. I hope RRS appreciates the Fellatio.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#76 Exley.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:03 pm1) Why is it anti-Semitic the FACT that they didnt show up?
2) It is not a joke. I do not celebrate any kind of violence, so I was not laughing that day.
3) Why has not the US gov presented all the information it has about that incident? Why? National security? Well, it already happened! Did you see the “plane” hitting the Pentagon? Did you, really?
4) The crime scene is never to be removed or cleaned until all analyses have been made: simple criminalistic theory. Yet, they cleaned all the rubbish in record time.
5) I know it is hard to believe in an inside job. I would not believe it if I wasnt from a country which government (financed by US) have tortured and killed its own citizens. But, if you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone shooter, that is OK. If you believe Reagan protect you from Sandinists in NIcaragua while killing thousands of farmers and workers, that is OK. If you believe that if US help United Fruit in Guatemala to repress exploited people, it was for a good cause and, of course, your freedom, that is OK. Well, I have like 180 more “If you believe”, but I think that will prove my point. Finally, governments dont care about people, they care about profit. Learn that.
Thank you for your service to this great country. It is men like you whose dedicated service and selfless devotion to the protection of our freedoms that allows these goodhearted but mislead people to express their opinions freely without fear of retribution. You sir, allow them a dissenting voice and they should thank you as well.
While I agree with the spririt of your patronising post, I’m afraid you’ve made something of a fool of yourself by supporting Retired Republican Soldier. The issue being debated is global warming. there is extensive evidence in the thread that Retired Republican Soldier is quite clueless about the subject.
If you think he’s a winning debater on the subject, I’m afraid that tags you as clueless too. Here’s a primer, : http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ have a read and when you have a least a basic grasp of the issues give us a call:-)
June 28th, 2006 at 2:05 pmWell, while the question of global warming may be debatable by some, one thing is clear: Hell must have frozen over! Brian Coughlan and I actually agree on something and are not insulting eachother!
June 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pmGee tom, it must be hard to type with a dick in your mouth. I hope RRS appreciates the Fellatio.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pmComment by Krazny
Slam dunk!
albore just released his latest prediction. global warming will ease up and then appear to reverse itself around october, then return again around april/may. hhmmm……
June 28th, 2006 at 2:08 pmIt is men like you whose dedicated service and selfless devotion to the protection of our freedoms that allows these goodhearted but mislead people to express their opinions freely without fear of retribution.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:09 pmComment by Tom
It was just like the final speech of Rambo II. BIG LOAD OF CRAP.
Your freedoms = killing children. Think about that when you go to sleep.
Aside form the fact that they’re dated, fading and scream “I’m a loser”- why is it that I see so many Dem/Liberal bumper stickers on cars? Surely, since GW is such a HUGE concern to the left, they would’ve all sworn off their cars by now and resorted to public transportation or bicycles.
Or maybe they’ve all sold their cars to Republicans who are too lazy to remove the stickers. Yeah, yeah, that’s it.
Also, I’d like to repose the question earlier asked but not answered: If big Al is so darned conerend about this, WTF was the Clintoon adminstration doing about this for 8 years?
Do you think Al Gore was thinking about global warming when he got busted speeding a while back in Oregon? I don’t.
What kind of hybrid does Al Gore drive? Or do they make hybrid limos yet?
SIMPLE CONCLUSION: Al Gore is pimping this crap for his own ends. He just wants another chance to lose again. Or maybe he justs wants to see if it’s possible for him to ever win his HOME STATE of TN. BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!
June 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pmtom, you hurt their feelings. nice going
June 28th, 2006 at 2:11 pmComment by earth2moonbats — June 28, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
This idiot just made my point.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:13 pmLIBERALISM IS A THEORY BASED ON LIES.. AND DON’T CANNOT DIFFERENCIATE BETWEEN FACT & FICTION!.
I love how they try and change the definitions of just about everything….goes to show how UGLY they really are.
lib·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr–lzm, lbr-)
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pmoften Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
I remember something about Gore and clinton tyring to raise taxes, to pay for alternative fuel development during the Clinton Administration. It was largely voted down my republicans.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:19 pmearth2moonbats was right about one thing – the theory that there is natural goodness in humans – .
June 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pmalbore just released his latest prediction. global warming will ease up and then appear to reverse itself around october, then return again around april/may. hhmmm……
Its a serious issue John. I’m sensing your confused by the variety of competing voices. Here is a primer on critical thinking. It will help you discern the bull from the shit.
http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-notes.html
June 28th, 2006 at 2:23 pmBAWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Comment by chicken_little_moonbats — June 28, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
You seem to have blundered from the “irrational unrelated ramblings” thread onto the discussion about global warming. If you have something remotely related, by all means contribute.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:29 pmJuan C asks: “Why has not the US gov presented all the information it has about that incident?”
You can read the 9/11 Commission Report online, Juan C. Here you go:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
As for the anti-Semtic lie, I will break it down for you….It is a “lie” because it is a falsehood. You provide no facts or evidence to back up this myth.
It is “anti-Semitic” because it echoes the slurs and stereotypes that Jewish people secretly rule the world and pull the strings of international finance and international affairs that has been used as justification for the oppression and mass murder of the Jews for centuries.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:29 pmyour sensors are malfunctioning
June 28th, 2006 at 2:31 pmPlease, stop with the 9/11 Inside Job stuff. It’s been debated here ad nauseum, and TP will delete any links you post to it.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:50 pmYou seem to have blundered from the “irrational unrelated ramblings†thread onto the discussion about global warming. If you have something remotely related, by all means contribute.
Comment by Brian Coughlan
I take it that you choose not to answer my questions becuase you already know the answers.
Here’s another question: What volunme of GH gas is producued by idiots going to see this movie? Someone who actually cared (as opposed to Al Gore) would’ve released the movie and put it on PBS – not released it in a “for profit” setting which only motivates people to go see the movie IN THEIR CARS.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:52 pmUnbelievable,
I assume you are addressing Juan C. As a relatively new visitor to this site, I am glad to hear that TP deletes links to slanderous “9/11 was an inside job” propaganda. I must say, though, I am surprised to see how often some people here keep bringing it up. It must indeed be a source of embarassment to the site and most of more level-headed and rational people who post here on a regular basis.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:58 pmYour use of bold text is a little strange… it calls more attention to the errors themselves than it does to your corrections. Maybe leading off your rebuttals with “In fact…” written in red text might make clearer who’s right and who’s wrong.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:06 pmChicken Little,
Your post is scientifically irrelevant (what a surprise). The quantity of GH gases emitted by people seeing the movie is trivial relative to the quantity from coal-fired sources such as power plants. Your ignorance is astounding.
