Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:
Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:
1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. Some other examples:
These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
When politicians make movies, it is called “Propaganda.”
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pmEwwwww, more of Drudge’s ugly assed web site. He really needs to move into the 21st century, with the rest of the Internets. The tubes can handle newer fonts.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pmDrudge,
Why don’t you do the WHOLE WORLD a fu*cking favor and shut your fu*cking computer off for good. We all know what eminates from your keyboard.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pmThere is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:00 pmPatrick1 said something correct!!!!!!!!!!
You are right Patrick, there isn’t a debate. It is called consensus. ALl real scientists agree that global warming is real. No debate at all.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:02 pmWell after using the calculator I got an 8.25 … now to see what to do about it…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pmAnother lie.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThere is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1
Prove it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pmHere goes Patrick1 again.
/sarcasm on
He knows everything about environmental science. Trust him!
/sarcasm off
Okay, now that I typed that (even sarcastically) I have to go get a drink of water and wash the taste of vomit out of my mouth…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:07 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pmPretty interesting setup. You fund wind and farm methane projects to put clean electricity on the grid to offset your own dirty electricity use. Eventually there will be a large clean energy industry built. The more money invested the faster it will happen.
http://www.nativeenergy.com/ Splash/ ClimateCrisis/ ClimateCrisis.html?climatecrisis
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmTrumpeting the amount of energy Gore’s household consumes might look like red meat to hungry cons, but if that energy is largely solar-generated, and the rest generated from green sources, then that slab of right-wing-outrage calories doesn’t look like such a nutritious meal anymore, does it? More like a fistful of right-wing-outrage Doritos.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1
List dont cut it. You need to explain what facts you got and HOW they undermine the rest of the worlds scientists.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmWhen politicians make movies, it is called “Propaganda.â€
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
He’s not presently in office, dipshit.
Besides, he was right about lot of things. As much as you hate that he was right, you still know it.
At least now we know where you trolls got this talking point.
Do any of you fundies have a single thought of your own that doesn’t contain the word “hate”?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pmDrudge can, of course, say whatever he likes — however, as Hubert Humphrey once said, “the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.” People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, but these are not equivalent to facts. The $250,000 question is…can Drudge put his money where his mouth is? On what evidence does he base this claim? There’s no question, of course, that some people will believe this claim without requiring any proof — but this is most likely because these people are already predisposed to think poorly of Gore and prefer to believe that this claim is true regardless of whether it is or not because it confirms their prejudice (otherwise known as negative halo effect). If Drudge can’t provide any hard evidence to support this claim and he knows it, then he’s deliberately lying for no other reason than malice — and last I heard, that’s called libel and that’s called a crime!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThat isn’t hard since the current “scientists” don’t have any facts, they have computer models and a faux religion headed by an idiot.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThere would have to be 2,500 scientists from 132 countries or more.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
You have to list credible climatologists - not astrologists or Michael Crichton type Science Fiction Writers.
You find five credible climatologists and post links to prove they aren’t on board with Global Warming as of today, then we’ll discuss…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmYou need to explain what facts you got and HOW they undermine the rest of the worlds scientists.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
patrick thinks that facts are part of the”liberal” conspiricy. He avoids them at all cost.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmPatrick, just because you can find one or two charlatans who are accepting money from MRC to obfuscate the issue doesn’t mean that there isn’t consensus on this. And, just because Brent Bozelle says something is a lie doesn’t make it a lie. All through the 60’s and 70’s, I could have cited scientist after scientist who would claim there were no correlations between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. Those “scientists” worked for the Tobacco Instutitue. The MRC is a similar organization. If you’re getting your info from them (and you are) you are getting it from people who are paid by industry to produce industry-friendly information. I’m just not sure you realize that.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDidn’t the Church used to sell indulgences so the rich could offset their sins? Sounds like “Pope Al” has found a new scam.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmLiberalism is based on feelings not facts. How else to explain this new religion they are into?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pmthat’s an insane amount of power to be going through in one year. the guy uses compact flourescent bulbs, solar pv & the house sucks down that many kWhs? something doesn’t add up there
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmIf Drudge’s story distorts the electricity use at Algores house, than can thinkprogress tell us how much he factually used?
I don’t think that a bunch of Hollywood elites constitutes a “consensus”. There are too if’s and maybes for this to be fact. But then I guess in some circles “facts” really aren’t necessary. To some emotion makes the world go around.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmThat little conversa-pod Tucker was on this today too with Karen Hen-ratty. Nothing is too petty for these people. I guess Tucker thinks his gated community will protect him.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pmFirst of all, facts have a liberal bias. You will find this out once you hit puberty.
