Cheney Bypassed Environmentally ‘Clueless’ Bush To Craft Administration’s Climate Change Agenda
Cheney Bypassed Environmentally ‘Clueless’ Bush To Craft Administration’s Climate Change Agenda
In a comprehensive report this week, Rolling Stone magazine investigates the Bush administration’s “secret campaign to deny global warming.” The article documents the administration’s repeated attempts to use “cooked intelligence,” stay beholden to big industry interests, and stifle internal dissent on climate change.
The report highlights Dick Cheney’s surreptitious role in developing Bush’s pro-industry climate agenda, arguing Cheney took “full advantage of the president’s cluelessness” on climate change. Rolling Stone argues Bush played along with Cheney’s arm-twisting, which culminated most recently in his decision to bypass the G8 climate resolution. Some hey highlights from the article:
Cheney personally stalled Bush’s campaign pledge to regulate global warming:
In September 2000, Bush pledged to place caps on carbon emissions. In response, Cheney armed the White House Committee on Environmental Quality with industry heavyweights. Thereafter, “a CEQ memo concluded Bush’s promise to regulate CO2 ‘did not fully reflect the president’s position’ and that ‘it would be premature at this time to propose any specific policy or approach aimed at addressing global warming.’” The authors stated that “the current state of scientific knowledge about causes of and solutions to global warming is inconclusive.”
Cheney appointee dismissed administration’s own warnings of global warming:
A 2002 Environmental Protection Agency report detailed “far-reaching effects that global warming will inflict” and “for the first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming.” In response, a “horrified” Cheney appointee, Philip Cooney, wrote a letter to the New York Times “denying” that the paper marked any shift in Bush’s stance.
The letter written by Cooney and edited by Karl Rove – insisted that Bush’s climate change policy “reinforces” the “significant scientific uncertainties” present in climate change science. Soon after, Bush publicly dismissed the EPA report, saying it had been “put out by the bureaucracy.”
Cheney stovepiped disreputable climate change studies denying global warming:
“The most egregious example of cooked intelligence” occurred when Cooney promoted a study “which purported to show that the twentieth century was not unusually warm,” authored by a group funded by Exxon-Mobil. The paper was considered “fundamentally flawed and should never have been published,” according to the journal’s editors.
“The study gave Cheney’s office the quasi-plausible refutation of climate science it was waiting for…the administration continues to hold up the discredited study as a counterweight to the IPCC’s scientific, peer-reviewed findings on global warming.” Testifying before Congress in March 2007, White House science adviser Jim Connaughton hailed the study as a “new and major piece of science.”
Despite Cheney derailing Bush’s own campaign promises, the report makes clear that the president has done nothing to decrease the influence of an official who, as recently as February 2007, stated “there does not appear to be a consensus” that global warming is caused by man.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ah yes: Big Time.
There’s a lunatic for you.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pmCheney is the new “Decider” in a wretched government totally out of control.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pmHmmm. Cooked intel. Where have I heard that from???
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pmOooh, that Cheney!!!
What a rascal!!!
But y’ gotta love ‘m!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmAnyone seen Valiant around? I’m missing her so much.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmlet’s see whether rahm emanuel’s threat to cut off funding to the office of the vice president now that cheney’s insisting the ovp isn’t part of the executive branch has any teeth or whether it’s just another empty move on the part of the dems to look like they’re forcing accountability when they’re really not…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmI’d love to see the dems give the chymp a funding bill without Cheney’s office funded, then let him veto that. Unlike the war funding bill, they just stop trying to please, and let them shut down their offices, or tap Halliburton’s accounts to fund themselves.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmOnce again, this simply underlines how Bush, the “Decider,” is NOT the true President of the U.S. Which is exactly why I have the moniker I have.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pmIndeed, that’s why we fight global warming over there, so we won’t have to fight it over here.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmPromises, like rules, are meant to be broken.
It’s looking more like the decider guy is really the puppet guy. I think I’ll start calling him the MOTUS (the marionette of the US).
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmThe idea of a general strike does make sense.
It probably would result in shrub federalizing the national guard.
It’s an option. If the congress refuses to take the state of this nation seriously enough, the people must.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pmI think I’ll start calling him the MOTUS (the marionette of the US).
Comment by MsJoanne — June 23, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
LOL! That’s a good one! I like that.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmCheney 2008!
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pmBUSH/CHENEY ‘08!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pmGIVE ‘EM THE BIRD
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmVOTE FOR A THIRD,
PRESIDENTIAL TERM
FOR BUSH AND CHENEY!!!
GIVE ‘EM THE BIRD
VOTE FOR A THIRD,
PRESIDENTIAL TERM
FOR BUSH AND CHENEY!!!
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
Just can’t help yerself, can ya? Just have to provoke sumpin’ don’tcha?
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmThe Penguin will really be sorry when all his displaced relatives from Antarctica ask to stay at his house.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmGIVE ‘EM THE BIRD
VOTE FOR A THIRD,
PRESIDENTIAL TERM
FOR BUSH AND CHENEY!!!
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
That doesn’t rhyme. Now this…
GIVE ‘EM THE BIRD,
VOTE FOR A THIRD!
GIVE CHENEY AND BUSH
A KICK IN THE TUSH!
See, now that rhymes. :)
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmAnyone seen Valiant around? I’m missing her so much.
Comment by Jake — June 23, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
She went hunting with Dead Eye Dick and has not been seen since.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmThere’s little doubt left that Cheney is “pure evil” and the evidence accrues with each passing day. If there is such a thing as hell, this man will be there for a very long time.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pmHey Walt: Looks like the troll is searching for his alter ego, eh? Too bad he’s the only one who believes that Valiant is another person and not just a splintered off persona of his…hahahah!
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmWhat would we do, indeed, without the incredible comic relief provided by these imbecilic trolls????
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmIt is a shame that they will find themselves on serious psychotropic drug therapy for years to come.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmHey Jake
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pmHave you noticed how everybody who does not think like a Demwit is Clueless ? It truly says something about Liberal Children
we may be what you falsely call Trolls , but it is without a doubt that you are Neosocialist Demwits.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pmSee, now that rhymes. :)
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 23, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
You know I was just foolin’, right Wayne?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pmOff topic but worth having a good laugh for an otherwise typical Saturday: http://www.huffingtonpost.com has the main thread reading that “McCain has over 80 lobbyists in his campaign”. Is this the same man who believed in campaign finance reform before he sold his soul to the devil? This guy is the poster boy for hypocrisy which is precisely why his campaign is tanking miserably right now.
I predict that McInsane will be dropping out of the race soon. The handwriting of him being a totally out of touch albatross is in the wall.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmI’ve just noticed that over at synonym.com the new entry for “troll” IS “one who is clueless and uses the word incessantly as a form of projection”….guess that qualifies our resident village/idiot troll??
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmIn the 1980 campaign, Reagan said the biggest cause of pollution was TREES!!! People then began putting signs on trees that said “Stop me before I kill again”.
Cheney’s secret service code name is “Edgar”–as in Edgar Bergen–meaning Bush is his Charlie McCarthy.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pmYou know I was just foolin’, right Wayne?
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 23, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
I know, that’s why I “corrected” your ditty.
But you do know that I am completely serious about that, right?
We really need to stop looking to the two major political parties as the only choices we have. Even if none or few of the third party caandidates win election to either House, an incumbent D or R winning with just a plurality will also send a message to shape up or prepare for an even tougher fight the next time.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pmDon ,
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pmBill Clinton Federalized the National Guard over 10 yrs. ago . God You People are so uninformed . May I sugest if you are so unhappy perhaps you should move to Canada or France . or try Revoluting .
The “clueless bush.” If our nightmare weren’t so serious, I could laugh at that.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmWayne A. Schneider Please keep sending the message THIRD PARTY THIRD PARTY , it takes away votes from Obama and the Hildabeast .
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmBut you do know that I am completely serious about that, right?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 23, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Yeah, I know. I don’t support either party either. Anyway, I gotta run, but I’ll be back to troll up the place later!
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pmenaud whats your worst nightmare is Good for the Country . In the same way what is good for the Democrat Party is bad for America . : )
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmDon ,
Bill Clinton Federalized the National Guard over 10 yrs. ago . God You People are so uninformed . May I sugest if you are so unhappy perhaps you should move to Canada or France . or try Revoluting .
Comment by FDR — June 23, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Now why on Earth would make the unwarranted assumption that one’s liberal person’s knowledge or beliefs is identical to everyone else’s in the liberal world? It’s conservatism that has a core set of beliefs that most of its followers believe which, ironically for you, is based almost entirely on an “anti-FDR” basis.
Oh, and “Clinton did it” does not make for a persuasive argument on these boards, especially if no one is confirming or denying that he did (whatever it was.)
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmveritas
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmbeing a Demwit you may not be informed as much as you think , like Bollmberg , McCain is a RINO . a Democrat calling himself a Republican . I just thought that you should know . : )
typo alert thats Bloomberg . its time for you guys to blast me on my typing skills again .
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pmFurther proof that Cheney is the real President.
Chimpy is now following Cheney’s lead and declaring himself outside the Executive Branch too.
Mister Cheney told him to.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmNPR reported today that Geothermal Energy could supply perhaps a THIRD of the Energy needed by American Powerplants ….AND… our government has CANCELLED all funding for Geothermal Research.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmThats right…ZERO Dollar$$ for research into Geothermal Energy.
“you may not be informed as much as you think , like Bollmberg , McCain is a RINO . a Democrat calling himself a Republican . I just thought that you should know . : )”
Comment by FDR — June 23, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Uh, catch the news in the last day or two? Bloomberg is now an Independent. As for McCain, well, he’s just batshit insane. As someone posted earlier, look for him to be dropping out soon.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmI see the ‘presidential’ troll is back.
Typical ired redneck Repuke moron. Spews talking point lies and doesn’t have an original thought in his pointy little head.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmTom3: If Cheney is out of the Executive Branch and Bush is out of the Executive Branch, then who is still running our illustrious Executive Branch?? Now we know the sad, but accurate, answer – ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is running this government. That’s why we’re in the horrendous mess we’re in, that’s acutely obvious.
These guys have definitely “gone ’round the bend” on this one. They’ve lost everyone in the process. Insanity might better explain the level of doubletalk attributed to them these days. Phew! What a group of sickos!
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmMcCain is riding the StraitJacket Express.
Trudi Julie-Annie loves to play Dress-up.
Mitt’s a Mormon.
Fred Thompson’s another dumbass actor.
They’re all unelectable.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm“What would we do, indeed, without the incredible comic relief provided by these imbecilic trolls????”
Breathe a sigh of relief! It is so tiresome trying to weed through the troll post and the “I love to play with troll” posts. If they would just stop playing with the trolls, the trolls would leave. Several times I have almost quit coming here because it is so discouraging to start reading comments on a thread only to see 10-20 in a row made by the trolls and the troll players.
I am beginning to think that some of the “non troll” people here post on this site strictly so that they can show their rapier wit while knocking down the trolls.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmPseudo-BeachBoy Wannabe, McInsane, is self-destructing. His beach boy imitation was his nadir and the beginning of his own end….just like Obama’s “no show” may be his “Dean Scream”.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm“If Cheney is out of the Executive Branch and Bush is out of the Executive Branch, then who is still running our illustrious Executive Branch?? Now we know the sad, but accurate, answer – ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is running this government. That’s why we’re in the horrendous mess we’re in, that’s acutely obvious.”
Comment by veritas — June 23, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Good point – the lights are on but nobody’s home?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmKatie: I wholeheartedly concur with you. I never dialogue directly with a troll because, at least in my estimation, it would be engaging in a game of mental masturbation with the only result being one of sheer frustration due to engaging with a pure idiot.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm“We really need to stop looking to the two major political parties as the only choices we have.”