BTW, since you obviously have not seen the movie, former VP Gore’s movie is “carbon neutral” with offsets having been procured for the making of the movie. And, if you had a clue, you would also have checked and found that the profits from the movie ate going to environmental causes! How pathetic you look by regurgitating what someone told you to think and say!
Yes, indeed, you are a chicken. And that is quite an insult to chickens everywhere!
June 28th, 2006 at 3:13 pmIt must indeed be a source of embarassment to the site and most of more level-headed and rational people who post here on a regular basis.
It is of course, but its a fringe. you fellows do have Ann Coulter:-)
June 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pmBrian Coughlan,,,
True…Both sides have their embarassments they need to contend with (I am no Coulter fan)…
June 28th, 2006 at 3:25 pmIt’s inexcusible that our tax dollars are being used to push junk science of the kind trotted out by Marc Morano and Matt Dempsey.
Human-caused global warming is scientific fact and is supported by hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Human-caused global warming is also just plain common sense. It’s mind-boggling how anyone seriously attempts to argue that (at minimum) having a few billion people over 70 years pumping car exhaust, powerplant and factory pollution into the air isn’t going to adversely affect our atmosphere. Unfortunately, those people exist here on this thread and in the highest levels of government and industry. What’s more unfortunate is that we can’t isolate those ignorant enough to believe global warming doesn’t exist and give them an enclosed bubble to continue their experiments with keeping their heads buried in the sand, slowly poisoning themselves to extinction. Instead, those of us with the moral compunction to do something to correct this environmental problem will have to combat these fools on blogs and in legislation, doing our best to improve the future of this planet and by default even the future of these fools’ offspring, and they will continue to ply us with poorly spelled, vicious diatribes full of name-calling and devoid of any substance or connection to truth and fact.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:30 pmIt must indeed be a source of embarassment to the site and most of more level-headed and rational people who post here on a regular basis.
Comment by Exley — June 28, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
You should talk coherently like this more often. The name calling and ad hominems you wage get in the way of your argument.
I like Juan. I think he’s a smart guy with a lot of good points. Not sure why he’s on board with the fringe on this one. But he should avoid talking about it in here. TP doesn’t condone it.
I’ve repeatedly, out of the intention of keeping these people from looking foolish, tried to explain the architectural portion of the towers collapsing (via the planes crashing into the buildings) on more occasions than I can count. Just gets me called names and attacked by name-changing fringe folks. Doesn’t matter that I have degrees in architecture and engineering – or that I practiced for 14 years before leaving the profession to teach (science last year and architecture this year). I don’t know what I’m talking about, even though the majority of my profession agrees with my stance and only an obscure handful of publicity-hungry folks offer ridiculous alteratives to the reality. Much like your side with scientists refuting Global Warming, frankly – and why I consider myself an Independent, left of CENTER liberal… zealousness abounds on both sides at the extremities. And it cannot be reasoned with.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:36 pmNext up: IF Gore really cared, why would he choose to star in this movie? He is obviously a partisan character and knew full well that his starring in the movie would genereate more devisiveness around global warming, not concensus. If he actually gave a rat’s ass about the issue vs. his image, he would’ve anonymously donated to the creation of a production which would be narrated by someone percieved as more politcially and scientifically objective. Gore knew full well that his iinvovlement in this movie would only make the issue MORE DIVISIVE- yet he chose to do it for his own personal exposure and meglomania REAL INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
And yes, people who go see the movie in their cars (as in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of unecessary trips) produce GH gas that would not otherwise be created if the program had simply been shown on TV. You can dismiss it and write it off as “trivial” but this is a FACT which you cannot deny. I guess liberal infotainment takes precedent over principle. At least Carter put on a sweater and tried to demonstrate some pincipaled leadership.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:36 pmGood point moonbat. Gore should know how much hatred there is in middle America right now. Also, your point about cars is well taken. People who drive cars should not be allowed to have an opinion on global warming, just like people who don’t enlist in the military should not be allowed to have an opinion on the Iraq war.
I like your thinking!
June 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pmHey, Gore invented the Internet afterall. With that type of pocket knowledge, I am sure he figured out Global warming all by himself as well.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:47 pmAw Sweet, the same ole baby killer cry. Juan C, are you Jane Fonda in disguise??? Sorry buddy but I never killed babies. But I know many will sleep good tonite with American forces between North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, Iraq and Ahfaganistan, once again between North Korea and Japan… Simply protecting those who can not protect themselves, like children… Oh, sorry I know this is a global warming post so, Plant some trees… Send in Johnie Appleseed when all that useless snow melts all over the planet…
June 28th, 2006 at 3:48 pmMoonbat’s point is simple: Gore should have known that most of Bush’s supporters hate him personally, and will be blinded by their hate, unable to look at the issue. This creates divisiveness. All our friend moonbat really wants if for liberals to go away forever. Is that too much to ask?
June 28th, 2006 at 3:50 pmBut I know many will sleep good tonite with American forces between North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, Iraq and Ahfaganistan, once again between North Korea and Japan…
Ladies and gentlement, this geography lesson has been brought to you by our public school system.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#107…Unbelievable, I agree that the discussions all too frequently degenerate into unproductive name-calling and sarcasm (I don’t engage in name-calling, but I do acknowledge getting sarcastic in some of my postings).
But I have to be honest with you and tell you that often you are the first to initiate name-calling (See our discussion in the “Bolton Attacks U.N. Human Rights Official For Criticizing Flawed Administration Policies.” You were quite free with the use of the term “idiot”)(Granted you a not nearly bad as some others hereI). enjoy these discussions when they are civil in tone. So, if we can both agree to keep the name-calling and sarcasm to the barest of bare minimums, I think it would be more pleasant for us and probably everyone else…Agreed?