Second, by and large, liberals AREN’T religious. Because religion is based on fantasy and emotion. Just like conservatives.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pmThe founding fathers of the USA were liberals pushing liberty against authoritarian rule. As they made clear in their Declaration of Independance they tried to get along with the authoritarians but they simply were not treated in kind. And so a break with them was neccessary. This struggle has been going on through out history. Look up the Athenians and the Spartans. The west has been turning away from religious dogma backed authoritarianism and the middle east is still deep into it.
And the American right wants to join the middle east in their way of life.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmIf Drudge’s piece distorts the truth about how much electricity Algore uses, can thinkprogress tell us how much he factually does?
I question wether a bunch of Hollywood elites contitutes a “consensus”.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmreligion is based on fantasy and emotion
Excellent definition of global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWow. What is it gonna take to convince these righties that climate change is serious? The evidence is so overwhelming. These deniers just blow my mind.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pmOy. Another thread tailor-made for the whiney-assed trolls.
See ya.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pmI like how the right wing sheep are able to accept every statement this administration feeds them as the god given truth even though there is not one ounce of fact or truth behind it. Yet, once liberal start making statements and supporting them with facts and studies they are lying.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pmFACT: Matt Drudge does not believe in global warming, yep, he stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago that he doesn’t believe it is happening, not man made, nor by the cycle of the planet, he just doesn’t ‘buy it’.
The guy is a Fraud on so many levels it’s pathetic. - He is not a reporter, he is a smear merchant.
His website traffic is another FRAUD - His refresher goes off quickly, numerous times to the same visitor, counting a unique visitors ‘visit’ many times over. He claims 10 million visitors a day, I say its around 800,000 unique vistors a day - tops!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmPatrick1 would have made a good thug for the NSDAP.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmIf anyone still doubts all the science presented in Gore’s movie, it must be because of the couple jabs at Bush in the movie. So a brainwashed rightie will automatically dismiss THE ENTIRE THING just because they think it is actually a hit job on Bush. Maybe that explains part of it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmHow the hell do you relate religion and global warming you crazy fu*k?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pmExcellent definition of global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for your lengthy list of credible climatologists who deny Global Warming… Get to it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pmPatrick: “Liberalism is based on feelings not facts.”
That’s pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we were conjured up magically by some kind of super-hero.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pmOreilly says global warming deniers are “nutsâ€.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Media/ Play/ 14722/ 1/ 60Minutes-OReilly.wmv
February 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pmHow the hell do you relate religion and global warming you crazy fu*k?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 26, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
So he doesn’t have to provide any facts… He can just say that he ‘knows’ it and that we’re all going to hell if we doubt him… Typical nutbag analogy…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:35 pmWhat Drudge misses is that Al Gore’s movie will result in hundreds of thousands or even millions of other people reducing their energy consumption. If they reduce that just 10%, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, and Laurie David could have ten times as many mansions and fly Gulfstream V’s around the world and we’d still help prevent global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:40 pmwho thinks we were conjured up magically by some kind of super-hero.
Comment by Bluedog49 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
LOL
February 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pmPatrick1 is an idiot. Like Drudge, his big mouth is contributing to global warming. Think of them as small children throwing a tantrum.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pmFact: during the coldest time period our planet has seen, the atmosphere had 4000 ppm (parts per million) CO2 than our current levels(370 ppm). CO2 is the greenhouse gas we are told is responsible for trapping the heat, in turn causing the warming. Fact: Plant life thrives on high levels of CO2, making them bigger, stronger, more heat tolerant, and more productive. Fact: for the past 10 years or so the sun has been going through a solar maximum cycle. During the solar maximum, the emission of high energy Sun spots or solar flares is at its greatest.(Our astronauts had to find protection in the shuttle from one of these solar flares) The Sun is our source of heat, which is currently sending out more heat. Don’t you get it. We live on a planet that goes through changes. Warm and cool periods. Actually, our planet has experienced longer periods of warm than cold, a difference of, conservatively speaking about 90% warm to 10% cold. As far as the ice caps go, they have been water(liquid) more of the time than they have been ice. We always adapt, how ever great the obstacle. Don’t let other people scare you into believing them. All of this information is out there, you just have to do the research.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pmI think this is one of thoes “deniers” people are referring to.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/ x/ pittsburghtrib/ news/ mostread/ s_492572.html
If the people on the right are brainwashed sheep, what are the people on the left? Besides full of themselves. It is amazing how sure of yourselves some of you are. Get up. Step away from the keyboard. There is a world out there. You might find that thou you thought you were, your just not right about this.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhat Drudge didn’t miss is that it’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pmThat isn’t hard since the current “scientists†don’t have any facts, they have computer models and a faux religion headed by an idiot.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
seriously, are you somehow conflating the actual problem of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE with the practice of SCIENTOLOGY ???
oh my…
i’m with zooey on this… let the trolls have at it…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm…
Excellent definition of global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for your lengthy list of credible climatologists who deny Global Warming… Get to it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pmIf we are wrong with the overwhelming consensus of real scientists backing Global Warming….what have we done? Made the world a better place to live for future generations?