I agree with you. But, until we are able to do away with the electoral college and go to a straight popular vote, it will be impossible for any third party to win in this country. Personally, I hope that the Democratic President who takes office in 2009 will make doing away with the electoral college a first priority. I am tired of the more populous states having to carry the heartland states who constantly vote against their own self interest.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmKarl Rove’s role in the White House is ILLEGAL. He is a POLITICAL OPERATIVE.
F A K E
N E W S
“You can’t tell any more the difference between what’s propaganda and what’s news.”
FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein 15 August, 2006
Read all about the EVIL GENIUS right here:
http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com/
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmHiya Jane – It’s the classic circle jerk plot of “who’s on first” of Abbott/Costello genre. Sadly, this IS what we have running the show….nitwits & twisted magicians. Now you see it/ Now you don’t – staid, repetitive smoke & mirror routines which are becoming quite trite at this point.
If Bush isn’t part of the Exec Branch and neither is Cheney, then let’s put someone in there to run things – once and for all.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmLOL Veritas!
I would rather have nobody at the helm than Chimpy and Cheney.
Those two are sinking us all.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmAce: As we’re all discovering, the mainstream media IS pure propaganda. Just finesesse it out yourself – check a valid source for relative info and then watch and see what the media presents. It doesn’t usually even bear the slightest resemblance to the facts and the Truth. They’re rapidly becoming obsolete since everyone goes to either the BBC, foreign outlets who tell the truth about us, or the internet for information. Most televisions these days are tuned into movies and definitely not any of the propagandist news programs.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmTom3: Right on! At least we’d know that we have no one looking out for our best interests that way. Now it’s all a smoke & mirrors concoction of the GOP to provide the appearance of having capable individuals running things but, sadly as we’re discovering with each passing day, this is definitely NOT the case.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pmkatie,
The trolls last night on the tals show topic were flooding the place because Drudge sent them here.
You’re right, we shouldn’t feed the trolls. But sometimes the urge to bash them is irresistible.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm“…do away with the electoral college and go to a straight popular vote…”
Comment by katie — June 23, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
That’s my dream, too, katie. The electoral college should be eliminated.
Veritas, “smoke and mirrors” is definitely an apt phrase to describe this administration – everything they do is just a cheap trick.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pmBUSH/CHENEY ‘08!!!
Agreed. For the GALLOWS, with their trip to HELL to follow!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmWhat is heartening to me is the fact that college students today are smarter than we have been and will be the “leaders of tomorrow”. It’s time for them to enter the political dialogue and reframe the conversation. I’ve noticed that many students are going Independent…the fastest growing non-party in the nation! Bloomberg has just opened those floodgates….the wave is gathering momentum…and with each passing scandal, wrongdoing and outing of the corruption of this administration, the groundswell will attain tsunami proportions before it sweeps into the 08 election….watch and see.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmJane: Cheap tricks they are – every last one of them. They are insult to intelligent americans at this point and a total embarrassment to all.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:38 pmCheap, sleazy imposters – all of them. Shapeshifters is an understatement to describe the blackness of their being.
“…college students today are smarter than we have been and will be the “leaders of tomorrowâ€. It’s time for them to enter the political dialogue and reframe the conversation.”
Hmmm, isn’t that what graduates of Regent University have done? :)
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:38 pmKatie: the electoral college is responsible for many third party votes. Ralph Nader did best in Alaska…about 10%…because the democrat (Gore) couldn’t win…and people voted for who they liked rather than who they thought could win.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmOf course if you are in a close swing state, voting for a third party has its dangers (Florida).
And your comments are very good…so I hope you won’t let the trolls keep you away.
CHANGING TO INDEPENDENT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE – LIGHTEN YOUR PERSONAL LOAD, RELIEVE YOU OF THE BAGGAGE OF THIS SICK TWO PARTY SYSTEM…..AND THIS TRUTH (OF NOT BEING BEHOLDEN TO ANYONE, PARTY, OR SYSTEM OF THOUGHT) WILL SET YOU FREE.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmOur current two party system (along with corrupted voting hardware) is obsolete as is our electoral college method. It’s a sad state of affairs when one man is elected by the people (popular vote) and the wrong man is (erroneously) elected by a corrupted electoral college voting system and the Supreme Court.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pmYes. Changing to independent will change your life. You’ll be effectively be voting for us, but you can still be in complete denial about it.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pmBadger: I would strongly disagree with you on the Independent voting issue. Check your resources: One poll (Rasmussen) has Independents in the 30’s while another lists it now as 47%. Regardless of what it is, it is a substantial hunk of people at this point whose views are not being represented at all…..the polls, etc. only take into account the two main parties. I believe we are at the threshold of a very exciting time for the people of this country once again where “the people’s party” will spring up and put our 2 party system which is dysfunctional and obsolete to rest. In fact, the prediction is that if the Republican Party (GOP) actually survives the decrease in their numbers (now somewhere like 28% which is far below that of the Independents), the Republican Party will be considered the “new third party”. How bout them apples?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmBottomBoy: Who is the “us” in your post? Certainly you would not be generalizing for an entire group of americans now, would you?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE.”
– Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
By: okiemon on September 27, 2006 at 10:24am
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans – unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.”
Karl Rove.
“See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
GEORGE w. BUSH
Here’s a great comparison of Goebbels to Bush:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/260505newbushism.htm
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmIf one views the numbers, at this point the “third party” would more accurately be the Republican Party, wouldn’t it?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm#66: If you don’t explicitly vote for dems, you’re effectively voting for GOP.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pmRove ran ALL of the White House Strategy.
Bush did exactly what Rove recommended.
Plame was positively COVERT – AS WAS BREWSTER JENNINGS.
This was a CIA Front that was compromised – not just one person, but the ENTIRE SHOP.
This was NOT all about discrediting Wilson. Rove also knew that there was evidence within Plame’s organization that could put the lie to the WHIG’s faux intelligence claims to lie us into a war.
Not only that, Plame’s group was on to the cabal’s involvement in 9/11 and their plan to plant WMD inside Iraq to justify their pending invasion.
The Bush Doctrine (a Rove invention) calls for “preemptive strikes.†Rove decided that Plame’s organization needed to be taken down in order to implement their plan.
Rove identified that Wilson should be sent to Niger and then used to out Plame to close down the WMD intelligence unit.
Sound far fetched?
More far fetched than lying us into war?
More far fetched than bringing down a skyscraper on mere voice command (like WTC 7)?
More far fetched than the story that a cave dweller destroyed the United States as we knew it?
Rove was the Architect of ALL strategy…including 9/11.
THEY ALL KNEW.
We know Karl.
We know.
We know.
We know.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pmBottom Boy: Not if a self-sufficient candidate runs on the Independent ticket like Bloomberg with a running mate of Al Gore, it wouldn’t be the case.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm#67: You do realize that by citing “prisonplanet” as a source, you’ve lost all your credibility and joined the tin-foil hat crowd?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pmBottom Boy: I’d love to vote Democrat again if a candidate running would address some of the real issues for a change. And, of course, if those running who sit in Congress with their thumbs up their you-know-whats would do something other than knuckle under and no show!
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmAce: Your prison planet url of Bush lying repeatedly is a good one! I guess there are plenty of gullible fools who will believe anything; however, most informed americans realize that the only one believing the repeated lies is, in fact, the “pathological liar” himself.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pmVeritas; I agree there is a Huge number of voters who self describe themselves as Independents…but in the past elections..they have bit the bullet and voted for one of the two major parties. Their rationale is “not wanting to waste their vote”. But I think the country is ripe for an Alternative. I do think it would have to be Candidate led. A charismatic Messenger could win by advocating common sense policies that the American people want..and by running against the current B.S.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pmBottom Boy: Different strokes for different folks. Generalization, also, loses one’s credibility as you’ve done here repeatedly I’ve noticed. Please don’t speak for anyone but yourself when you allude to tin foil hats either. There are plenty of people who would view those whose heads are proverbially stuck in the sand as sandhill cranes, too, ya’ know.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pmAgreed, Badger but this time will be different, of that we can all be assured. There will be a formidable Independent running and they’re just in the wings. I believe that everyone will be duly impressed and pleasantly surprised this time ’round.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pmComment by katie — June 23, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Whatever you do, katie, don’t lose hope! Be brave and go into the voting booth (or whatever they use where you live; cubicle?) and vote for third party candidates.
I agree that the elimination of the Electoral College system is a must, but that would require a constitutional amendment. And right now, the Dem’s and Repub’s have vested too much time, energy and money in learning how to game that system. Have you noticed that over the past few elections, the so-called pundits have been saying that the presidential race will come down to a handful of states? They are playing off the fact that since the electoral votes are what you need, not the popluar vote, you need only win by a small margin. And since they seem to know in advance how just about every state is going to go, they (both the parties and the pundits) concentrate their efforts on just a few states. The last two presidential elections should NOT have come down to just Florida and Ohio.
People tell me that a vote for a third party candidate is a “wasted vote”. I disagree with completely. It is, after all, your vote to cast, and your right to cast it for whomever you choose. What needs to happen is that at least one or two third party candidates for president get the requisite number of votes to qualify their parties to put candidates on the ballots for the next election cycle without having to gather so many signatures (which often get thrown out in my state (NY) on technicalities.) I knew that Gore and Kerry would win NY, so I voted for Nader not because I thought he could win, but because I wanted to help the Green Party get on future ballots automatically.
If you live in a state with an overwhelming majority of either Ds or Rs, then voting for those same D or R candidates is what I would consider a “wasted vote”. The candidate only has to win by one vote to get ALL of that state’s electoral votes. (Yes, a couple of states split their electoral votes, but they are small and the exception.) If the candidate wins by a huge margin, all those votes that could have helped other political parties were “wasted”.
But don’t just think about the presidential race, think about the races for Representatives and Senators. In order to get Congress to support a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College, we have to get rid of the two major political parties who are against doing that. So vote for a third party candidate in those races. THEN we can move on to the presidential elections.
A Congress with no party having a majority of the seats would be the best kind we could hope for, because it would be harder to pass legislation without broad support.
Now, if yu really, really like your current representative, then vote for that person on a line other than D or R. You will be helping a great deal toward bringing about the changes necessary to save this country.
Be brave. Give ‘em the bird, and vote for a third. In the long run, you’ll be glad you did.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pmBottomBoy is preaching about credibility?
How about if I cite a four-part FOX expose…is that more well suited to your tastes?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
How about ABC 20/20?
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israelis_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm
Explain the “Dancing Israelis”
Provide credible links to support your theories.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pmIf a formidable independent candidate (other than Nadar) enters the race, it is sure to become quite interesting. As I see it, there may be plenty of disenchanted Republicans who would jump on their bandwagon as well by then. Of course, “by then”, Bush’s numbers will be down in the teens or low 20’s and everyone will be jumping the GOP’s sinking, stinking garbage barge.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm#79: I see two URLs. informationclearinghouse and, ahem, antichristconspiracy. Are you really trying to convince me by linking to such ridiculous sites?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pmBottom Boy: Different strokes for different folks.
Comment by veritas
Be careful, veritas. You don’t want Bottom Boy to get too “excited”, do you?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pmWayne: I love it! Let’s all “GIVE ‘EM THE BIRD AND VOTE FOR A THIRD”. Needless to say, I agree with you wholeheartedly as well as a rapidly growing number of americans who are joining “the third”.
After all, it’s beginning to appear with each passing day, that this will be the “singular voice of the people” in this government of ours.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm82: Perhaps I viewed a different Url? The one I saw was quite accurate.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pmAre you really trying to convince me by linking to such ridiculous sites?