June 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pmTPJUDD is either ignorant or lying about Kilimamjaro. The study by Kaser et al, referenced in the realclimate link tell us:
On a global scale, air temperature is considered to be the most important factor reflecting glacier retreat, but this has not been demonstrated for tropical glaciers (Houghton et al.,2001). Rather, a complex combination of changes in air temperature, air humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, and incoming shortwave radiation is considered to govern the fluctuations of tropical glaciers.
According to these proxies, the climatic evolution of East Africa over the past 150 years (‘modern climate’) is characterized by a drastic dislocation around 1880, when lake levels dropped notably and glaciers started to recede from the latest maximum
extent. The ensuing relatively dry climate was maintained throughout the 20th century, which is supported by instrumental records of annual precipitation that vary only slightly during the 20th century. Comparatively, the couple of decades preceding 1880 were very humid: lakes stood high, mountain glaciation was extensive, and precipitation more abundant.
Did this sudden drop in atmospheric moisture also initiate the recession of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro and force it until the present day?
This question is vitally important and is addressed in this paper in order to develop a new research concept, since the recession of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers is widely attributed to global warming only, i.e. understood as a direct consequence solely of increased air temperature (e.g. Irion, 2002; Thompson et al., 2002).
This is an overly simplistic view and does not consider the following.
(i) Temperature increases in the tropics on the surface and in the troposphere have been little in recent decades compared with the global trend
(ii) In the East African highlands, there is no trend in air temperature records that nearly span the whole 20th century
(iii) Glacier–climate interaction in the tropics
shows peculiar characteristics compared with the mid- and high-latitudes (Kaser et al., 1996; Kaser, 2001), as they are located in a particular climate, which was outlined in Section 1. Several energy- and mass-balance investigations on tropical glaciers (e.g. Wagnon et al., 2001; Francou et al., 2003) reveal that these glaciers are most sensitive to shifts in hygric seasonality and changes in related parameters (e.g. precipitation, surface albedo).
(iv) The enormous size and height of the mountain represents an exceptional phenomenon amongst glacierized mountains in the tropics, reducing the effect of air temperature on ice recession decisively (Kaser and Osmaston, 2002).
(v) Early researchers have already suggested that changes in precipitation might be driving the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on direct field observations (e.g. J¨ager, 1931; Geilinger, 1936).
And finally this:
June 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmPositive air temperatures have not contributed to the recession process on the summit so far. The rather independent slope glaciers have retreated above the elevation of their thermal readiness, responding to dry conditions. If the present precipitation regime persists, then these glaciers will most probably survive in positions and extents that are not much different than today. This is supported by the spatial patterns of glacier extent shown in the Thompson et al. (2002) map, which indicate that slope glaciers retreated more from 1912 to 1953 than since then.
Judd,
Man, this continues to be hilarious. I can’t see how Judd could have been any more dishonest. Let’s go through this piece by dishonest piece:
A report released last week by the National Academy of Sciences, created to Congress to provide scientific guidance, found Mann’s research – which concluded the warming in the last several decades is unprecedented in the last 1000 years — “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.â€
Wow, another out of context quote! The clear implication of the report is that Mann’s graph has been used for years as definitive evidence of AGW, but now this report found the scenario plotted by Mann’s graph as only “plausible”. Al Gore uses this graph in his movie as if it were proven science, yet the NAS report says it is only “plausible”. Judd you are dishonest it stinks all the way here to Norway. Here’s what the report says, in context:
Come on Judd, you’re a liar, plain and simple.
The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain studies of Kilimanjaro “only support the role of precipitation in the initial stages of the retreat, up to the early 1900’s.†Moreover, “the Kilimanjaro glacier survived a 300 year African drought which occurred about 4000 years ago.†The most likely explanation for why it has almost completely disappeared this time is “anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change.â€
I know Judd and Eric Steig at realclimate.org like to play off each other, like they did in the Salon.com article that claimed “Al got the science right”, but this is little more than a dishonest circlejerk. Here’s the NAS report on Kilimanjaro:
Foiled again Judd. Your boys at realclimate and Al Gore are asserting as fact things that are not. Please can you just be honest?
The release relies on the analysis of Benny Peiser, which was egregiously flawed. Benny claimed that 34 abstracts “doubted or rejected†the scientific consensus. Actually, there wasn’t a single peer-reviewed abstract that opposed the scientific consensus.
Peiser was indeed incorrect in stating that 34 “doubt or rejected” the supposed consensus view, but you’re leaving out what he did find: only 13 of them explicitly endorsed the consensus view. 13 out of 913! As always, Judd tells only half the story and covers up the Inconvenient Truth.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:18 pmUnbelievable, why is TP not accepting any post about 9/11? I wasnt aware of that, though if thats true I dont understand it.
Tom…whatever, buddy. You are right, we are all wrong, Jesus loves you and shares your hate towards gays and environmental issues, Ronald McDonald is your friend and yep, children are a lot safer now.
Exley, again. You believe in what you want. You seem pretty convinced on your proofs. Good. Hold on to that.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:21 pmSeixon > I do not think it’s a good idea to call Judd a liar on his own TP threads > I think you are treading on thin ice, but that’s up to you!
June 28th, 2006 at 4:22 pmBut I know many will sleep good tonite with American forces between North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam, Iraq and Ahfaganistan, once again between North Korea and Japan…
These forces have absolutely nothing to do with helping anyone on US soil sleep well at night. If anything, they harm US security by engendering hatred of us throughout the world. 9/11 never would have happened if the US didn’t constantly send forces like this throughout the world killing people’s children and deposing democratically elected governments. Now that we’ve killed 50,000 civilians in Iraq, we’ve set the stage for similar hatred of the US for decades to come. That’s not security.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:24 pmGood point moonbat. Gore should know how much hatred there is in middle America right now. Also, your point about cars is well taken. People who drive cars should not be allowed to have an opinion on global warming, just like people who don’t enlist in the military should not be allowed to have an opinion on the Iraq war.
I like your thinking!
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — June 28, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Hmmm… I can’t decide which is worse, you lack of reading comprehension or your inabiltiy to come up with a relevant analogy.
Go back and reread. I chided GORE (not the moivegoers) for HIS
DECISON to release it in a manner which only produced more unecessary GH gas. It was not directed at the moviegoers – (although there may be some credence in that for those who didn’t take a bus or ride a bike to see the movie.) If it had been released on PBS, no unecessary trips would’ve been generated. Not only that, but it would have been a non-profit arrangmeent and more people would have the chance to see it FOR FREE.