But what if Exxon-Mobil and idiot savants like Patrick1 are wrong? I can understand a corporation who’s profits are impacted by carbon emissions not caring about the human cost…but how does a thinking person justify their position?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pmOT - sorry
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pmK. OLbermann on Countdown is planning another special comment — this one on Condi Rice/ Hitler, etc.
Step away from the keyboard. There is a world out there. You might find that thou you thought you were, your just not right about this.
Comment by algore — February 26, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
You step away from the keyboard…
I agree that there’s a world out there. It was from living in it that I gave up my religious conservative upbringing and CHOSE to be a liberal because it’s a kinder and more peaceful way of life. Many of us here have lived your way. It’s why we are so vocally against it.
Try our way. We’d bet you’d never go back…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? I’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids. Gore is the biggest hypocrite ever. This is beyond parody.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pmEasy to criticize then to be productive isn’t it. No matter what Al Gore does, he knowingly made himself a target in order to bring attention to a serious issue. If Al Gore didn’t have a horse, it’d be his dog, if he didn’t have a dog, it’d be his own fecal matter. It doesn’t end does it? In the end, ask yourself what have you done to make the world a better place.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
February 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pmI’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids.
Comment by mandolin — February 26, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
No way… we can’t even get adequate funding in schools for textbooks… so Gore is giving them to the students for free (actually they are giving DVDs of the movie to the teachers).
So, you’re against books? Bible included?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pmComment by Proud American
You are relying on “laymens” point of view. The CO2 is far far above where it naturally goes. What the sun is doing is beside the point. The CO2 is the key. It matches the cycles through out history. And now it is way way up higher than it should be and we know that we produce all this CO2.
If in the past the natural cycle was driven up by CO2 and down by CO2 and now we unnaturally drive up the CO2 way higher than normal… well then logic dictates that the natural cycle will follow and be thrown out of balance.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pmComment by algore
Its not about right or wrong. Its about empirical numbers. The numbers are pointing to what is coming. Opinion means nothing.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? I’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids. Gore is the biggest hypocrite ever. This is beyond parody.
Comment by mandolin
I already went to the link FOR YOU. And then came back here and typed exactly where the money goes. So what else do you need? Or are you inlove with your ignorance?
The money goes to funding a mini manhattan project to create wind farms and other non terrorist Saudi oil energy sources.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pmI wonder how much patrick 1 is paid to disrupt this blog?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
Comment by Steed Lankershim
Apparently you did not read anything yet have an opinion. That makes you a fool.
Follow the link and see for yourself how he is trying to make a difference without forcing people out of business like you are suggesting he should.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pmLOL Thanks for the third grade science refresher.
1) Increased deforestation from logging for paper products and lumber as well as suburban sprawl counter the positive effects of clean air recycling from plant life 2) Annually escalating carbon emissions grossly outnumber the plant life required for recycling 3) Solar flares might effect someone in a space shuttle close the sun yet doesn’t effect the planet which is, coincidentally, not a space shuttle closer to the sun (go figure) 4) Planetary climate has historically changed over thousands of years (basic grade school earth science), not over the decades as is currently happening 5) Extreme environmental changes have always occurred at a slower rate thereby allowing planetary species and vegetation to adapt . The oceanic belt responds by moving freshly melted and less dense artic water down to the equator, thus replacing denser warm water with colder fresh water (this is fact, it’s already happening), essentially reversing the poles. Coupled with a rapid rise in sea level due to the large amounts of melted ice requiring coastal cities to be damned or abandoned, effects appear disastrous.
Do not attempt to discredit me by attacking my intelligence. As a current PhD student at Columbia U in social organizational psych (I have a Columbia email address and Columbia doesn’t have part-time status, all students have to be fully accepted by Columbia’s standards), my intelligence quotient is not up for debate, regardless of your comments or insults. The scientific fact (not the media) has been out for a while and it doesn’t look good for humanity.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Actually, better than a list, why don’t you give us a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change?
We will be waiting….
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? Comment by mandolin
Why don’t do some research yourself, before you make such silly comments showing your ignorance. hahaha
In other words you critique something you know nothing about, typical silly neocon
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmGOOD!! Let Drudge and all those other right-wingers CALL OUT POLLUTERS and ENERGY USERS!!
It will backfire on these idiots.
Maybe they should start looking at how much energy they use! Or how about how much carbon Texas is spewing out??