Comment by BottomBoy
Uh, BB, when you deliberately choose the “nom de blog” you do, it’s as good as saying, “Don’t take me seriously, because I don’t either…”
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm#
#79: I see two URLs. informationclearinghouse and, ahem, antichristconspiracy. Are you really trying to convince me by linking to such ridiculous sites?
Comment by BottomBoy — June 23, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
As you know, the reason those are the the two sites listed is that the original reports by FOX and ABC were purged from their servers, and have been archived for anyone interested in the learning the truth. Both reports ran on the networks listed, but were hidden from view at the demand of the ADL.
If you don’t care about the truth, then just continue criticizing the URL’s listed, and by all means – don’t read.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pmA Majority of Black Voters are DISRENFRANCHISED by the Electoral College. Over 50% of Black Voters now live in the south, where the candidates they support never win a National or State election.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmKarl:
Put your hand on the bible.
Now, under oath, do you swear that the NSA, AT&T, Comverse and others were NOT conducting Warrantless Wiretaps in advance of 9/11 during the early months of the Bush Administration, so help you God?
What’s that Karl, I can’t hear you, could you speak up please, you’re mumbling.
You’re not willing to swear to it under oath?
You mean the Bush Administration ALREADY WAS engaged in warrantless wiretaps prior to 9/11, and 9/11 happened any way?
Well shit, that changes everything, doesn’t it Karl?
Maybe it’s the case that 9/11 could never have happened WITHOUT your warrantless wiretaps prior to 9/11.
How else could you orchestrate all of the interference to enable the attacks to be pulled off on the exact same day and at the exact same time as NORAD had been ordered to stand down to conduct drills simulating planes being hijacked and flown into buildings?
We know Karl.
We know what you did.
We know.
We know.
We know.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=5303
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&con
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2294487.stm
http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pmUnfortunately, an independent draws votes from mostly dems. Thankfully, there are some thinking republicans out there who are as sick of this crap as the dems are.
My only hope is that it doesn’t split the vote to the point where the worst lemonhead wins. It happened in 2000 and with all the fraud and a gift from the SCOTUS, the country got screwed.
Can we recover from this mess? Who knows. Another ethically corrupt POTUS and VPOTUS would be the nail. The SCOTUS is already f*cked for generations.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pmThe Internet is being “Sanitized For THEIR Protection”
Every day, more of our historic news documentation and evidence is DISAPPEARED.
And Bottom Boy is not part of the solution.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:05 pmThe SCOTUS is already f*cked for generations.
Comment by MsJoanne
One of these days Scalia will do something so blatantly stupid they’ll have to kick him off the court.
An older friend of mine’s wife is a long time Nevada Repub. Her family was close to Paul Laxalt. Even she can’t stand Bruschâ„¢ anymore. Even Bob Novak is already conceding a a** whomping of the first order in ‘08.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pmWhatever, ace. At least DailyKos has a clear and sane policy regarding the revisionist 9/11 conspiracies.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm“…do away with the electoral college and go to a straight popular vote…â€
Comment by katie — June 23, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Good Luck though you have as much a chance as a Snowball in Hell
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pmComment by BottomBoy
Don’t feel too sorry for yourself, BB. At least TP allows you to post your nonsense here. Come to think of it, we all need a good laugh now and then.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pmMsJoanne it happen in 2000 ? When ? Owl Gore , AKA Forest Gore , AKA the ENVIROMENTAL ROBOT LOST .
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pmDetails the media and government hope you forget:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/forget.html
“BY WAY OF DECEPTION THOU SHALT DO WAR.”
-THE MOTTO OF THE MOSSAD (Israeli Intelligence)
In 1956, as reported by the Times Of London, during one of Israel’s perpetual wars with its neighbors, the Mossad tried to trick the United States into siding with Israel against the Arabs by blowing up a US facility in Cairo and blaming the Arabs for it. The plot was wrecked when the operatives were caught and confessed, creating a huge scandal. And according to Victor Ostrovski, a defector from the Mossad, the USA was tricked into bombing Libya when the Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Tripoli which sent out fake orders to terrorists which the USA could intercept.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pmFDR we all know that Bush won in 2000 because he got the black vote….namely Clarence Thomas.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pmBottomBoy they think we are funny because they are unable to defend themselves or their ideology or position on any topic .
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pmSurviving ‘Liberty’ crew members would not be silenced. They kept demanding an open inquiry and tried to tell their story of deliberate attack to the media. Israel’s government worked behind the scenes to thwart these efforts, going so far as having American pro-Israel groups accuse ‘Liberty’s’ survivors of being ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘Israel-haters.’ Major TV networks cancelled interviews with the crew. A book about the ‘Liberty’ by crewman James Ennes’ was dropped from distribution. The Israel lobby branded him ‘an Arab propagandist.’
The attack on ‘Liberty’ was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the ‘Liberty,’ electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.
Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because ‘Liberty’s’ intercepts flatly contradicted Israel’s claim, made at the war’s beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel’s massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.
Israel was also preparing to attack Syria to seize its strategic Golan Heights. Washington warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Bamford says Israel’s offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when ‘Liberty’ appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel’s claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by ‘Liberty.’
Most significant, ‘Liberty’s’ intercepts may have shown that Israel seized upon sharply rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai.
Far more shocking was Washington’s response. Writes Bamford: ‘Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.’ Why?
Domestic politics. Johnson, a man never noted for high moral values, preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party. Congress was even less eager to touch this ‘third rail’ issue.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Such is the stranglehold of AIPAC
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pmTroll alert! Tempting…oh so tempting. (slapping self hard)
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pmBadger you are a shining example of someone who cannot defend their position .
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pmUSS Liberty, a neutral ship in international waters, was attacked without warning by air and naval forces of the State of Israel on June 8, 1967. USS Liberty had not engaged in any provocative conduct, nor was she any kind of obvious threat to other ships or aircraft in the area.
In the days immediately following the attack, the United States Navy held an unusual and extremely abbreviated Court of Inquiry. The Court found that the evidence then available to it did not establish hostile intent. The Court did not have access to communications intercepts and other important items of evidence when it made this finding.
Contrary to assertions made by Israel and its supporters, the United States has never officially accepted the explanation or excuses offered by Israel. Quite the contrary, the official U.S. position is that the attack was “quite literally incomprehensible” and showed a “wanton disregard for human life.” (The word “wanton” was later removed, though the general concept remained.)
The Navy neither completed a full Court of Inquiry investigation, nor undertook any other, further formal inquiries concerning the Israeli attack on USS Liberty. Indeed, from the moment the attack started until today, no U.S. government body has undertaken any investigation into the culpability for the attack on USS Liberty.
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/
Got 9/11?
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pmToday’s Diaper Troll Award goes to… FDR
Being a good GOPer FDR consulted the Rovian Sandbox Playbook and choose to employ the famous “But Mom, Johnny did it first…” play. Where “Mom” is really you and me; “It” is really any circumstance under the sun; and “Johnny” is in all cases presidential arbitrarily, but always, replaced by a reference to our most recent former President Mr. Clinton. So we get yet another use of that most tiresome construct in the Rovian Sandbox Playbook, “But people, Clinton did it first…”
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pmMsJoanne
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pmActing like a 4th grader with name calling does in no way enforce your argument . but it is amusing little girl
Heh. What’s with all those anti-semitic posts, ace?
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pmLast May, Cheney appeared on Larry King. He stepped in it big time, but few people caught it. I alerted Rude Pundit and he wrote about it.
an excerpt:
Then Cheney made this statement: “In a sense, when you’re at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.” So, like, if, in a sense, the Gitmo campers are “prisoners of war,” then, in a sense, don’t they get Geneva Conventions protections?
Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since “war” was never formally declared. It’s pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it – so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they’d be committing.
Bush tells us every day that we’re at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we’re not REALLY at war.
Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding “prisoners of war.”
The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/lkl.01.html
KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.
D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo’s been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who’s down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you’re at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.”
So this is the war without end, and these prisoners will be held forever?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact
New Yorker
From the article:
Yoo believed that the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief gave him virtually unlimited authority to decide whether America should respond militarily to a terror attack, and, if so, what kind of force to use. “Those decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make,” he wrote in a law article.
A top Administration official told me that Yoo, Addington, and a few other lawyers had essentially “hijacked policy” after September 11th. “They thought, Now we can put our views into practice. We have the ability to write them into binding law. It was just shocking. These memos were presented as faits accomplis.”
In Yoo’s opinion, he wrote that at Guantánamo cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees could be authorized, with few restrictions.
“The memo espoused an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority,”
So this same approach was used across the board. Addington effectively sought to obtain “legal opinions” which were in fact illegal, with the specific intent to provide Bush and Cheney with sufficient legal cover to behave as Dictators and Kings, as there were virtually no laws that applied to them, as determined by edict.
This is where we stand today. There is not one single law that applies to Bush or Cheney. They have found lawyers who were willing to craft opinions stating that they were above the law, and in so doing, have subverted the Constitution of the United States.
This activity was intentional, willful and treasonous.
They were sworn to uphold the constitution.
Given this information, others in a position to do something about it (who also swore under oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC) now have an obligation to fulfill.
They must call for the impeachment of this administration. It is their legal obligation given the evidence before them.
Time to choose sides, folks.
KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M By Katherine Hunt Last Update: 12:19 PM ET Jan 24, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co., said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D%2DAE8A %2D4B5C%2D94C7%2D70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741%2E5136277662%2D858254656&s iteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806
as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency
as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency
as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency
There’s your key phrase…hidden nicely right at the end of the release. detention Centers are being built for a National Emergency…under the guise of being built to hold illegal aliens.
Can we get the congress to agree that they will pass a law to ensure that they will NEVER be used to imprison political dissidents?
Dare to ask the question.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:20 pmComment by ace — June 23, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
I tried going to those five links, and only two came back with something. Thw WaPo one had expired, and the other two “could not be found”. (The 2nd and 4th ones worked.) I’m not saying they weren’t legitimate and to your point, just that they (for reasons unknown) no longer work.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pmCompare the mannerisms of these two comments:
“AVGVSTINVS you being a suburban white boy you would not understand because you are stupid . now reply and leave no doubt
Comment by Obomayomomma — June 22, 2007 @ 11:35 pm”
and
“MsJoanne
Acting like a 4th grader with name calling does in no way enforce your argument . but it is amusing little girl
Comment by FDR — June 23, 2007 @ 5:18 pm”
Notice the unnecessary space before the period, and then the beginning of the next sentence sans a capitalized first word…
I’m just sayin’
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm#
Heh. What’s with all those anti-semitic posts, ace?
Comment by BottomBoy — June 23, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Whats with th story of the “Dancing Israelis,” bottom boy?
Do you deny that the incident occured?
What about the 200 Israeli Mossad Agents arested in the same time frame? Google: “Israeli art students”
Facts are not “anti-semitic”
They are merely facts.
Are you here using the Mossad built Megaphone technology?
“We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel’s supporters.
Do it now. For Israel. Amir Gissin
– Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department. GIYUS currently claims 24,000 Megaphone users.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/giyus_megaphone/
Click here:
http://www.eretz.com/NEW/
Scroll down to this: GIYUS.ORG – Give Israel Your United Support
“Many of us recognize that the internet is the new battleground for Israel’s image. Now is the time to improve our efforts on this front by better coordinating our on-line efforts. An Israeli software company has developed a free, safe, and useful tool for this purpose: the Internet Megaphone. Please go to http://www.giyus.org and download the megaphone. You will then receive daily updates with links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a response, and more.”
Are you part of the Hasbara operation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pmWayne:
I know the links don’t work. As to the reasons…they are clearly not unknown.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pmSo, “FDR”:
WHY did Bush and Cheney REFUSE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH TO THE 9/11 Commission??
i.e. SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH to the 9/11 Commission and the
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
And “executive privilege” doesn’t fly. Clinton testified (Monica) and TRAITOR Reagan did, also (Iran/Contra).