Convince me that having a more objective and neutral person as the narrator would not have been less divisive. Gore is just pimping himself which is THE REAL INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
PS: Show me a Reublican doing the same thing and I’ll gladly call them a pimp too. My allegiance is to REALITY, not a political party.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:37 pmPS: Show me a Reublican doing the same thing and I’ll gladly call them a pimp too. My allegiance is to REALITY, not a political party.
Comment by chicken_little_moonbats — June 28, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
How about George W. Bush in a flight suit, on the deck of a carrier, before a mission accomplished banner?
June 28th, 2006 at 4:52 pmJay,
Judd is lying, there is no other way around it. He knows that what he is writing is carefully constructed misleading and false information. You can see from my post that this is true beyond any reasonable doubt. Think Progress is deeply partisan for Gore, why else do you think they have an ad up to pledge to see his movie? Do you think you will get objective and truthful information about Gore’s movie from a website that is pimping it? Nope, which is exactly why Judd will obfuscate to no end to protect Gore’s movie.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:57 pmBush was a Pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. How is donning a flight suit pimping???
June 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pmTom,
Well, Bush wasn’t a real pilot, you see, he never went to Vietnam. Thus all his flying around in an airplane was little more than dressing up and pretending to be a pilot. See? ;)
June 28th, 2006 at 5:02 pmDonning a flight suit as a member of the Texas air national guard. Donning a flight suit for a canned photo op aboard an aircraft carrier he could have helicoptered too after leaving the TANG.
C’mon Tom the right lambasted Dukakis over his tank stunt. Do you really think Bush in the flight suit was anything but a “brave hero president” photo op?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pmMarc Morano is Senior Staff Writer for CNSNews.com and is previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington,†as reporter and producer for the Rush …
June 28th, 2006 at 5:06 pmC’mon Tom the right lambasted Dukakis over his tank stunt. Do you really think Bush in the flight suit was anything but a “brave hero president†photo op?
That’s because Dukakis looked like an idiot in his photo-op. Not to mention that he did it for an election campaign, while Bush was actually serving as commander in chief in a war. A bit of a difference, no?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:10 pmNot really he (bush)still looked like an idiot.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:13 pmNot to those of us who aren’t high on BDS. Bite your lip and admit that Dukakis and Bush were in completely different circumstances.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:15 pmAnd if Clinton had his picture taking in Canada would that be a photo op… That is where he spent the Vietnam war… Thank Goodness he ran though, I wouldn’t want him in a fox hole next to me… (thought to self) To bad Kerry did not go with him…
June 28th, 2006 at 5:15 pm“Communism has not existed in this planet, Randy. Go check your books again.
Stop watching Stallone´s and Dolph Lungdren´s films.”
anyone want to bet juanC thinks the US is a democracy?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:17 pmBDS????
Umm sure thing dude. I thought Clinton spent most of vietnam in England? He as attended Oxford or something wasn’t he. If he got education deferments, it should be okay Tom. That is what Cheney did he had what 5 deferments in all?
Siexon thanks for showing you partisinship. Your kneejerk defense of Bush was pretty funny.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:20 pmConvince me that having a more objective and neutral person as the narrator would not have been less divisive.
No, I agree with you. The so-called heartland is full of personal hatred towards Gore. They won’t look at or address the actual issues, they can’t get past their hatred of Gore personally. So he should have chosen someone more like them, so their xenophobia and deep-seated hatred of anyone they see as liberal would not be a factor.
That is your point, right?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:24 pmThis again has Karl Rove’s fingerprints all over it!!!!!!! I do not appreciate my tax payer dollars being used to say that Gore’s movie is a fraud!!!! The trouble with all of these Republicans is that they all flunked science and don’t like the subject!!! They don’t understand it and of course Bush couldn’t read a science book if his life depended upon it!!!! I’ve read the book about the bird pandemic that Karl Rove told Bush to say he was reading last year. There is no way that idiot Bush could have read that well written scientifically accurate book!!! Bush refuses to watch Gore’s movie because he feels intimidated by a man who is a gentleman as well as a scholar-Bush is neither!!!! Bush is a fraud!!!!Let’s spend some tax payer money on spreading that around!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmSiexon thanks for showing you partisinship. Your kneejerk defense of Bush was pretty funny.
No, your kneejerk attack on Bush is what is displayed here. Everyone else that isn’t in I Hate Bush Land found nothing wrong with Bush riding in an aircraft and landing on the deck of a ship, getting out, and making a speech. That’s the type of thing a president does. You tried to compare this with Dukakis, who everyone agrees looked like a complete moron with his oversized helmet, who was riding in a tank for a campaign commercial. You’re comparing a presidential candidate riding in a tank in a campaign commercial with the president of the United States landing in a jet on an aircraft carrier during war to congratulate his own troops on a job well done.
Rational people who don’t have an unhealthy and obsessive hate of Bush can’t see anything wrong with this, but people such are yourself will put aside all facts and circumstances to make him sound like an idiot because you hate him so much.
You are projecting your own obsessive feelings about Bush onto me in the opposite direction. I have never said Bush is great, that he is awesome, that landing on that carrier was brilliant, that he looked swell, or anything else. Yet you, here, are saying he looked like an idiot. When he clearly did not.
Get a lie and stop obsessing with hate for Bush. It’s pathetic.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:28 pmAlso, moonbat, your point about environmental advocates driving cars is exactly the same as those who say young Republicans who don’t enlist should not say anything about the war.
As for “pimping” examples, how about every conservative commentator ever? Or what is your criteria exactly? Rush Limbaugh never served, Karl Rove got a bunch of deferments and now tours the country speaking about his the cowardice of Democrats.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:28 pmEveryone else that isn’t in I Hate Bush Land found nothing wrong with Bush riding in an aircraft and landing on the deck of a ship, getting out, and making a speech. That’s the type of thing a president does. You tried to compare this with Dukakis, who everyone agrees looked like a complete moron with his oversized helmet, who was riding in a tank for a campaign commercial.
so if Dukakis had done the exact same thing as President, you and the rest of the heartland would applaud like you do for Bush?