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1
You could start here. I do not thnk that you find a font of supporters.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pmAs far as the ice caps go, they have been water(liquid) more of the time than they have been ice. We always adapt, how ever great the obstacle. Don’t let other people scare you into believing them. All of this information is out there, you just have to do the research.
Comment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pmSo, for ” millions ” of years humans have been adapting to climate change ? So say Stupid American. The fact is the earth is only 6,000 years old-just ask Busch. I should add :)
There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Nope, idiot, it is the truth.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pmI see that the usual sorts of global warming deniers are peddling their idiocy here again. Give it up, idiots. Nobody’s buying. Seriously.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pmCongratulations, algore. You found a “dissenter”. Find me a field, and I’ll find you its dissenter - in Cosmology, it’s Fred Hoyle and his legacy students.
Find me citations in refereed journals. Because scientific consensus isn’t measured in scientists, it’s measured in papers.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pmPeterW,
Find that shit yourself. We’ve done it to death.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThis statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Patrick(n) & mandolin-do you guys live in a cave? Your leader the “Talking Head” now says Global warming is real- it is just not caused by people. Get on board. You are now supposed to claim increased CO2 levels are caused by cows farting just like happened with the Flintstones and the dinosaurs. What do they pay you two ?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pmZooey, um, was talking to the rightie troll who picked the unfortunate handle algore, not to any real or rhetorical Al Gore. As point of fact, I’m an ionospheric physicist who knows just enough about the climate science to know that global warming deniers are morons.
Indeed, the anti-environmental pathology among conservatives has something to do with the following mantra common among the right: 1) never show weakness, and 2) attack anyone showing weakness. It’s a very predatory society they imagine we live in. Giving a damn about anything (esp. environmentalism) is weakness in their eyes, and they have to attack it, lest they themselves seem weak and are preyed upon. It’s sad, really.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pmLet’s just face the fact that Al Gore consumes way too much energy. That does not alter the validity of his message.
Why a bunch of the anti-environment wingers would care all of a sudden about Al Gore’s habits is beyond me. They don’t discredit the message by attacking the messenger. They make the message seem more important!
They are also doing the world a service by pointing out that rich people consume way more than they should.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pmComment by PeterW — February 26, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Deepest apologies, PeterW, mea culpa.
I had been trying to read the incomprehensible Condi Rice statement on the thread above, and I think it affected my reading ability. I went back and re-read the thread, and I see what you were doing.
I hate it when I’m an ass. :}
February 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pmYou would think conservatives would support efforts to reduce global warming and pollution … since, you know, ‘conserve’, c’mon.
And its funny how when they complain about having to reduce their wastefulness, they sound like a kid whining about not wanting to wash their hands.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pmI don’t believe I was trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, though I can tell you are extremely insecure I don’t care how intelligent you are. You fail to understand simple facts. The Sun’s mass is 333,000 times that of the Earth’s. The Sun is 90 million miles away. The shuttle travels into near Earth’s orbit about 250 miles. Not a big difference when your in space. The amount of energy released during a solar flare is that of 5000 suns. Again, the Sun is the source of the Earth’s heat. You also have your facts wrong about rapid climate change in our history and people not just plants being able to adapt. Between 1350 and 1900’s the Earth experienced a little ice age. The 700 year time span, compared to the billions of years our Earth has been here around is a rapid climate change. Millions upon millions of people died. We adapted, we moved on. There will always be catastrophic natural disasters. Man did not cause the rapid cooling of the Earth nor have we caused a rapid warming. The funny thing about life is that we die, and sometimes this happens in mass. You are never guaranteed tomorrow.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pmWhy do Drudge’s pages look like they were typed on an VERY OLD government issue IBM machine?
Courtesy of CIA no doubt.
Matt Sludge? - Sit on this and spin … ±
February 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm#76 - Proud American,
February 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pmIf the energy released by a solar flare is equivalent to 5000 Suns, where does it come from? It certainly can’t be the Sun!
Comment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 9:30 pmN.A.S.A during a solar flare is not worried that the ISS air conditioners will not keep up. They are concerned about radiation and damage to the astronauts cells.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pmlol Waltman, don’t try to edu-ma-cate this one on anything factual. Apparently he knows something that hundreds of scientists and researchers don’t, that the sun is the cause of global warming (and apparently there was an ice age somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries). I guess we need to rewrite the history books lmao.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
Comment by beefeater
He isn’t burning “one” drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:42 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
Comment by beefeater
He isn’t burning “one” drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pmIt certainly can’t be the Sun!
Comment by WaltTheMan — February 26, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pmWalt you are correct. According to O’Lielly (an expert in this and many other fields) it is caused by cow methane that interacts with carbon credits.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ Culture/ archive/ 200412/ CUL20041202a.html
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm“Why don’t you do the WHOLE WORLD a fu*cking favor and shut your fu*cking computer off for good. We all know what eminates from your keyboard.