Come on azzhole-licker of TRAITOR Bush—BRING IT ON!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pmAs hard as it is to ignore ignorance, it’s poinless to have any kind of discussion with people who are told what to think, how they should think and when to think it.
PRIMVS INTER PARES, lest not forget the ending period, too. Apparently the thought goes on ad nasuem for infinity. ;-)
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm““Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.â€
Michael Rivera
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pmTo Hell (in a handbasket, IMHO), he didn’t cause he didn’t wanna. And the overseers haven’t pushed him to do so.
Let’s hope that changes. I think people are starting to get a rude awakening (this last declaration that the VPOTUS isn’t part of the Executive branch was so classic Chaney. Alas, too many people haven’t even looked at the constitution since they were forced to take a test on it in high school. And those people assist and enable this deceitful government to continue to rape this country and all of its citizens.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 pmThe “clueless bushie.” There are also several clueless bushies around here, but sources close to the source tell us that Annthrax Colter bushie, uses those “aWol winnin’ the war dolls” to achieve an orgasm. She crams a couple of them up her ass and really gets off. I would recommend this procedure to the clueless bushies around here.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 pm“What’s with all those anti-semitic posts, ace?”
Comment by BottomBoy — June 23, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
You know, one can say that Israel was wrong about something, or mention AIPAC, without being anti-semitic. The same way the one can criticize the Bush Administration, or the war, without being an unpatriotic commie liberal. And you’re supposedly in the State Department?
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pmJane:
For the most part, whenever that slur is used, it’s tactical.
It’s designed to encourage the broader community to shun the speaker of the truth, and to prevent others from daring to speak up.
Straight out of the ADL handbook.
Israel is not a race, nor is it a religion.
It is a foreign country, and since we bankroll it, we can sure as hell criticize…just like our own government.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pmThat’s the problem, Jane. We’ve gotten to where criticizing Isreal means we’re anti-semitic. Look what happened to Jimmy Carter. You can’t marry a country, only a leader. Look at us. How many allies of the US have written us off because of Bush? We, WE, the United States of America, is now considered a rogue state by many countries in the world. Could you have ever imagined this day? I certainly couldn’t have. If we keep up this way, we’ll be lucky to not become Iraq where WE are invaded because we do have WMD
I tell you, I am so thankful that I don’t have children. If I had children I would be petrified for what their future holds. Parents always want more for their kids than they had. If you look at studies, our kids now are not improving their lives, salaries are not keeping up, jobs are being offshored more and more. There is an entire class of people in this country who are going to be hurting in a big way.
You always think it’s someone else’s problem until it hits you. Well, the problems we have are being made far worse by the policies of this administration.
How the average citizen can go along with this when so much is not in their interest. Unless these people own companies, which I doubt they do, the time is going to come when they are in these positions with no one to blame but themselves. As they say, it’s a recession when your neighbor looses his job and a depression when you lose yours.
I feel for those who will be affected. But it will be hard to feel for those who enabled it to happen.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pmIt is a foreign country, and since we bankroll it, we can sure as hell criticize…just like our own government.
Comment by ace — June 23, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Hell, the U.S. helped to create Israel. I just wish that our two countries weren’t joined at the hip, and I’m willing to bet that there are Israelis who think the same thing.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pmdang, primo, yo is jes comin’ along fine!
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm“I tell you, I am so thankful that I don’t have children. If I had children I would be petrified for what their future holds.”
Comment by MsJoanne — June 23, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Me, too. When my mum was dying, in 2004, she was more concerned about what was happening in the world because of Bush’s policies than she was about dying. She was proud that my brother, my sister and I were so well-informed and involved in current events. She died about a month after the election, and in a way I’m glad that by that time she was isolated enough from the outside world that she never asked who won.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmOnce again a dimwitted troll invokes the name of a former president.
FDR, I dub thee Millard Fillmore.
As the Whig Party disintegrated in the 1850’s, Fillmore refused to join the Republican Party; but, instead, in 1856 accepted the nomination for President of the Know Nothing, or American, Party. Throughout the Civil War he opposed President Lincoln and during Reconstruction supported President Johnson.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm… the Know Nothing, or American, Party…
Comment by Cpt. Crepitus
Well, Shi-ite… that’s a group that could give me a run for my money!
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmIt’s looking more like the decider guy is really the puppet guy. I think I’ll start calling him the MOTUS (the marionette of the US).
Comment by MsJoanne
Here’s a scary question for you… if Bruschâ„¢ is BigDick’sâ„¢ hand puppet, where does Biggie stick his hand when he wants to make Georgie’s lips move? And does he take off his wristwatch first?
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pmFDR we all know that Bush won in 2000 because he got the black vote….namely Clarence Thomas.
Comment by Badger
Badger is right: I won Clarence Thomas’ black vote in 2000. Also, thanks to black Republican Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell in 2004, I won the vote in that state because he so kindly disenfranchised many black voters. Black GOPers are such wonderful tools, until they get caught shoplifting like my former aide, Claude Allen. Really, stealing from the American public like Halliburton, Enron and Blackwater is more GOP style.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 pmThe troll who was posting as Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and a few times as Nancy Pelosi is now back as FDR. I keep on telling Karl to stop hiring people with split personalities and with better writing skills, but he claims that they are hard to find.
The reason Dick gets away with this stuff is that W doesn’t want to be bothered with actually being president. He’s bored, he’s in over his head, and he really doesn’t care what goes on around him as long as he gets to pretend he’s King.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:24 pmRepub…now THAT was the gross moment of the day. I’m gonna have to go wash my mind out…that’s a visual I could have lived without. GAG ACK BARF ;-)
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:25 pmThe troll who was posting as Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and a few times as Nancy Pelosi is now back as FDR. I keep on telling Karl to stop hiring people with split personalities and with better writing skills, but he claims that they are hard to find.
Comment by President Bush 43 — June 23, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Nah, I think “FDR” is “obomayomomma,” see post #109
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pmI believe you are correct, Candyce, Dubious has been propped up all his life, he knows no other way, and has always been content to let someone else handle everything.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pmI also believe part of his ever more apparent dissolution; is a faint glimmer of understanding that his world is going to collapse around him, and that there may be a greater implosion than he could possibly imagine.
He’s starting to act more fearful, and craven.
I’m gonna have to go wash my mind out…that’s a visual I could have lived without. GAG ACK BARF ;-)
Comment by MsJoann
Allllriiighty!!! I’m No 1! I’m No1!
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pmNah, I think “FDR†is “obomayomomma,†see post #109
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
Notice the unnecessary space before the period, and then the beginning of the next sentence sans a capitalized first word…
I’m just sayin’
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
PRIMVS,
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pmYou may be right about “obomayomomma,” but Karl and I didn’t authorize this name. If you look back on previous posts by the fake Harry Truman and Bill Clinton-trolls, you will also see the same sort of run-on sentences and the frequent use of condescending terms like “liberal children, ” as the FDR-wannabe did in post #25.
I would really prefer our trolls to use good Republican names like Mamie Eisenhower, Checkers, or Tom Delay.
Further proof that Cheney is the real President.
Chimpy is now following Cheney’s lead and declaring himself outside the Executive Branch too.
Mister Cheney told him to.
Cheney would probably be a better President than Bush. You get all the good attributes, minus the amnesty garbage.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:42 pmFDR we all know that Bush won in 2000 because he got the black vote….namely Clarence Thomas.
Are you still upset that the people Gore helped put on the Supreme Court didn’t push him through?
Get over it!
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pmAllllriiighty!!! I’m No 1! I’m No1!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — June 23, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Yeah, but did you make her drink come out her nose? :D
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pmComment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
HERESY!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pmCheney would probably be a better President than Bush. You get all the good attributes, minus the amnesty garbage.
Comment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
I wonder, are you deliberately trying to post the stupidest comments in the world, or does it just come naturally to you?
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 pmm12,
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 pmHow dare you question and/or undermine the competence of the President!!!
Especially during a time of war.
Your comment in post #133 gives aid and comfort to the enemy and you have emboldened the terrorists abroad and here at home.
Watch it guys…I have another can of diet Pepsi going.
My prior posts are getting lost. Repub, I love your posts. You are a very thoughtful person and I appreciate that. Just like Wayne, Jane and many of the others.
I have the utmost appreciation for people who can actually think and don’t just follow what they are told to think. If I wanted a robot, I’d buy one.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm#138
He is quite competent, but no man is perfect. The nation would be well served with an electrified fence and armed guards on the Southern border, with preapproved authorization to shoot at Mexicans.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm#137
You like Bush better than Cheney?
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pmComment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Yes, that is why Cheney handles that type of thing behind the scenes. If the President were directly involved just think of the outrage.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pmHe is quite competent, but no man is perfect. The nation would be well served with an electrified fence and armed guards on the Southern border, with preapproved authorization to shoot at Mexicans.
Comment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
What about the border with Canada? Why not do the same thing there? Why do the anti-immigrants only discuss taking action along our southern border and not our northern?
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pmYou like Bush better than Cheney?
Comment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
You’re not very good at paying attention, are you?
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pmCheney would probably be a better President than Bush. You get all the good attributes, minus the amnesty garbage.
Comment by m12
m12 is treasonous. How dare he say that Cheney would make a better President than I, the decider! Besides, even I have a hard time thinking of any good attributes in Cheney. I think I will have the FBI look up m12’s identity and send him to Gitmo!
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm#143
Why? Because our northern border isn’t a problem.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pmARGH! My posts are getting lost in cyberspace.
Wayne, you are tooooooooo funny. You do snark so well!! I opened another can of diet Pepsi and between you and Repub, you’re gonna have me snorting it again. (Hmm, wonder if I can catch a buzz from that. (perk))
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pmWhy? Because our northern border isn’t a problem.
Comment by m12
Oh, my poor uneducated troll. Don’t you know that it is easy for Muslim terrorists to come to the US through our border with Canada? But I don’t really care about that. I just want more cheap Mexican labor for my big business friends and more lovely Mexican girls for people like my brother Jeb to marry.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pmHow would you know that it is “not a problem”? It’s 5,500 miles long and has plenty of places to cross unseen and undetected. And if I’m not mistaken (someone please confirm this for me), they’ve caught suspected terrorists crossing there.
So, explain again why you think it is “not a problem”?
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm#145
There is nothing all insulting about that statement. The few times Bush has bothered working with the Democratic traitors have had mostly poor consequences.
Cheney would appropriately tell Harry Reid and the rest of his cronies to go f*ck themeslves.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm#149
Only about 1/5 of illegal immigrants come from the north.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192337,00.html
Obviously, the south is the place to start.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 pmSo, m12, you consider immigrants more of a threat than terrorists?
Now that’s an interesting point of view.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 pmI opened another can of diet Pepsi and between you and Repub, you’re gonna have me snorting it again…
C’mon, Repub, I take that as a challenge! Twice in one day is a bonus!
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 pmTogether we can do it, and if we can do that, we can do anything!
#152
Nope. We are killing the terrorists in Iraq and that is of utmost importance.
The immigrants, however, aren’t in Iraq. They’re near the Mexican border.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pmToo bad Cheney is right, CO2 is not a pollutant.
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pmm12, you are funnier than both Wayne and Repub put together. LMFAO! You post a link to Fox. You are unconcerned about terrorists here because we’re there. OMG, I can barely contain myself.
Sorry Wayne and Repub…if Pepsi is coming out my nose again it’s this clown that’s gonna do it.
Way to think for yourself, m12. Good job! Keep up that fine work. You make such a lovely automaton.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 pmSo, m12, you consider immigrants more of a threat than terrorists?