And what does looking “Like a complete moron” have to do with it? Isn’t that rather subjective? Can one make the same argument that Bush talks like a complete moron, especially when he announces the end of major combat operations at the beginning of major combat operations? That makes him look rather like a complete moron, more so than wearing a helmet would make him look like a complete moron, wouldn’t you say?
If Bush rode in a tank before the 2000 election, would you say he looked like a complete moron? I’m just trying to get a sense of your objective measure here, for example what does and does not look like a complete moron, to use your term.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pmKermit,
Also, moonbat, your point about environmental advocates driving cars is exactly the same as those who say young Republicans who don’t enlist should not say anything about the war.
That makes no logical sense. The first instance is of someone acting hypocritically, while the second is not. It would only make sense if the young Republicans were advocating war, and then secretly subverting the military.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pmKermit,
so if Dukakis had done the exact same thing as President, you and the rest of the heartland would applaud like you do for Bush?
Where have I applauded? Dukakis was not a pilot, was he? So already your comparison is failing.
And what does looking “Like a complete moron†have to do with it? Isn’t that rather subjective?
It is subjective but I think the voters in the USA pretty much decided that, yes, Dukakis was an idiot. The photo of him in the tank is not all that great, you have to admit.
Can one make the same argument that Bush talks like a complete moron, especially when he announces the end of major combat operations at the beginning of major combat operations?
Apparently you dno’t know anything about the military. It was the end to major combat operations. After May 2003, it was turned into a peace-keeping operation. If you can’t understand “major combat operations”, I can’t help you.
That makes him look rather like a complete moron, more so than wearing a helmet would make him look like a complete moron, wouldn’t you say?
Only if you were hell-bent on not understanding the implications of “major combat operations”, yes.
If Bush rode in a tank before the 2000 election, would you say he looked like a complete moron? I’m just trying to get a sense of your objective measure here, for example what does and does not look like a complete moron, to use your term.
Well, if he looked like a complete moron would depend entirely on how he actually looked doing it. I think it would have been pretty lame for Bush had he ridden in a tank for a campaign commercial, since he did not do so as part of his military service.
The only reason Dukakis looked like a moron was because his helmet was too big and he didn’t look like he belonged in that tank at all. Not to mention he did it for a friggin campaign commercial.
If Bush wore a helmet that was goofy looking, and rode in a tank in a campaign commercial, then I would deride him just the same as Dukakis. Unfortunately, that’s not what has transpired, so hacks like Krazny are left with trying to compare apples and oranges to substantiate their obsessive hate for Bush.
And for those with a black/white brain, saying that Bush did not look like an idiot does not translate into saying that he looked brilliant. Mk?
June 28th, 2006 at 5:44 pmSeixon,
Please drop the dime store pshycology. Projection etc. You are a partisan hack plan and simple. I don’t know why it is so difficult for you to admit it. Ego maybe?
at any rate. I am almost done and will be heading home soon.
PS what does BDS stand for? I mean if your going to be insulting, it doesn’t work well if you I don’t know the insult.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pmWe disagree, sir. If advocating war and not volunteering to help in the fight is not hypocritical, the moviegoers would only be hypocritical if they advocated tougher environmental laws and secretly lobbied for relaxing those same laws. I could go further into the notion that if said moviegoers contribute less than the average carbon emissions and are willing to sacrifice for the environment (even falling short of a Thereau-esque existence) they are joining the fight.
Broken down: Supporting X while secretly subverting X does not apply to driving a car, if one needs to travel to advocate tighter emission standards. Driving a car does not secretly subvert environmental laws. Either you owe Gore an apology or you need to say the world is full of hypocrites. You have fallen into a common practice: Hold your opponents to an impossibly high standard and criticize them for not living up to it.
If we want to apply the same standard to all, young Republicans are not required by law to serve if they advocate war. Liberals are not required by law to drive hybrids if they advocate tightening emission laws. I am merely pointing out a common double standard.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pmOnly if you were hell-bent on not understanding the implications of “major combat operationsâ€, yes.
Then you should explain, but include the entire phrase “the end of major combat operations.” The implication being 1) major combat operations had taken place, and 2) major combat operations were over, i.e. combat after the announcement is far less than combat before the announcement. Nobody would argue today that is the case.
Since Bush announced “the end of major combat operations” after 50 soldiers died, but before an additional 2,500 soldiers died, I’d say that makes him look like a complete moron to use your political terms.
But perhaps you have a new definition of the term “major” or “operations” that we would do well to hear. Go ahead.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:57 pmNotice I ddin’t mention “Mission Accomplished” since Bush stated he had nothing to do with that banner, it was already there when he arrived and therefore he couldn’t be held responsible for what people put behind the stage during his speeches.
Fair is fair, after all ;)
June 28th, 2006 at 5:59 pmAll of us here in the reality-based community are getting really sick and tired of the abuse of the words “logical” and “truth” by those who have obvious disregard for genuine logic and truth, as supported by verifiable facts.
All you chickenhawks need to explain what ISN’T hypocritical about a healthy, able bodied American who advocates for the war in Iraq yet does not sign up for active duty and also feels it’s OK to call a combat veteran a “coward.”
June 28th, 2006 at 6:00 pmAnd personally (1) I think Bush did look like a moron all suited up with that oversized codpiece in his overtightened flight suit, (2) it was a totally unnecessary campaign stunt to be flown in a combat jet onto an aircrat carrier that was sitting just offshore , and (3) Bush didn’t know the “Mission Accomplished” banner wasn’t going to be there as much as Bush didn’t know he was carrying a fake turkey in that Thanksgiving photo op in Iraq.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:09 pmSeiton,
June 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pmThere is this dude, Oetzi, whos remains were discovered in 1991 after being frozen in glacial ice for 5000 years. In 1991, after that ice had accumilated and thawed for 5000 years, enough ice had thawed to reveal his frozen remains. Carbon dating and DNA analysis both key in on this timeframe. To keep it simple, we can say that temperatures in the Alps dropped or stayed stable over a period starting about 5000 years ago and subsequently rose enough to erase the prior accumilation of frozen water (that’s ice for the uninformed).
Sorrry,
June 28th, 2006 at 6:21 pmSeiton should be Seixon.