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 6:59 pm”
And just what is that rachel?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pmDrudge is slime. Just like his fellow reich-wingers.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pm“Why do Drudge’s pages look like they were typed on an VERY OLD government issue IBM machine?
Courtesy of CIA no doubt.
Matt Sludge? - Sit on this and spin … ±
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 9:31 pm”
rachel, did you think of this response all by yourself?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm“He isn’t burning “one†drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
Comment by rachel — February 26, 2007 @ 9:42 pm”
My rachel, your debating skills are awesome! I can see why zooey says I should stay away from you!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pmlol I’m very secure, thank you. My comment was based on the previous posters personal attacks. As a social psychologist in training, please don’t attempt to psychoanalyze me, it’s amateur at best and insulting.
Thanks for the attempt at “educating” me, but as I have a BA from Stanford in Psychobiology, and a MA and currently studying for my PhD in I/O psychology at Columbia, I can safely say I do not require any “educating” by misled and erroneous “fiction”. Thanks any ways, and good luck trying to inform the scientific community that all their research is wrong and that the sun is causing global warming, you’ll be laughed out of the room as Bush was at the Kyoto conference.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pmActually, when I read the post from Proud American, I lost about half an ounce of Pilsner Urquell through both nostrals and messed up a freshly laundered pair of pants and shirt. I also have to dry out another keyboard - Seixon got that one about three days ago, but it is working again now. I have a pile of four or so on top of the PC. The only thing that really pisses me off is the waste of some quality brew.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pmI can see why zooey says I should stay away from you!
Comment by michael
I never said that, you idiot. I said she was very intelligent.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pmI know you try to avoid intelligence at every opportunity.
#91 Zooey
I don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm#92 - AshenShard,
February 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pmHe could as least zip his fly.
there was an ice age somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries). I guess we need to rewrite the history books lmao.
Comment by Cory
There was an ice age around then. It ended in the 1800s. But not before in America there was the “year of no summer”. It was actually on a show today on history channel about the “little ice age”.
The earth has normal cycles of temperature fluctuation as well as occasional events such as volcanic erruptions or meteor strikes… And now a man made event…
February 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pmWow! As Rod Serling might have said “You have just entered the banned Dummie and Huffpo zone.” Who owns this cute little site? Faiz! Control your monkeys!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm#93 WaltTheMan
Please, you almost caused me to spit some rather good bottom shelf scotch … i keep my keyboard at a distance, but I only have one other that actually functions.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pmI don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
Comment by AshenShard
He still manages….
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pmHe could as least zip his fly.
Comment by WaltTheMan
You got me with that one, Walt. :-D
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pmSolar radiation or solar energy, is what warms the Earth. Energy is heat. An 11 year cycle of the sun causing solar flares that emit energy that of 5000 suns is a tremendous amount of heat. And again you fail to look at the facts that the Earth has been predominately warmer throughout its history regardless of when we entered the picture. If the Earth has been consistently warming since the last ice age and if it was warmer before the ice age than it must mean the Earth’s temperature is that of a warm planet with an average temperature of about 67 degrees F and not the 57 degree average we have been accustom to over the past 400 hundred years (little ice age 1350 thru the 1900’s). Why is it that the Vikings(1000 years ago) who used to inhabit Greenland were able to farm the land, and which ice caps are rapidly melting?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pmI know, I just found his claims outlandish lol. The terms “Little Ice Age†and “Medieval Warm Period†have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way. Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age†and “Medieval Warm Period†appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. viewed hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age†can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels. “Little Ice Age” is a misleading term as it is not indicative of an actual “ice age” (of course) but a cooler (and slightly warmer) phase geographically specific regions. This contrasts greatly to the actual historic ice age as well as the current changes in global (not geographical) temperature.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pmComment by Proud American
When are you going to get the hint?
It is not about the warmth.
Its about CHANGE.
There will be an equal and opposite reaction. If we make the NORMAL warmth increase a HUGE warmth increase then what equal and opposite reaction will occur? I sure hope not a major ice age. Its hard to live when there is no farm land. And before that happens in the mean time we have all the side effects of a world getting too hot. I prefer a mother nature in balance. Wide swings risk destruction of our way of life at the very least.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pmI saw upthread the question about climate scientists. Here’s 60 give or take that raise questions. I know it’s not five, but heck, call me crazy:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/ papers/ articles/ canadianPMletter06.html
It also ignores at least three state climatologists in the U.S., Bill Gray the foremost authority on hurricanes and many others. But who’s counting?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm[…] Think Progress has contacted Al Gore for further clarification. (By the way, if you need evidence of how little regard right wingers have for honesty or rational though, check out the comments by a troll there by the name of Patrick1.) Think Progress received the following answers: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. […]
February 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWell Proud American, the 4th IPCC report out in January shot your ’solar cycle’ argument down in, well, flames:
http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/ article2193672.ece
The key passage reported by the Independent is:
The IPCC also finally nails the canard of the climate sceptics who argue that global warming is a myth or the result of natural climate variability; natural factors alone cannot account for the observed warming, the IPCC says. “These changes took place at a time when non-anthropogenic forcing factors (i.e. the sum of solar and volcanic forcing) would be expected to have produced cooling, not warming.