Now that’s an interesting point of view.
Comment by MsJoanne — June 23, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Thank you, MsJoanne. That’s where I was headed.
Remember, m12, one of the ways they tried to scare us to by constantly saying, “We have to be successful 100% of the time while they only have to be successful once.” So even though only 1/5 of the immigrants cross from the north (and you’ll forgive me if I don’t take FUD News Channel’s word on that figure), that sounds like plenty of chances to get hit with a terrorist attack.
Are you sure that’s the only reason to ignore the northern border in favor of the southern one?
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:24 pm#156
What terrorists here? They have resorted to attacking Spain and England because Bush has defended America.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pmWhat terrorists here? They have resorted to attacking Spain and England because Bush has defended America.
Comment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
Hell Yeah, brother!!!!!
YEEE-HA!!!!!!!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 pmA) The terrorists are also in Afghanistan and are only in Iraq because we (the USA) paved teh way for them to enter, and
B) How do you know that there are no illegal immigrants crossing in from the north? Would you recognize them if you saw them?
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pmUgh, another lost comment. Let’s try this again.
Wayne, they MUST be terrorists…they are BROWN afterall. ‘Nuff said.
Silly, silly man. ;)
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pmRemember, m12, one of the ways they tried to scare us to by constantly saying, “We have to be successful 100% of the time while they only have to be successful once.†So even though only 1/5 of the immigrants cross from the north (and you’ll forgive me if I don’t take FUD News Channel’s word on that figure), that sounds like plenty of chances to get hit with a terrorist attack.
Are you sure that’s the only reason to ignore the northern border in favor of the southern one?
It’s not ignoring it, rather, it is appropriating resources in a reasonable fashion.
Bush has to deal with Pelosi and her cronies now. These people are trying to lose the war….what are the chances of them providing the funding to secure our 5500 mile northern border, as you mention it? They’re more interested in boosting the labor unions.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pmCheney is a sick old man who obviously does not care what happens to the world that will be inhabited by his grandchildren.
-GSD
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 pmCheney is apparently more intelligent than most here since he realizes that our grandchildren will be fine since catastrophic man-made global warming is nonsense.
Quick Facts:
- Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C in the last 100 years.
- Global mean sea level has risen about 0.17m (6.6in) in the last 100 years.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) = about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually.
- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) changes lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years.
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4% of the greenhouse effect.
- Water accounts for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect.
- Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory.
- There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change.
- Science is not determined by “consensus” but by the Scientific Method.
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pmBush has to deal with Pelosi and her cronies now. These people are trying to lose the war….what are the chances of them providing the funding to secure our 5500 mile northern border, as you mention it? They’re more interested in boosting the labor unions.
Comment by m12 — June 23, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
First, Bush has been doing his damndest to lose the war well before Pelosi became Speaker. Second, when Bush came into office, he reduced the funding for the USGS (US Geological Survey) department in charge of actually surveying and marking our northern border by about half, and reduced the manpower to what amounts to a joke. Most of the northern border is so overgrown that no one knows exactly where it is. So Bush sure as hell doesn’t want funding to “secure” our northern border, nor have I ever heard him mention it. Third, I don’t remember ever hearing Speaker Pelosi mention ‘boosting’ labor unions.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pmHere, EPA, you can add this to your list of things you think are bull$hit.
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp
I’m sure you’ll refute this 20 years of research, too, because it’s just too inconvenient for you.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pmComment by EPA — June 23, 2007
Thank you, EPA!
I feel so much better, now that I can make copies of this post,
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pmand paste one on the lid of my laptop, my cooler,
my entertainment center, the dashboard of my car(s),
my golf cart, my Sea-Ray, and my childrens lunchboxes,
and know that I don’t have to be responsible for, or do, anything!
So Bush sure as hell doesn’t want funding to “secure†our northern border, nor have I ever heard him mention it.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
No, I don’t want to secure our northern border. I don’t mind terrorist coming into the US, because that will give me more excuse to ignore the Constitution (just a piece of paper, you know) and grab more dictatorial–ah, I mean, decider–powers.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pmDon’t mind m12, Jane. The name stands for “me, 12 years old.”
Last I checked science was determined by the scientific method not the length of time you spend researching something.
– Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 pmTo EPA,
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pmMichael Crichton has a degree in medicine and not in any field related to environmental science. He is known as a “science FICTION”–not as a science writer.
You’re pretty much wasting your and everyone else’s time here. We’ve already seen the same old global warming denials as well as literature by the majority of scientists who believe otherwise. Get over it already!
Lets compare:
Al Gore only has a B.A. in Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degrees)
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard
It would seem Michael Crichton is more credible in regards to scientific discussions than the Goracle.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 pmOoooooh, Michael Crichton,
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 pmfiring the big guns right out of the starting gate…..
(tremble, quiver and quaking I am now……
Scientists Disputing “Man-Made” Global Warming Theory:
August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pmChris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, United Kingdom
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, United Kingdom
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, United Kingdom
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sami Solanki, Ph.D Astronomy, EHT Zurich, Switzerland
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, United Kingdom
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, United Kingdom
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
ackkkk, I’ve been crucified!
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 pmSweet…now post the scientists worldwide that support global warming.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm#175
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pmThat may take the EPA some time, as they have had no interest in collecting resorces or data for any opposing viewpoints.
I picked two of these experts at random.
David R. Legates
His non-peer reviewed analysis of the science of polar bears being threatened by global warming was published on the NCPA website. This analysis has been strongly discredited by much larger and peer reviewed bodies of work.
The other is a Tsunami expert.
Peer reviewed science says this ragtag collection of geologists, solar physicists et al are wrong.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pmHowza bout Willie Soon
Published, with fellow sceptic Sallie Baliunas, an article in the Climate Research journal which reviewed the work of a number of climate scientists who concluded that the last century is the hottest in the last 1000 years. The article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, caused the resignation of three of the journal’s editors, in protest at the peer review process. The peer review process was conducted by New Zealand sceptic scientist Chris de Freitas. The Soon/Baliunas article was widely picked up by Exxon-funded groups and led to a Senate hearing chaired by James Inhofe (R-OK)
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pmHey guys, don’t be so quick to write off Michael Crichton.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pmI hear that L. Ron Hubbard also held views incompatible with Global Warming theories.
As did Robert Howard, famed for his swords and sorcery. Unfortunately, Howard killed himself about sixty years ago.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pmHere are some of the “Scientists” who support Man-Made Global Warming Theory:
Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degrees)
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pmAlanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education
Willie Nelson, College Dropout
Was climate change part of the curriculum at RNC Summer camp, Primus?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pmYou seem to be suddenly quite knowledgeble on the issue…
Don’t forget H.G. Wells… the Morlocks and the Eloi seemed to have a comfortable arrangement.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 pmAnd how many more scientists agree that global warming is a fact–already occuring than those on your list in #173, EPA? More than there is space for posting here.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pmBTW, I recently saw “An Inconvenient Truth” on the campus of what is considered the top university in Asia–and 12th best in the world. Not only the university president (a scientist) was there but also several professors in fields related to environmental scientist. One professor pointed out to those gathered a few places where he disagreed but in general had a high opinion of the film.
You can cut and paste all you want from your favorite anti-global warming site, but you’re unlikely to change any opinions here. There are glaciers disappearing all over the world, and islands starting to disappear in the South Pacific. Keep on denying it, EPA, just like the holocaust deniers.
Was climate change part of the curriculum at RNC Summer camp, Primus?
You seem to be suddenly quite knowledgeble on the issue…
Comment by heyzeus — June 23, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Why yes, yes it was.
It was a difficult class though.
They would ask about “ozone” and “the Earth” and other stuff like that, and if you answered they would slap you on the back of the head.
The trick was to pretend that you didn’t know the meaning of the words and just stare blankly back at the instructor.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 pmI am still waiting for this “list”. You need to get educated instead of being brainwashed by Al Gore’s movie.
Facts:
1. The Polar Bears are not dying
2. Sea Level rise is not accelerating (only 1-2mm per year) and will not lead to catastrophic flooding.
3. CO2 is not proven to drive temperatures, it actually lags behind temperature changes.
4. Man-made global warming is an unproven theory.
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 pmI see EPA is taking the Fox approach to reporting.
Nice job, guy. Your ignorance is showing. Keep up the good work.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 pmPRIMVS, did everyone ace the blank stare test? I so love that deer in the headlight look when you interject facts into their opinions. I think that’s sooooooooooooo sexy.
Stop, please. I am going to propose to you in a minute or three. ;)
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pmI am still waiting for this “listâ€. You need to get educated instead of being brainwashed by Al Gore’s movie.
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Dude, your name is linked to a site that reads: “This is a resource against the “Man-Made” Global Warming Hysteria.”
You’re not “educated” at all, you’re just copying and pasting info from a biased site.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pmComment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Since we all know that this administration’s EPA does not have the environment’s interest at heart, I expect that anyone posting in its name is just as bad. I just hope that all of these anti-global-warming-theory ignorami live in coastal states.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pmI hate it when facts get in the way of religious beliefs (man-made global warming).
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pmGot it, kind of like when they used the words
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 pm“justice” and “rule of law” in class at Regent U.!
I hate it when facts get in the way of religious beliefs (man-made global warming).
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Huh?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pmWould you care to see the “B”s, Effeminate Pudgy A$$?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pmEPA, how many scientists on your list in #173 receive funding from the oil and gas industry?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pmI live in a coastal state which is why I decided to research this for myself instead of believing the non-scientist Al Gore and all the celebrity drop-outs:
Observed Changes in Sea Level (IPCC)
I am also a computer scientist and realize the uselessness of predictions based on computer models based on incomplete and flawed climate science.
“What If All the Ice Melts?” Myths and Realities
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I feel so much better, now that I can make copies of this post,
and paste one on the lid of my laptop, my cooler,
my entertainment center, the dashboard of my car(s),
my golf cart, my Sea-Ray, and my childrens lunchboxes,
and know that I don’t have to be responsible for, or do, anything!
Comment by heyzeus — June 23, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
I’m going to print copies to line the cats’ litter boxes.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pmWayne they all do of course, anyone who doesn’t believe in the religion is a shill for big oil didn’t you know!
Global Warming Smear Targets
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pmI’m sure the kittys will feel much better, too!
I wonder if I can find toilet paper printed with all the Scientific Deniers names on it?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pmComment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
It’s not the ice in the water that concerns us, because obviously sea levels won’t change if that melts. It’s the ice on the land masses whose melting concerns us. That ice is NOT presently adding to sea levels, but it sure as hell will when it does melt. And large chunks of land ice have been melting.
Your statement about Artic Sea Ice was a strawman, as much of the oil and gas industries’ arguments are.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pmI’m going to print copies to line the cats’ litter boxes.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider —
I would do that, too, but one of our cats already has diarrhea. I don’t want to make it worse. Good luck with yours.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pmI hate it when facts get in the way of religious beliefs (man-made global warming).
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
WTF? Espece d’idiote!
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pmHe has the talking points down pat.
Discussion is pointless (sort of like the real EPA which has been sold to the highest bidder again and again).
Time for me to move on. Next troll.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 pmEspece d’idiote!
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pmLMFAO! Loved it!
The link I posted covers the concerns of the land based ice sheets. But here is more:
ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior (European Space Agency)
On Thin Ice? (PDF) (Scientific America)
The only Straw Man is the lack of evidence of anything catastrophic.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pmYour statement about Artic Sea Ice was a strawman, as much of the oil and gas industries’ arguments are.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 23, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
This guy can’t make statements. He can only copy and paste from his beloved “Resource” webpage.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pmLe scientifique français Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, université de Paris, France dit que vous avez tort.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pmWayne, while I appreciate your thoughts on land mass ice, after hearing about global dimming, that frightens me by far and away more than global warming. They are related but the results of global dimming are going to present themselves sooner and be much more devastating to the entire world population.