Actually, Seixon, Just to correct the historical reference you made..You wrote:
“You tried to compare this with Dukakis, who everyone agrees looked like a complete moron with his oversized helmet, who was riding in a tank for a campaign commercial. You’re comparing a presidential candidate riding in a tank in a campaign commercial…”
That is inaccurate. Dukakis posed in the tank at a campaign stop at a General Dynamics plant. It was Roger Ailes, upon seeing how ridiculous Dukakis looked, took the videotape of the event and used it in a campaign commercial for Bush…
A minor error on your part, but I thought you’d be interested.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:25 pmKermit,
Being an environmentalist screaming about CO2 emissions, and then getting in a car and spewing CO2 emissions instead of riding a bike, taking public transportation, or getting a hybrid is exactly hypocritical.
Supporting a war without fighting it is not hypocritical at all. Only if you worked against the war while supporting it would you be hypocritical. You are hardly working against the war by not fighting in it.
I can’t break it down any more than that. Logic will have to find its way to you some day.
WaltMan,
You have just ignored the fact that local conditions vary from the overall globe and cannot be tied to global warming. In fact, your story is nonsensical because the man could have unmelted several times over the last 5000 years, but it was only this time in 1991 that someone was coincidentally there to see him and discover him.
Surely you know that over time humans have been more able to climb into the mountains, especially with the advent of helicopters. You ignore all of that in your pursuit to stick to the dogma you have been sold.
Krazny,
Nice non-response. I think that settles that. BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:31 pmExley,
That is inaccurate. Dukakis posed in the tank at a campaign stop at a General Dynamics plant. It was Roger Ailes, upon seeing how ridiculous Dukakis looked, took the videotape of the event and used it in a campaign commercial for Bush…
A minor error on your part, but I thought you’d be interested.
Heh, thanks. You’d think that one of the Bush-haters here would have pointed that out, but it seems us “abominable” ones are the ones with all the knowledge. Either way, my point remains the same, Dukakis was doing it as a campaign stunt which can hardly compare to being commander in chief during a war.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:35 pmSeixon,
June 28th, 2006 at 6:44 pmThe body was not decomposed. If he had used a helicopter to get to the site where he died, that would invalidate Sikorsky’s patent on that machine.
Dukakis was doing it as a campaign stunt
The lesson here is if you are running for office, do not visit any defense contractors, or you will lose the respect of Sexion here. Only Presidents can do that.
As for #151 I see the source of our disagreement. You seem to think that driving a single car undermines the environment. Not true. If I refuse to drive, it does not save the environment. Only if I can convince the country, indeed the world, that we need to pool our resources can we save the environment. Driving a car does not undermine the environment either way, if we fund the necessary research or not.
One could argue that a single extra soldier in the field does help the war effort, and not having one more soldier hurts the war effort exactly as much as driving one more car hurts the environment. In a microscopic sense it does, but as a measurable effect it misses the mark by a long shot. Does that make sense to you?
It’s not a quesion of logic, but of reality cause and effect. Logic is only useful if the premise is grounded in reality.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:52 pmDamit, I refered to Seixon as a retarded monkey, and I think TP ate my post.
Bah
June 28th, 2006 at 7:03 pm#152 Heh, thanks. You’d think that one of the Bush-haters here would have pointed that out
Heh, you’d think the Gore-haters would do their homework. Oh, no you wouldn’t.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:06 pmWaltTheMan,
Go back and read what I said, as you seem to have completely misunderstood.
Kermit,
The lesson here is if you are running for office, do not visit any defense contractors, or you will lose the respect of Sexion here. Only Presidents can do that.
It’s not about visiting defense contractors, it’s about driving around in a tank with a goofy helmet on making you look like you have nothing you should be doing in that tank. And yes, for a president to do it during a time of war would be much more logical than a presidential candidate doing it as a campaign stunt.
You seem to think that driving a single car undermines the environment. Not true. If I refuse to drive, it does not save the environment. Only if I can convince the country, indeed the world, that we need to pool our resources can we save the environment. Driving a car does not undermine the environment either way, if we fund the necessary research or not.
How are you going to convince others to stop using fossil fuels when you do it yourself all the time? See, that’s where the hypocrisy comes in. You have to practice what you preach, not do the exact opposite of what you preach.
One could argue that a single extra soldier in the field does help the war effort, and not having one more soldier hurts the war effort exactly as much as driving one more car hurts the environment. In a microscopic sense it does, but as a measurable effect it misses the mark by a long shot. Does that make sense to you?
Yes, an extra soldier would help, but that’s besides the point. You are not being a hypocrite by not joining the military. In order to be a hypocrite, you’d have to go against the military, doing the opposite of what you preach. Certainly you don’t mean that everyone who supports a war should have to go fight in it? If that were the case, we’d have to ship millions upon millions of Americans out to every war we fight.
It’s not a quesion of logic, but of reality cause and effect. Logic is only useful if the premise is grounded in reality.
It is a question of logic, because you don’t seem to understand the difference between doing something that is opposite of what you preach, and not actively supporting a cause you are preaching.
If we follow your logic, then every single person who supports any war has to go fight in it themselves if they don’t want to be a hypocrite. Not only is that illogical, it goes against the entire definition of being a hypocrite.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:13 pmWhy do the republicans hate our children so much that they’d rather destroy the planet than do everything in their power to protect it?
June 28th, 2006 at 7:15 pmWhy is it we always spend our time trying to reason with Rove-ian apparatchiks like Seixon? Seixon’s paid to be here and be disruptive. I suppose (1) we think we might change Seixon’s mind or others that currently are deluded into thinking like Seixon, or (2) we’re further focusing our knowledge base on the key elements of contentious issues and focusing our responses. On second look Seixon, thanks for the practice!