Well there you have it..best of luck with that.
Dagadagadagadagadaga - he’s going down, Biffo……
February 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pmThe scientific method has not proven the man made global warming theory. It is a theory were there is a consensus which is nothing more than opinion among scientists, and not all scientists. Lets get the facts straight. Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs. You are all being manipulated. Every piece of information I have stated is scientific fact and historical fact about both the Earth and Sun. Both physical and historical data. Look it up yourself. All you know how to do is insult people. This is all a product of the American Education System. They forget to teach you to use your brains. Its all about how you feel. Nothing but acting on emotion; no thought.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pmGore is doing the correct thing, and continues to shoot the wingnuts down daily. Drudge and company are sore that he’s right, and they’re wrong (as usual).
Note to conservatives: opinion-based reality is doomed to fail. Repent now while you still can.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pmPurchasing “Carbon Offsets” ?
Call me crazy…but that seems like an odd way to ethical satisfaction.
Do we applaud the Tobacco Industry for merely donating to cancer research to ‘offset’ their impact on the smoking world?
To me…it just seems like we’re still permitting certain practices people despise, by allowing them to neuter it by spending even more money to ‘offset it’. I’d love to get into the
Is the idea that if everyone in this world was simultaneously over-using carbon…and purchasing huge amounts of ‘offsets’ that the Earth would be in some sort of balance?
Don’t you suppose there would be a different problem there?
Is there a healthy balance with ‘Bulimia’?
I doubt the environmental form is much better.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pm#104 Rational Comment
Do those scientists back up their claims with support? If they do, please give us links to their scientific analysis of the non-existence of global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:02 pmLets get the facts straight. Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs.
These two statements seem at odds with one another…unless you’ve got the Global Warming equivalent of at least the “protocols of the elders of Zion” for us to read and discuss… where’s your source PA?
Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs. …Its all about how you feel. Nothing but acting on emotion; no thought.
So do these…
They forget to teach you to use your brains.
Here’s your chance, PA… http://www.ipcc.ch make sure you check in on the section about solar cycles in your studies…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pmSpeaking of using your brain, don’t you find it odd, that the scientists who are speaking out against the idea of global warming, tend to (suprise) be on the payroll of gas and oil companies?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pmThe scientific method has not proven the man made global warming theory. It is a theory were there is a consensus which is nothing more than opinion among scientists, and not all scientists.
Comment by Proud American
I don’t think you understand the concept of the scientific method. By definition, there is no proof, only consensus. It’s not the same as the everyday use of the word “theory.”
Scientific theory is a well-tested and widely accepted view that the scientific community agrees best explains certain observable facts. Extensively documented theories are held with a very high degree of confidence.
You will never have “proof.”
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm[…] President Gore’s people have made a response. I don’t think we’re supposed to assume (as CBS News and the left did, back when the WH […]
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pmThe question remains, have any of these scientists done any research of their own regarding global climate change (which was the question proposed, not a list of scientists that are asking for review)? What have any of their personal findings concluded (if any)? There are many “former” this and “past” that listed that are petitioning the Canadian government for halting action in adopting environmental policy. Dr. Chris de Freitas, listed, has publications published mostly in the 1980’s and 1990’s (with 2000 being the most recent). Upon reading the Abstract of publications from many of those listed (I hesitate to use researcher as most of them are teaching), most of the information is not based on new evidence, but rather what researchers refer to as “pick and choose science”. Essentially they are choosing to reference material that supports their hypothesis rather than address both issues on the topic and either support or denote those results.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pmWe covered the sunspots a few weeks ago PA - here’s you summary:
http://flickr.com/ photos/ toptechwriter/ 371632655/ in/ set-72157594504592593/
This graphic shows the reconstructed sunspot and temperature curves for the last 1000 years. Look at the last 50 or so - hmm good correlation between the spots and the ‘hockey stick’ we all know about… The problem is that around the year 1050, the sunspot activity was also at a high and yet the temperature went the other way - meaning that the sunspot activity is somehow negatively correlated in 1050 and posotively correlated in 1950…. from that, it’s clear that sunspots simply can’t be the major forcer of global temperature in either 1050 or today…..