If you take global warming alone, it could be disasterous in how many years? Global dimming could impact us in the next 30 years.
I tell you, that’s some seriously scary $hit.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pmThe only Straw Man is the lack of evidence of anything catastrophic.
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Dude… um… that’s your argument… I don’t think you want to call it a Straw Man.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pmThere is still time to seek help:
Welcome to “Apocaholics Anonymousâ€
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 pmIt’s so much better to stick your hands over your ears and go LA LA LA LA LA LA while burying your head in the sand. I like that approach so much better.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pmI agree that sticking your head in the sand is not a solution, which is why researching and looking things up is better than simply falling for the propaganda in one politically motivated movie which serves only one purpose, to get Al Gore rich:
Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’ paid to firm he owns
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 pmDo you really think that we believe in man-made global warming simply because of a MOVIE? I didn’t even see the movie until a week or two ago, but I’ve believed in man-made global warming for years. Try watching The Weather Channel for a while–or do you subscribe to Senator Inhofe’s theory that The Weather Channel is in it for the RATINGS!
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pmLast I checked the Weather Channel has a hard time accurately predicting the weather more than 5 days out. So if you could provide me with their extended forecast for the next 50 years I would be interested.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pmDidn’t the weather channel state that the 2006 Hurricane Season was going to be very bad?
What Hurricane Season? (2006)
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmComment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
First, I doubt whether you’d actually be interested; second, why should I “provide you” with anything? Check it out yourself, troll.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 pmI have been a habitual naturalist for some 50 years now, and have also been blessed with a good, albeit often selective memory.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 pm(My favorite ignore-ance is the rather rapid cycle of pop culture)
I have my own chronicles of nature, climate, and human activity, and I can clearly state that humans have irrefutably had an (adverse) effect on this planet and its natural systems, are continuing to affect the planet, and that the effects have become exponential.
You guys can never provide any evidence of anything. I like the empty statements void of any facts or verifiable scientific evidence.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pmTalk with people living in Europe about the change in their climate.
Talk with the Innuit who live above the tree line in Canada about the change in their climate.
In the states, we have seen some of the effects of global change. In other places it is quite significant.
We, as a country, tend to only look inward, but there’s a whole world out there. And each locale has differing changes. And it’s hard to ignore when people are seeing huge changes that are taking place in a fraction of their lifetimes.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pmUse your eyes, ears, nose, hands and brain.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pmWow, the scientific evidence is overwhelming me.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pmJust an FYI you cannot “notice” climate change since it happens over decades and centuries. Emotion has nothing to do with Science. Your kids will be fine relax.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 pmYes, well, I wasn’t imagining it would take much….
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pmhttp://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-real.html
Go there. Then go to hell.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pmHere watch some videos so you can stop worrying about this nonsense and focus on something important:
Global Warming Videos
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 pmDo you really think that we believe in man-made global warming simply because of a MOVIE?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Well he would, so you must. Right?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pmI have 5 decades of noticing changes, in society, climate, and the world in general. (Hey, that’s a half century!)
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 pmYes, it is possible to notice.
You won’t notice any changes at all if you simply saturate your brain with what you find on a flat screen on the table in front of your couch.
You wake up late one night.
You smell smoke in the air.
You see a shadow of something flickering downstairs.
There is no incontrovertable evidence that your house is on fire, so go back to sleep.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 pmJane,
Yes Global Warming is real in that the Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. But none of it has been proven to be cause by man-made CO2 and nothing about it is catastrophic. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the years:
Ice Core Records
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 pmBush — clueless?!
OMG
Cheney — conniving and deceitful?!
OMFG
The public, the media and the congress yawning — SSDD
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 pmThere is no incontrovertable evidence that your house is on fire, so go back to sleep.
Comment by RUCerious
One can only be certain when the house is in ashes — and everyone is dead.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 pmI like empty statements void of any facts or verifiable evidence.
Comment by EPA
S’plains why you’re a Con…
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 pmDo any of you know anything about Computer Science or Computer Modeling which all the Hysteria is based on? Because you would realize how ridiculous it is to think that someone using incomplete science and data could predict the future on a computer.
Interesting how Satellite Data does not show any significant warming of the Troposphere:
Accurate “Thermometers” in Space
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:27 pmhttp://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes.html
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmExtra Polluted Airhead~
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmDo you teach computer science? Or do you just practice it at work?
I gotta hand it to EPA, he’s the little train that could….
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmInteresting how Satellite Data does not show any significant warming of the Troposphere:
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007
Interesting how Scientific Data does not show any significant intelligence in the Trollosphere
There, fixed it for ya!
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pmHere’s a fact or two.
The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800’s; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of temperature rise is “consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century.” By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 pmInteresting how Satellite Data does not show any significant warming in outer space (:{
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pmJane,
Notice this key statement:
“The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans.”
They don’t know what is causing the warming so they simply assume it is Man-made CO2. REAL science is proven via the scientific method and cannot be disputed.
Alternative arguments: Richard S. Lindzen
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pmIf Greenhouse Theory is accurate you would know that the Troposphere would be as warm or warmer than the surface which is how the whole theory is based. Which means there needs to be an alternate explanation for the warming seen on the surface, which turns out is man-made:
How Not to Measure Temperature
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 pmREAL science is proven via the scientific method and cannot be disputed.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pmBullshit.
Real science postulates theories. Theories are then tested using the scientific method.
If the preponderance of evidence substantiates the theory, it is generally accepted.
A theory does not have to be proven absolutely and without dispute to be valid.
You sound like a fu(king creationist.
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Did you look at your chart!?!
Just on a visual glance, Co2 and Temperatures parallel each other.
And, at the extreme right edge, Co2 takes a major spike, rising higher than temperatures.
If the previous 450,000 years are any guide, the average temperatures are soon going to soar off the chart!
Anyone with any sense at all would see, by those charts, that we should be doing all we can to reduce Co2, or move to higher ground!
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pmMy, my, EPA, you seem awfully dogmatic for a “scientist”
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pmBnF ~ maybe we should just let this asshat talk to himself.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 pmIt’s also interesting to note, according to EPA’s chart, that the Co2 level has increased steadily since the dawn of the agricultural era, circa 10,000 B.C.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pmNow that sounds like a plan, Cerious. You can’t change the mind of someone who doesn’t possess one that functions.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pmComment by RUCerious — June 23, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
I hadn’t seen your post… well said.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pmAs for outer space:
Mars (NASA)
New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune’s largest moon (Triton) (MIT)
Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
– Mars Global Surveyor Team
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 pmThe notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?
And here is a precise example of the convoluted, non-sensical, metaphorical twisted gibberish that the industry supported climate non-scientists spew to try and sell the average person their product of disinformation and deceit.
Christie Todd Whitman, a former EPA head who resigned to head off personal scandal, now has a pro-oil lobbying firm.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 pmThanks PRIMVS.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 pmSometimes it’s just better to open all the windows and let the breeze blow through.
Really why? You do realize that the CO2 changes lag temperature changes by 800 years. As in Temperature changes first than CO2 levels change. If CO2 drove temperatures in the past and was the primary driver they would have gone up exponentially in the past but they didn’t.
CO2 vs temperature: ice core correlation & lag
This is proven via a Peer Review Paper:
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Read better next time.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm– Mars Global Surveyor Team
Comment by EPA
So?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pmRuC,
I think it’s chart speaks volumns:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
There appears to be a distinct correlation between Co2 and temperture.
And Co2 is higher than it has been in 450,000 years. If this chart is predictive, then we all should move to higher ground.
Adjusting for high tide, about 300′ elevation should be ok, except for storm surges.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pmComment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Hey, go easy on the jelly beans there, EPA!
What if the solar system IS heating up?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 pmDoes that mean we should ignore our own contributions to the problem here on this planet, and just say, oh well?
LOL
Next, you’ll certainly deny that we are causing global warming on Mars…
LOL
Whitman is a paid whore just like every appointee that Bush installed in every supposed protective agency from public safety to the FDA and beyond. If there was an agency for sale, he sold us out.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 pmRead better next time.
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
EPA knows his “Bible of Pseudo-Science” by heart… cover to cover!
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pmRead better next time.
Comment by EPA
And at least try to stay w/in the lines when coloring the pictures.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pmBriseadh,
You completely ignored my comments to spread your unscientific fear mongering.
CO2 vs temperature: ice core correlation & lag
The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years.
The IPCC States:
Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 20th century is in the range 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pmMistress Z~
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 pmJust posted a diary entry on KOS regarding our EPA buddy.
251, in the past, according to your chart, Co2 never exceeded warming. Now, according to your chart, it does. We’re working with a model your chart cannot account for.
Bottom line: Co2 and warming are correlated, mankind is pumping inordinate ammounts of Co2 into the atmosphere; warming is going to follow, due to mankind’s actions.
Perhaps you’re one of the lucky ones, whose purchased beach-front property, in Colorado!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 pmMistress Z~
Just posted a diary entry on KOS regarding our EPA buddy.
Comment by RUCerious
Lordy, you’re a fast worker!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 pmThe Sun and Global Warming
What contributions? Wanting something (CO2) to be the cause does not make it so.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 pmis like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine …
Comment by heyzeus — June 23, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 pmSpeaking from personal experience, “faith healing,” as described in Reiki and Shamanism, works.
EPA, your house is on fire, but don’t worry, nor do anything about it, as it isn’t a man made fire.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 pmDamn electrical wiring anyhoo.
#180
ROFL! Yet they consume huge quantities of fuel, almost as much as Gore and Edwards.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pmIf EPA would be so kind as to tell us where he teaches computer science, I’d like to warn my students to put it on their ignore list for transfers…
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pmWhat if the solar system IS heating up?
Does that mean we should ignore our own contributions to the problem here on this planet, and just say, oh well?
If paying huge taxes is the duty of the rich, cutting emissions should be the duty of the poor.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pmSo, do we know for sure what happens when the Co2 increase preceedes the temperture increase? Studies show that a Co2 rise will cause a temperture rise (the greenhouse effect), thus negating all your historical data showing an 800 year time-lag.
Mankind has altered the equation by dumping enormous ammounts of Co2 into the atmosphere in a geolocigally short period of time.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm( ) ……… there, I cut an emmission just for you, m12!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pmIf paying huge taxes is the duty of the rich, cutting emissions should be the duty of the poor.
Comment by m12
How did you make your way to that stunning piece of logic, babes?
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pmUm NO. I already explained the coorelation. Temperatures change THEN CO2 changes, not the other way around. Thus there is no scientific evidence that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere will do anything.
Here look at this chart:
Estimated Clear Sky Greenhouse Effect from Doubling of CO2
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pmcutting emissions should be the duty of the poor.
Comment by m12
Quit eating cabbage and beans, you’ll cut emissions quite a bit, pal…
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 pmComing to the party a little late, but have any of the folks EPA cites as disputing man-made global warming ever taken funds from energy industries?
I think I’ll take a look…
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pmIf their was smoke in the air the smoke detectors would go off before I smelled anything, alerting me to the problem. Which then would allow me to investigate. If I saw a fire that was out of control I would get me and my family out of the house immediately and call 911. If I found out my kid burnt popcorn in the microwave I would not call 911 and start running down the street screaming we are all going to die, god help us all, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pmBarfly don’t bother, they are all in the pockets of big oil. Everyone of them . It is all a big conspiracy by Cheney and Booosh to kill your grandchildren via pumping CO2 into the air while he figures out a way to stop those damn trees from turning it back into oxygen.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pmHow to grow a moron. Add 4 parts money and 1 part brains. Toss in a heavy dose of greed and entitlement and less than a pinch of ability to use that 1 part brain. Shake vigorously. Viola!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm“Barfly don’t bother, they are all in the pockets of big oil. Everyone of them .”