June 28th, 2006 at 7:18 pmbill_of_rights,
Let me know when you want to respond to #115 and #116.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pm—–Original Message—–
From: Alek Mezera
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:55 PM
To: ‘matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov’
Cc: ‘marc_morano@epw.senate.gov’
Subject: RE: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Morano,
Please review the following errors in your understanding of the global warming issue, as outlined in your recent press release entitled, “AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie.†and documented at the following location: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/28/senate-misinformation-gore/
1. The research of Dr. Michael Mann is “now-discredited.†A report released last week by the National Academy of Sciences, created to Congress to provide scientific guidance, found Mann’s research – which concluded the warming in the last several decades is unprecedented in the last 1000 years — “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.â€
2. “Scientific reports†concluded Mt. Kilimanjaro’s glacier is not disappearing due to global warming. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain studies of Kilimanjaro “only support the role of precipitation in the initial stages of the retreat, up to the early 1900’s.†Moreover, “the Kilimanjaro glacier survived a 300 year African drought which occurred about 4000 years ago.†The most likely explanation for why it has almost completely disappeared this time is “anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change.â€
3. A literature review in the journal Science which claimed consensus on global warming is “flat out incorrect.†The release relies on the analysis of Benny Peiser, which was egregiously flawed. Benny claimed that 34 abstracts “doubted or rejected†the scientific consensus. Actually, there wasn’t a single peer-reviewed abstract that opposed the scientific consensus.
Any responsible member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works should surely review and, if necessary, correct any potential errors in its statement.
I am confident that as God-fearing, yet logical American citizens and public servants, you will do the right thing.
Sincerely,
June 28th, 2006 at 7:51 pmAleksandr D. Mezera
Dayton, OH
TPJUDD once debated Prof Balling about global warming. In that debate he focused more on questioning the validity of Balling’s argument based his acceptance of funding from Exxon rather than on the science. But he eventually did try to talk about the science. He talked about the “ice” on Kilimanjaro and explained how it was “evaporating”. Bwhahaha!
Then he proceeds to argue that Lake Victoria has never dried up. In fact it did – after the last Glacial Maximum.
Get your terminology and your facts straight.
#116, I forgot about that Salon article. Excellent.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:25 pmWalt that is interesting about that body being found in the Alps that had been incased in a glacier for 5 thousand years thawing out > I just read an article in National Geographic that Switzerland is afraid that all their glaciers might melt in a few years and their skiing industry collapsing, so the world’s climate is definately warming extremely fast now!
June 28th, 2006 at 8:40 pmAll you chickenhawks need to explain what ISN’T hypocritical about a healthy, able bodied American who advocates for the war in Iraq yet does not sign up for active duty and also feels it’s OK to call a combat veteran a “coward.â€
Comment by bill_of_rights
Two points:
First, explain to me why, using the same logic in your post, that it wouldn’t be hypocritical for someone who strongly believes the earth is coming to an end because of mankind’s evil emissions doesn’t immediately quit his job and either live quietly in a hut in the woods or join some full time charitable crusade out there somewhere to reverse this trend. We all know these groups are out there…really out there. Remember that trying to change minds while spouting their opinions on the internet and then going to work the next day is not acceptable for “Chickenhawks” under your logic in order to avoid your unbearable lable of hypocrisy.
Secondly, do you believe that any combat veteran is forever immune from being characterized as a coward regardless of their behavior? Or maybe your point is that it is simply never OK to actually say the words even if their true.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:49 pmbill_of_rights,
Quick question: Did you support the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 following the 9/11 atrocity?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:02 pmExley,
I rarely call anyone an idiot out right. I tend to take a more Shakespearian approach to insulting people who I consider beyond reason… Though I will admit a shorter fuse with those of you who burst into a thread and start the condescention and sweeping generalizations.
But, hey, I’m willing to debate you without calling you an idiot outright if you stop with the patronization. Okay – deal.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:04 pmI think bill_of_rights is done for the day folks… So am I, night!
June 28th, 2006 at 9:05 pmUnbelievable,
We are in agreement then. Excellent.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:21 pmeveryone remember:
sEiXXON is a moderate. can’t you tell by his moderate talking points?
everyone knows moderates hate liberals.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pm#131 Shannon. anyone want to bet juanC thinks the US is a democracy?
June 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pmWell, it is, as in 3rd world democracies: fraudulent. (Ohio and Florida…just saying)
Communism, unfortunately in my opinion, has never existed as it should. Lenin´s was an overwhelming attempt to pass from a zarist, medieval system to communism. It became a socialism controlled by a bloody regime governed by the bureaucreacy.
Seixon,
June 28th, 2006 at 11:02 pmGo to a local market and purchase a single hamburger patty. Freeze it and thaw it over a thirty day cycle. 5000 years would be a bit difficult for a mere mortal, but, if you can, try that option. Eat same, raw. I am sure that our world will then be a better place.
Jay,
I read a similar article in Scientific American that included ominous pictures of the decline of glaciers in the Alps. I also saw some pictures of Mt. Kilimanjaro in the NY Times that were nothing less than shocking.
Post 173 Walt > the Swiss are so concerned now about their melting glaciers that they are putting some special plastic blankets on top of them during the summer months! If the glaciers completely melted away, then Swiss are fearfull that the mountain peaks might collapse and erode into the valleys below > plus the skiing/tourist industry could collapse too!
June 28th, 2006 at 11:50 pmOur money funding the propaganda of the REICH. That is like allowing them to use your car to run over you. We the people need to draw a line in the sand, and tell dumbya “bring it on”.
and 174- if the mountians in Switzerland melted it might just wash all those plundered Nazi treasures to finally surface. Not that anyone but dumbya and cheney would be allowed to retrieve them.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:03 am174 + 175,
June 29th, 2006 at 12:24 amThe Alps cover France, Switzerland, Germany, Italy and Austria. Oetzi was found in an area orgionally thought to be in Austria but later pinpointed to Italy.
Yes Walt I have visited the French, Swiss, German and Austrian Alps regions, but not the Italian part of it! I loved Innsbruck, in the Austrian Alps > very pretty area! Zurich, Switzerland is also one of my favorite places > beautiful city nestled around a lake!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:27 amThanks Walt for the link to the ice man mummy Oetzi > I bet he was a Shaman who had enemies who killed him and his body got covered by snow and eventually entombed inside a glacier!
June 29th, 2006 at 2:30 amJay,
June 29th, 2006 at 4:01 amIf you liked Zurich, you’d love St. Wolfgang Austria. Beautiful lake, low prices and congenial folks.
So this is what the taxpayers are paying for, eh?
Bleh
—
June 29th, 2006 at 6:07 amweb design uk
[...] Senate Committee Launches Taxpayer-Funded Misinformation Campaign About Gore Movie [...]
June 29th, 2006 at 7:21 amProgressaurus,
sEiXXON is a moderate. can’t you tell by his moderate talking points?
I don’t have talking points, I have my own thoughts and words. Thanks.
everyone knows moderates hate liberals.