But then, here’s the Co2 chart….. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
Now if you look at the CO2 trend for 100s of thousands of years, there simply are no odd anomalies like your unexplainable 1050 issue - in this case the correlation between CO2 and temperature suggests that Co2 concentration is a far more important forcer in climate temperature. It’s just mathematics: which is correlated more? Its obvious.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm#104 - Proud American, (I took too long to compose this post.)
Let us study each of your statements one at a time:
Solar radiation or solar energy, is what warms the Earth.
One right!
Energy is heat.
Wrong - Infrared energy is heat. Other emissions give us light, cause genetic mutations and then there is the neutrino stream.
An 11 year cycle of the sun causing solar flares that emit energy that of 5000 suns is a tremendous amount of heat.
Wrong, in the first place, one Sun can not emit the radiation of 5000 Suns. The math is just not there. Plus there are two major solar cycles, one of 11 years and the second of 17 years. Trust me, my aunt was a solar scientist at the University of Michigan McMath-Hulbert Solar Observatory.
And again you fail to look at the facts that the Earth has been predominately warmer throughout its history regardless of when we entered the picture.
The Earth was a bit warmer 4.5 billion years ago when its surface was molten and the seas boiled. That ceased about 2-3 billion years ago when debris from the Kuiper belt started to settle in the atmosphere and oceans.
If the Earth has been consistently warming since the last ice age and if it was warmer before the ice age than it must mean the Earth’s temperature is that of a warm planet with an average temperature of about 67 degrees F and not the 57 degree average we have been accustom to over the past 400 hundred years (little ice age 1350 thru the 1900’s).
There are no temperature records from 40,000 years back except cores from both the Arctic and the Antarctic and all evidence is that global temperatures stabilized about 10,000 years ago and remained steady until the mid 19th century. Since then, they have risen.
Why is it that the Vikings(1000 years ago) who used to inhabit Greenland were able to farm the land, and which ice caps are rapidly melting?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pmThere was little or no melting of the ice caps in the period you specify. The water current that we call the Gulf Stream was flowing around Greenland during that time frame. The result was severe winters in northern and central Europe while Greenland got green.
WOOHOO! I got an 18.2!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:13 pmSorry about that link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
February 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm“I don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
Comment by AshenShard — February 26, 2007 @ 10:12 pm”
Simple! To challenge ridiculous liberal comments. Period! That’s the only reason I’m here!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBacking up Zooey, and since I know a few people in the science field….
I do no know of any scientific discovery that is not known as a ‘theory’. Scientists are extremely open to new thoughts, so they label everything as theory. There are no absolutes, like in mathematics, which has theorems, which are established fact.
Does anyone deny that gravity exists? I hope not, but it is known as the ‘theory of gravity’ not the ‘theorem of gravity’.
I guess this ‘theory of global warming’ has the same problem as the ‘theory of evolution’, the right seems ready to attack them since they are only labeled as ‘theories’. If we want to defunct any of these talking points, science would be well advised to adopt the word ‘theorem’ in order to dismiss the naysayers. This however would destroy part of the purpose of science, and thus should not happen.
What people should realize is that a ‘theory’ in the scientific world, once it is established as such, is fact until facts arrived at through scientific experiment that can be replicated come about to repudiate the theory.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmAre you actually quoting the IPCC? Do you have that authority? Why is it the big bad IPCC is the only authority on the climate? Check out the link on post 104. I completely understand the ramifications of global warming and the changes that occur because of warming. Man, throughout all of our history has been faced with drastic change. Mass suffering, death and destruction. Most often caused by natural disasters. We have only been burning fossil fuels for a little over 100 years. If we stopped burning carbon fuels right now forever, that would account for exactly 1% of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is a fact. And another scientific fact not theory is that during the coldest period of the earths history the CO2 atmospheric levels were 4000 ppm more than our current levels which have only increased minimally over the past 100 years.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
Comment by Steed Lankershim — February 26, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
When are you going to stop beating your wife, Steed?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmMichael,
you don’t challenge though, you just flame, and spew talking points, and pretend you had challenging life, while wishing to keep people in poverty. You don’t challenge, you are an absurd caricature of a right wing retard.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm“He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hookâ€
You have seen the “type†I am sure.