So, if I find a few that are, you’ll remove them from your “list?”
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pmI had no idea morons could make money. That sort of defeats the point of the public education system.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 pmWhy? They are all behind 911 too. Oh and they don’t think the Holocaust happened. Plus the universities that gave them their degrees were paid for by big oil too.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm#273
Why bother? I’ll let the global warming fearmongerers and the UN worry about the problem.
Maybe I should buy a Hummer and slap a Bush/Cheney sticker on it.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 pm#271
Don’t lefties have some mantra about shared burden, shared duty, and shared sacrifice?
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 pmWhy? They are all behind 911 too. Oh and they don’t think the Holocaust happened. Plus the universities that gave them their degrees were paid for by big oil too.
Comment by EPA
As I thought. How interested in “the truth” are you, if you’re not willing to remove any questionable “authorities?” And this is before I’ve even found one. What rhetorical gymnastics will you attempt if I actually find one?
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 pm“Questionable Authorities”? The Science doesn’t change because some smear site claims some source of funding is from an energy company. I already told you they are all paid by big oil. Greenpeace is funded by The Rockerfellers does that make you question their claims?
I am not going to remove a Scientist based on some smear sites claims.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 pm“There is still time to seek help:
Welcome to ‘Apocaholics Anonymous’”
Comment by EPA
Are there a lot of pant-wetting Islamophobe conservatives there? Judging by the name, I would think it would be their second home.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 pmDon’t lefties have some mantra about shared burden, shared duty, and shared sacrifice?
Comment by m12
The poor don’t have enough of a burden already…..being poor and all.
Is that it?
Jackass.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm“The Science doesn’t change because some smear site claims some source of funding is from an energy company.”
Actually, there are many examples where Big Business funding did change scientists views – or did you forget about the “science” put forth by “scientists” from the tobbacco industry, and the pharmaceutical industry?
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pmScience verifiable via the Scientific Method doesn’t change.
You are right about the money though:
Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex
Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’ paid to firm he owns
June 24th, 2007 at 12:05 am#286
So I guess shared burden, shared duty, and shared sacrifice for the good of society only applies to some people. Good. I’d like an exemption!
June 24th, 2007 at 12:16 amThe EPA is starting to recycle its links to Factual Fantasy Land
June 24th, 2007 at 12:22 amheyzeus, I think his zeroes are starting to become ones.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:24 amstop those damn trees from turning it back into oxygen.
Comment by EPA — June 23, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Anyone remember when Reagan claimed that trees were the biggest source of pollution?
June 24th, 2007 at 12:26 am“Anyone remember when Reagan claimed that trees were the biggest source of pollution?”
No, I never heard that one, what was the occasion that he burped out that one?
June 24th, 2007 at 12:29 amComment by EPA — June 24, 2007 @ 12:05 am
It’s bad enough you link to FUD News Channel for your backup, but to link to WorldNetDaily??? They are purely a conservative propaganda site without any interest in publishing facts. They are interested in pushing ideology. Please, try linking to someone with a broadly-based reputation for honesty, okay? (And, no, The Washington Times doesn’t count, either.)
June 24th, 2007 at 12:30 amPlease try to dispute the facts not the sources.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:37 amSo I guess shared burden, shared duty, and shared sacrifice for the good of society only applies to some people.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 12:16 am
Really? Tell that to Bush!
June 24th, 2007 at 12:40 amHey, EPA person, lighten up, ok?
June 24th, 2007 at 12:41 amI mean, global warming ain’t gonna happen over night, right?
Relax, come on up to the next thread and loosen up a little, I mean, your house ain’t gonna float away tomorrow,
no matter whose fault it is…
mine, yours (most likely) or Gods.
C’mon up and tell a joke or two!
When certain people or groups are well known for distorting the facts and twisting tidbits of information, there is little reason to believe that they are ever 100% trustworthy. You’ve heard of the boy who cried wolf? Both of your sources are known distorters and manipulators of the truth to advance a conservative (and often wrong) agenda. They have earned our distrust.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:42 amSo I guess shared burden, shared duty, and shared sacrifice for the good of society only applies to some people. Good. I’d like an exemption!
Comment by m12
You’ve already exempted yourself — from humanity.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:45 amThe one distorter of the truth I know is Al Gore, with a proven history.
The Gore Lies
heyzeus do the math on 1-2mm of documented sea level rise over 100 years and tell me if you come close to the 20ft/m catastrophy claimed by the Goracle.
Look up the facts yourself. Look for real data that shows something, anything and you will not find anything catastrophic outside of a computer model. Maybe hear what Economist Bjorn Lomborg has to say.
And no matter how bad Chanbo (RUCerious) trys to spin it man-made global warming is an unproven theory. That is a fact.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:54 amEPA,
Please educate yourself about the scientific method, and scientific theory.
Geez….
June 24th, 2007 at 1:15 amEPA, blow it out your ass. You try to present “proof” in the form of notoriously innaccurate sources and when i called you out on it, you decide not to refute what I said, but to bring up someone else. Again, that’s a strawman argument. FUD news and World Net Daily are partisan, republican-supporting liars. Plane and simple.
Save your fingers responding back. I’m going to bed. You’ve failed to persuade me.
By the way, we aren’t claiming global warming is “man-made” (another strawman), we’re saying that human activities over the past century (since around the start of the industrial revolution when pollution-generating machines were all the rage) have indisputably contributed to the problem.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:16 amYou stating a source is inaccurate does not make it so. Why not go investigate and see if Al Gore really is an owner of a Carbon Credit company. I am sure you would if this was Booosh! Wayne all you can do is ad hominen attack because I long ago in this post destroyed your points about global warming. There is no proof that man-made CO2 is contributing to the “problem” or if there is even a problem. I have provided plenty of sources to back up my claims, including REAL scientists. But of course they are all paid by big oil.
It is impossible to persuade anyone as closed minded as yourself who refuses to look at scientific evidence before leaping off the cliff, screaming “we are all going to die”.
Maybe the Messiah should follow his own advice:
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge
George W. Bush’s eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore’s energy-expending mansion = True
Al Gore’s residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True
Can someone provide me evidence verifiable via the scientific method that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change? I didn’t think so. And anyone reading this better go look at the evidence they do have for wanting to increase your taxes to “Save the Planet”.
As George Carlin would say…. The Planey is Fine
June 24th, 2007 at 1:33 amheyzeus do the math on 1-2mm of documented sea level rise over 100 years and tell me if you come close to the 20ft/m catastrophy claimed by the Goracle.
Comment by EPA
This is where you get stuck, EPA,
June 24th, 2007 at 1:45 amBy believing (totally and exclusively) in a rigid, formulatic structure for conducting science.
You leave no room for variables, anomalies, or mystery.
And, yes, mystery is a key component of science.
If you no longer have mystery, you no longer have a quest for knowledge.
Wow! I go out for some hours and come back to find EPA still here clipping and pasting his favorite anti-global warming BS. I hope you are being paid for your efforts, E(normously)P(athetic)A(ss..le).
June 24th, 2007 at 2:05 amI realize you have some big problem with Al Gore, but, unfortunately for you, most–if not all–of us believed that global warming is occuring long before Al Gore made that movie. Also. in my own case, as a professional translator/interpreter, I have worked at several international conferences with some of the world’s leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners. Oh, yes, you can dig up one professor at MIT who denies global warming, but I have met several times that number from MIT–not to mention from leading universities in Europe and Japan who all acknowledge global warming and are trying to do something about it.
Lora, LMFAO. LOVE the Enormously Pathetic A$$hole line. That rocks!!
June 24th, 2007 at 2:27 amMs.Joanne,
June 24th, 2007 at 2:37 amGlad to give you some laughter. If you have followed most of my previous posts here, you will notice that I seldom resort to name-calling, but sometimes the urge (as with EnormouslyPatheticAXXhole) is simply too much to resist.
I try to…but some people are just so f*cking stupid I can’t contain myself sometimes.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:54 am#296
The President who has paid more than his fair share of taxes over the last 7 years?
June 24th, 2007 at 10:15 am#303
George Bush is an environmental hero for owning such a house.
I remember posting a thread on Democratic Underground talking about that house and it’s owner, Viggo Mortenson. All the lefties gave the owner great praise. Then I told them I made a “mistake” with the owner, and they ate their words.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:17 amI wouldn’t be so hard on yourself. I realize you make yourself feel better by ignoring the argument because you don’t have the brain power to win but hey more power to the ignorant. I think you should try some more unwitty acronyms.
Yeah ok Lora you met all these “Scientists” but cannot name one. Oh I met a million who all say you are stupid they also attended MIT.
m12, the hypocrisy is evident. Their inner irrational hatred for Booosh! clouds their judgement. Latching on to the Global Warming Religion is their only hope to “feel better” about the sad state of their lives. When confronted with the scientific facts and evidence they name call and cry because they never could win a logical debate with facts. Maybe we should go back to an emotional argument:
Oh looky the cute Polar Bear eats a Baby Seal pup alive:
Polar Bear kills Seal pup
Look how the poor bear crushes the baby seal pup’s skull and eats it’s flesh. Save the Polar Bear!!! Save the Polar Bear!!! To hell with the defenseless baby seals!!! Come on Lora, MsJoanne how about I show this to your kids in elementary school.!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:44 amEPA,
First, I question why you have devoted so much of your time to fighting this issue. You appear to have taken a few hours of your Saturday to rehash the standard right-wing talking points on climate change. I do question your motives. I know it is an easy knee-jerk reaction to say that your type are in the pay of the oil companies, but there is ample evidence to show that Exxon and others have provided MILLIONS to fund your brand of ’science’. It’s funny how you ignore the key premise of this article, that Cheney pushed something based on ideology rather than on science. Indeed, that’s been a hallmark of this administration. You are acting just like Cheney yourself.
I don’t have the time to take on all of your arguments but I will provide my own list of scientific organizations that have taken the consensus position on global warming (below). Let’s see you name a single scientific organization that has taken your side.
The most important problem with your arguments is your thrashing of the scientific method. You bash ‘consensus’ on one hand and on the other hand try to list scientists who are on your side as some kind of proof. In fact, the way science operates ‘consensus’ is all we have. I would argue that almost all of those arguing your side, yourself included, are doing so based on political or economic reasons and not out of an interest in scientific inquiry. Are you going to deny that Cheney has a very strong relationship with the energy companies? It’s so bad that he had to fight a Supreme Court battle to keep these relationships hidden.
No one can PROVE the existence of atoms, that evolution occurred or that Einstein’s relativity is correct. So, by your standards all of those items should be up for debate. Yet, these are standards of scientific thinking today. Why? Because the CONSENSUS over numerous years of scientific study has concluded that these theories are valid. And yes, we still call them ‘theories’ because, unlike religious thinking, we acknowledge that we could be wrong.
I imagine if three or four doctors said that, based on the evidence, you had an appendicitis, you would argue that they can’t prove it. Indeed, they can’t prove it. They could be wrong. You argue that the ‘consensus’ of these doctors doesn’t mean anything. That’s not the way science is done! And so you take no action and die.
The fact that so many scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus position is compelling. Given that they’ve still held their own depsite the intense efforts of the energy companies AND the Bush administration is doubly compelling.
We are seeing the effects of global warming right now and these effects will only be magnified over the next few decades since those in power haven chosen to do NOTHING about it. Given that there’s at least a good chance of this happening, don’t you think we should be concerned and do something about it?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
June 24th, 2007 at 11:13 amJoint science academies’ statement 2005
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
Australian Medical Association
American Chemical Society
American Quaternary Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
I have posted numerous policy statements from scientific organizations on climate change. I don’t link to sites like Junk Science which have known funding from industries such as tobacco.