I don’t hate anyone here, but most of you hate me. See how that works? I don’t like partisan hackjobs who take all their thoughts from Think Progress, which unfortunately is quite many here.
WaltTheMan,
Go to a local market and purchase a single hamburger patty. Freeze it and thaw it over a thirty day cycle. 5000 years would be a bit difficult for a mere mortal, but, if you can, try that option. Eat same, raw. I am sure that our world will then be a better place.
You still don’t get it. Are you literate my friend? I guess I will have to go through it very slowly:
The human got lost, whatever, up in the Alps 5,000 years ago.
He may have thawed many, many times since then, and then frozen again without anyone having found him.
By 1991, humans have helicopters and explore the mountains a lot more. By this time, the temperatures are becoming warm enough again to where the man thaws again. He is discovered.
So you see, you are assuming that there have been people up in the Alps that where there to witness his previous thawings over the last 5,000 years, when that is very unlikely.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:01 amSheila,
Unfortunately because I live in Norway, and Al Gore doesn’t feel that his message should be free to watch through the magic of the internet, I haven’t been able to see it yet.
Sheila, try to respond to comments #115 and #116. Not a single person on here has even attempted doing so, precisely because there is no refuting them. Judd and Think Progress are in the tank for the Democrats and Gore’s movie, so I can’t see how anyone here actually believes they will get any objective and unbiased information about the movie.
I already know some things that are in the movie due to the trailer, and as I have already pointed out (which Judd lied in attempting to cover up), Gore is not reflecting what the scientists are actually saying.
In fact, Gore is doing exactly what he and others have accused the Bush administration of doing when it came to the intelligence on Iraq: exaggerating, lying, distorting, manipulating, you name it.
This is exactly what Gore is doing with this movie, and comments #115 and #116 are irrefutable evidence of that fact.
The fact that you think there’s a global climate crisis proves you are not able to think critically about information presented to you by people you trust to give you truthful information. They have lied to you and now you fear something that you have no reason to fear. If what they said was the truth, they would not have to lie about it.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:50 amSeixon > if I was your age again and living in Norway, then I would be out visiting museums and historic castles/ruins, and hiking in the mountains, boating on the fjiords, and looking for romance too! Why waste your young life on trying to convince us that Gore is lying about global warming?
June 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pmSeixon,
June 29th, 2006 at 2:05 pmLink onto the story of Oetzi and refer to the description of how he was found. No helicopters needed by the hikers who found him.
Next consider what happens to refrigerated meat over a period of several months. Consider the results of Oetzi being exposed for a single day every four years for a period spanning 5000 years. That would result in a cumulative exposure of approximately three and a half years. If that were true, Oetzi wound not have much flesh left on his body. So much was preserved that forensic pathologists have been able to establish what he had for his last two meals.
Republicans = Evil.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:52 pmDemocrats = Good.
Any Questions?
[...] The Think Progress site (yes, I know, a site with an agenda if there ever was one) is tracking the action. It certainly does seem like some politicians are going out of their way to discredit something that shouldn’t be discredited. [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 11:08 amseixon
if the ice man had ever thawed before, it is highly likely that his body would have rotten or been eaten by animals. Once again you are talking nonsense.
people
George Gooding aka seixon (age 23, possibly now 24) was featured at the American Spectator site here so it is easy to see that, despite his denials, he is a conservative. Of course reading his pathetic web site or his posts in every forum would tell you that.
He also is on record as thinking that Ann Coulter is fairer than Michael Moore. He said, “Moore is a disgraceful liar, deceptionist extra-ordinaire, and not to mention a hypocrit.
Bowling for Columbine was one large reel of lies, deceptions, and what we call BULLshit. Some points of the movie were funny, yes. That cartoon about slavery, “white folksâ€, the NRA, etc. was funny. It was mostly funny because it was utterly ridiculous.
I don’t see how that movie got any kind of award for being a “documentaryâ€. That, is ridiculous.
“People in Canada don’t lock their doors, see?â€
No shit dumbass, no one locks their doors in the middle of the day when they’re at home!
That made me laugh. That’s what was funny about his movie, Moore trying to prove something, and making himself look like a moron.
Yet, the worst thing of all, is that people actually believe in his lies. That’s the most dangerous part about it all. If there ever was a reason to abolish Freedom of Speech, that would be it.â€
the ravings of a paid neo-nazi!! He has no real reason to be here except that he is being paid to cause trouble.
-the doc-
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:28 amMoonbat’s point is simple: Gore should have known that most of Bush’s supporters hate him personally, and will be blinded by their hate,
They only hate him because he was the “elected President”.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:59 pm[...] Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) spokesman responds to criticism of his use of taxpayer funds to smear Al Gore. The spokesman’s response suggests he finds it “scarcely noteworthy that Senate committees are used for the personal partisan vendettas of their chairs.†[...]
July 6th, 2006 at 12:14 am[...] Now that they run the country we are seeing the bile and hatred of the right emerge as their mainstream motif. They have been like this for years and now feel that they are free to shove their nationalism down everyones throat. Part of this frothing hatred is fear. Their dear leader is in the dump where is likely to remain regardless of what he does. At one time another terror attack may have helped him, but now people will just see it as another failure in spite of all the claims that he has had to go to extraordinary and illegal means to supposedly protect us. Patriotism is a great quality and many Americans, though not enough, see the conservative movement using patriotism as a wedge to weed out the impure. Rather then exhibiting values they are constantly being exposed as hypocrites and liars.. If you paint yourself as paragons of virtue and good judgement and escapades evolving payoffs, lies, and twisted definitions of values become your stock and trade eventually enough people will do the math and see that the conservative agenda doesn’t add up. [...]
July 7th, 2006 at 2:14 am[...] ‘Your tax dollars are being used to fund a misinformation campaign about Al Gore �s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a press release headlined �AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore�s Movie.� It doesn�t substantiate the claim.’read more | digg story Digg this [...]
August 26th, 2006 at 6:55 amI think I am now a scientist. If anyone wants me to say anything about a study, it’s $1,000 or best offer. My most recent article was a conclusion of a study that confirmed the fact that Democrats do cause cancer. If you want me to say Saddam is behind aids, it’ll be 2,100 to start the bidding.
October 6th, 2006 at 1:52 pm