Comment by kinnardi, rj — February 26, 2007 @ 10:21 pm”
And as usual rachel you debate like a little girl! You avoid issues and when backed into a corner your natural liberal instinct is insult! I know most liberals who visit this blog aren’t smart enough to see this, but some of the more intelligent ones are, and I’m sure they are embarrassed for you?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pmMy referencing the little ice age was not to illustrate the global impact or regional impact. It was to merely point out the fact that although faced with incredible amounts of death and suffering, people were able to adapt until the tides changed. We always do.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThere are so many inaccuracies in this I do not know where to begin. First of all, the scientific method is a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports. Nothing in that is theory or dictates anything about needing consensus.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pm“you don’t challenge though, you just flame, and spew talking points, and pretend you had challenging life, while wishing to keep people in poverty. You don’t challenge, you are an absurd caricature of a right wing retard.
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:19 pm”
Ok! Let’s try this on for size? What scientists are on the oil companies payroll?
Speaking of using your brain, don’t you find it odd, that the scientists who are speaking out against the idea of global warming, tend to (suprise) be on the payroll of gas and oil companies?
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pmIn my post 114, 104 s/b 101, now. TP can’t you simply leave empty markers?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pmIf we stopped burning carbon fuels right now forever, that would account for exactly 1% of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is a fact. - PA, please stop saying ‘that’s a fact’ without backing it up. Please show your work.
Are you actually quoting the IPCC? Do you have that authority? Why is it the big bad IPCC is the only authority on the climate?
Er, yes and that’s called making an assertion with supporting arguments, I don’t need anyone’s permission to introduce scientific evidence into a discussion.
And another scientific fact not theory is that during the coldest period of the earths history the CO2 atmospheric levels were 4000 ppm more than our current levels which have only increased minimally over the past 100 years.
And what were the climate conditions at that time? Why is the 4000 ppm the only relevant ‘fact’ about climate conditions over 500m years ago…?
Oh and I checked out the link…. the main thrust was that Kyoto was unwise, the earth was cooling between 1940 and 1970 so today’s conclusions must be wrong (a fact handled by the IPCC handily, by the way) and no one offered any concrete evidence of political or scientific conspiracy. Please, the IPCC consists of thousands of peer-reviewed science documents from over 130 countries… so yes they are a very serious player in the climate debate - I’ve yet to see anything to match the gravitas of the IPCC… Not even Exxon-Mobil…. http://www.smartmoney.com/ bn/ ON/ index.cfm?story=ON-20070213-000672-1238 Oh they seem to agree with the IPCC, sorry about that…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm#123 - Proud American,
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmSo you advocate swimming to the next island when yours disappears beneath the waves? Pick a direction and hope you are right!
Ok! Let’s try this on for size? What scientists are on the oil companies payroll?
Comment by michael — February 26, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
The canadian guy you were slobbering all over last week, who wrote the paper refuting global warming, turned out the organization he worked for was funded by the oil industry. Plus the $10,000 per person offered by a conservative organization to any scientiest who would refute global warming, but hey keep saying there is no connection to false information and the paid whores.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmWhat are you talking about??? Seriously?!
Plagues and disease are mostly the cause of global deaths. The earliest known visitation of the plague to Europe may have occurred in Athens in 430 B.C., but it is unclear if the disease that afflicated Athens was caused by Yersina pestis. A disastrous epidemic occurred in the Mediterranean during the time of the Roman emperor Justinian; an estimated 25% to 50% of the population is reported to have succumbed. The most widespread epidemic began in Constantinople in 1334, spread throughout Europe (returning Crusaders were a factor), and in less than 20 years is estimated to have killed three quarters of the population of Europe and Asia. The great plague of London in 1665 is recorded in many works of literature. Quarantine measures helped contain the disease, but serious epidemics continued to occur even in the 19th cent. The disease is still prevalent in parts of Asia, and sporadically occurs elsewhere (approximately 2,500 cases worldwide annually). In Surat, India, in 1994, 5,000 cases of pneumonic plague were reported in an outbreak; an estimated 100 people died, and more than 400,000 people fled the city. Because the number of cases of plague has been increasing annually, it is categorized as a re-emerging infectious disease by the World Health Organization.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pmYa know, all you people who’re complaining that ‘trolls’ have hijacked this thread, and why would TP put out a thread like this that’s tailor-made for right-wing feeding…
Don’t you think TP knows this? Don’t you think they WANT the thread to be ‘hijacked’? Look what happened when ProudAmerican and Patrick1 started posting; everybody else in a fit of frenzy starting posting also. What happens? More page hits and page views. More activity on the site. I’d venture to say the TP staff ENJOYS when there’s lots of debate/arguments/etc on this site.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pmComment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
There are so many inaccuracies in this I do not know where to begin. First of all, the scientific method is a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports. Nothing in that is theory or dictates anything about needing consensus.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:32 pmI’d venture to say the TP staff ENJOYS when there’s lots of debate/arguments/etc on this site.
Comment by Dale
Whatever.
I got a 2.25
Keep on working on that carbon footprint, eh Dale? Heh.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:35 pm