Looking back at your numerous posts you like to pick and choose little pieces of knowledge like global warming on Pluto to try and create doubt about the reality of the situation. Let’s just look at the summary position of the American Meterological Association. For some odd reason, I trust these guys to tell me more about climate than you.
“Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.”
Source: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
Let’s see you find a valid scientific organization that makes a corresponding quote taking your position.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:25 amFor those of you who haven’t read the article this whole thread is about, please do. It is a really good piece.
What this thread should be all about is how our administration consistently ignored the scientific consensus to argue the other side. Even if you argue that both arguments carry the same weight (which I don’t agree with), one has to ask why the administration clung so hard to the non-consensus position. It couldn’t have anything to do with our administrations strong ties to the energy companies could it Mr. EPA?
What EPA is de facto arguing is that the Bush administration was right to ignore the scientific consensus because the consensus is wrong. While I wholeheartedly disagree with that, I think the more important point is that his line of arguing is an attempt to distract us from the main premise – that our adminstration consistently and deliberately took a position that ignored warnings from professional scientists and favored positions that were generated by the energy companies.
The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/1
June 24th, 2007 at 12:04 pmVinnie ~ Well done~!
June 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pmm12, you know damned well that I was referring to Bush’s idea of “shared sacrifice” is ‘the American people having to see the war in Iraq on TV’, then ‘go shopping.’ And I seriously, seriously doubt that Bush has been paying “more than his fair share of taxes” for the last 7 years, or at any time in his life.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pmm12, you know damned well that I was referring to Bush’s idea of “shared sacrifice†is ‘the American people having to see the war in Iraq on TV’, then ‘go shopping.’ And I seriously, seriously doubt that Bush has been paying “more than his fair share of taxes†for the last 7 years, or at any time in his life.
His tax returns are public. Look them up yourself.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:36 pmYeah ok Lora you met all these “Scientists†but cannot name one. Oh I met a million who all say you are stupid they also attended MIT.
Look how the poor bear crushes the baby seal pup’s skull and eats it’s (SIC) flesh. Save the Polar Bear!!!
Comment by EPA
You didn’t name one either, EPA. You also can’t capitalize, punctuate, and write run-on sentences just like the troll posing as various Dem presidents.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pmBTW, “it’s” is the contraction of “it is,” smarty-pants. Ever heard of the personal pronoun “its,” E(normously)P(athetic)A(..hole)? I didn’t think so.
Vinnie,
Any theory not proven is up for debate. You would not have to post statements and consensus viewpoints if you could prove man-made CO2 is causing climate change. You are completely contradicting yourself. What am I seeing right now, what effects? Are you going to tell me sea level rise will be catastrophic when the IPCC who you list states it will not be? Make up your mind. The only person you are fooling with your long winded replies are the ones already fooled by the man-made global warming religion.
That is because you cannot. Not a single person here has been able to argue the science of this not even remotely. Prove to me via the Scientific Method Man-Made CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change.
You cannot and any intelligent, rational and scientifically minded person should realize this before they go jumping off the cliff with you.
This administration took positions on the environment that were provable. CO2 is not a pollutant = fact. Blaming big oil and energy companies for all your woes is a copout and designed to get people to not look at the lack of provable scientific evidence supporting man-made CO2 causing catastrophic climate change. I have made many more points than just planets in our solar system undergoing climate change.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
FACT: CO2 is not a pollutant. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
Quick Facts:
- Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C in the last 100 years.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:38 am- Global mean sea level has risen about 0.17m (6.6in) in the last 100 years.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) = about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually.
- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) changes lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years.
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4% of the greenhouse effect.
- Water accounts for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect.
- Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory.
- There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change.
- Science is not determined by “consensus” but by the Scientific Method.
The seemingly programmed robotic troll E(xceptionally)P(athetic)A(..) keeps on repeating the same lines cribbed from anti-global warming sites and mentions over and over “the Scientific Method.” Are we to believe that there is only one Scientific Method in this world? If so, why can’t the troll explain what it is? (I suppose he will be rushing to another one of the sites he cribs from to find a definition.)
June 25th, 2007 at 10:30 amI also found it amusing that he cut and pasted a list of famous college
dropouts who believe global warming exists, as if that proves his point. I thought the rightwingers cling to the words of college dropouts like Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc.
EPA is best ignored as a waste of time.
It’s interesting that you keep claiming that there is no consensus. And, it wouldn’t matter anyway because that’s not the scientific method. Of course, THERE IS CONSENSUS!! I posted a list of scientific organizations that have taken the consensus position. I’m still waiting for the list of organizations taking your side. If you’re right, why does the American Meteorological Society feel differently? Are they all just being duped? Come on, these are the people who should know about this stuff.
If I really thought it would make a difference I would supply some of the very wide body of evidence indicating that global warming is real and is man-made. But you are interested in nothing more than creating doubt about the issue. Since you demand ‘proof’, I won’t ever be able to convince you.
I do question the motives of global warming deniers like yourself. Below is a link to a list of organizations that Exxon has provided money to to the tune of over $8 million. Do you deny that Exxon has a vested economic interest in this debate and has been doing what they can to create doubt about the issue?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
Answer us honestly, have you ever had any affiliation with any of the organizations listed in this list? If not, please explain why you are so interested in this topic. How did you come across this site? It’s kind of odd that you’ve never posted here before and now all of a sudden you go on and on with the standard right-wing global warming denier talking points.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:42 amHi!
June 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pmNot being a credited scientist or PHD or top of the line professional, I try harder to find the honest and basic provable facts.
1. Volcanos have disrupted the Earth’s atmosphere in the past by emitting dust and gas into the air, leading to crop failures and famine.
2. Volcanos continue to exist today, spewing hot air and dust and gas into the Atmosphere.
3. Major cities such as Paris, London, Montreal, New York, Toronto, Berlin, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc, continue to create hot spots of heat, dust, Methane and C02 gas, in conjunction with today’s active Volcanos.
4. Scientific measurements taken over decades prove that Artic Ice is melting. Sweden and Switzerland have documented Glacier melt.
5. Scientific measurements taken over decades have and continue to prove that Glaciers around the World are melting and have receded.
6. No matter what the percentage of Human caused global warming, we have zero choice but to stop it now before the Mean temperature of the Planet increases one or two or more degrees.
7. Crop failure and plant extinction will lead to our own extinction, though some Tube Worms at the bottom of the Ocean may survive to continue another life cycle, but that is conjecture.
8. The industrial and military systems of the United States run on Oil.
So it’s bad enough the bastard ruined the US’s reputation for a generation, but he is a Macchiavel of the first class. Nice.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pmEPA: Are you a climate scientist? No? Then why should I believe what YOU say about Global warming? [Don't you hate it when the republican talking points can be used against you, EPA?] The fact that you keep on trying to bash Gore (shooting the messenger), shows how little facts you have to support your “argument”.
Show me ONE peer-reviewed paper which refutes either a)global warming, or b) human-caused global warming. If you can do that, I might believe that there is evidence for an alternate global warming theory. If you can’t do that (and we know you can’t!), then have some integrity and admit that you are wrong.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pmEPA,
June 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pmYou might notice that your silly attempt to shock us with a scene of polar bear eating a baby seal had absolutely no effect. Polar bears are carnivores–meaning that they eat the flesh of other animals to survive, just as lions eat gazelles and other animals in the wild. Just because I don’t enjoy watching a polar bear or a lion catch and eat another animal doesn’t mean that I think the bears, lions, tigers, etc. should be killed off or allowed to go extinct.
BTW, as for my not giving specific names of scientists I have met, I did point out that I went to a (free) screening of “An Inconvenient Truth” earlier this month on the campus of what is considered the best university in Asia and number 12 in the world. You could have looked up the name of the university as well as the name of its president who was also at the screening, but I gather it is too much for you to go beyond repeating anti-global warming talking points and do your own research,
E(normously)P(athetic)A(ssh..e). ããŸã°ã‚Œã€è¶…阿呆ï¼
(to EPA) How did you come across this site? It’s kind of odd that you’ve never posted here before and now all of a sudden you go on and on with the standard right-wing global warming denier talking points.
Comment by Vinnie —
Vinnie,
June 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pmI think EPA is probably not a new troll here but someone who has been trolling here before and is now using yet a different name. To wit, when EPA lifts material wholesale from anti-global warming and rightwing sites, the sentences start with a capital letter and end with a period, in accordance with the rules of English punctuation. When writing on his own, his sentences usually start with lower case letters, don’t use periods or commas and run on into what should be other sentences. This is exactly the way the troll who posed recently as Clinton, Harry Truman, FDR writes.
Of course, it is possible that this is just another uneducated rightwing troll who has never learned about capitalizing letters and where to demarcate sentences. I can’t dismiss that possiblity, either.
Ah yes, Mr. Richard Cheney. The idiot who betrayed a number of
national security, nuclear weapon secrets in his foolish rush to announce
controlled fusion way back in March 2002.
The man also has plans for something like 1,200 new nuclear plants.
The fact is, the United States could cut back its fossil fuel consumption by 75% by simple conservation measures……
Better use of rail, better housing insulation, combined heat hot water, power generation, etcetera.
Then there are bio-fuels such as the new MPG recarbonization system, new breakthourghs in Aqueous fuels. The MPG – Fischer Tropsch re-carbonization system obtains 200 liters or 1.25 barrels of finished gasoline,
diesel or kerosine for every cubic meter of wet bio-mass garbage wastes going in. (including sewage sludge, thank you.) Add that to breakthourghs in aqueous fuels running off of no less than 70% bio-fuel and 30% water, and you are off fossil fuels at a profit.
We could be off fossil fuels at a big fat profit for everybody by 2026. Ecology and economy are not contradictions in terms.
The dot com boom is over. But the New Energy boom is just getting started. Let Cheney deny all he wants, but the money is in “New Energy Systems”.
Here in Europe, we have an intact rail and functioning state of the art rail system my countrymen in the U.S. would envy. So re-build rail for a start.
Provides jobs and rail employees pay taxes.
The solutions are under our noses. All we have to do to “smell them” is to stop kissing “neo-con” asses like Cheney`s and go on doing our own particular things respective to New Energy. Go for it.
All the Best: Old Fashioned Lincoln Liberal….. with great hopes in New Energy Technologies.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pmPeer-Review Papers Disputing Man-Made Global Warming Theory:
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA)
- Benjamin D. Pearson (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA)
- S. Fred Singer (Science & Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, Virginia, USA)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science 5, Vol. 291. no. 5501, January 2001)
- Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate
(GSA Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel)
- Ján Veizer (Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität, 44780 Bochum, Germany, and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada)
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
- Christopher Essex (Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario)
- Ross McKitrick (Department of Economics, University of Guelph)
- Bjarne Andresen (Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen)
Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)
- David R. Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA)
- Sallie L. Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)
Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds
(Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, vol. 462, Issue 2068, 2006)
- Harrison, R. Giles; Stephenson, David B
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007)
- Charles A. Perrya (US Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS, USA)
Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 2273-2283, 2004)
- F. Yu (Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, USA)
Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Journal Advances in Space Research, 2007)
- Joan Feynmana, (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CA Institute of Technology, California, USA)
Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA)
- Joan Feynman (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA)
- Yuk L. Yung (Department of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA)
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel)
On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 8, PAGES 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton (School of Chemistry Physics and Environmental Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom)
- Martin C. Todd (Department of Geography, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom)
Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel (Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colorado, USA)
- G. W. Lockwood (Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA)
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
(physics/0612145v1, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark (Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center)
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
- William B. Norris (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
- Roy W. Spencer (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA)
- Justin J. Hnilo (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)
Ouch that has to hurt…
July 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm