Comments on: White House ‘Eviscerates’ CDC Director’s Senate Testimony On Global Warming

By: donaldmaddog

donaldmaddog — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:23:49 +0000

This is my first time posting so, if you will, be gentle. First of all let me
proudly proclaim that I am a liberal. Some of us should go to Wikipedia
and read what a liberial actually IS. Then read what a conservative is.
Of course, there will be “bleeding heart” liberials and “right wing” con-
servatives and several shades in-between. After we have all done our
research, perhaps a re-reading of the constitution would be in order,
since that is the document upon which our country’s ideals are based.
As a liberal, I trust that document to guide our great country, especially
in times of peril. Like now, for example. Consider for a moment the
possibility of a new HUAC. Who would be most likely to be brought be-
for that committee for “un-american” acts? Who would be the most
likely charged with treason? Just asking….

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:21:50 +0000

And the argument “when the ill effects of global warming begin to happen, we will deal with it” is false because—–it IS happening and this administration is doing nothing except going after other countries’ OIL.

New Orleans was lost. California is burning NOW. Atlanta may have no more water in 80 days.

By: foreyes

foreyes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:25:30 +0000

Well researched may as well be garbage, if not well received and understood and appreciated.

Hits

Comment by hits â€” October 24, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

Hits, do you understand that by stating the above you a making yourself sound, scientifically speaking, like an ignorant fool. How can anything that is well researched be garbage? But, of course, when you say “well received” you are implying that people like you will only appreciate to hear what YOU want to hear even if it is GARBAGE.

By: foreyes

foreyes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:15:48 +0000

Correction: should have said “reasonable”

By: foreyes

foreyes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:14:53 +0000

Comment by hits â€” October 24, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

Well, at least that sounds ressonable. There’s still some hope for you.

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:34:36 +0000

So, you have already dismissed the possibility that my statement can be true, without even considering an evaluation.
Comment by hits â€” October 24, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

I have the “temerity” because you didn’t present anything to back up what you said. Nothing.

So, now, you have the temerity to lecture people about being open to scientific rationale and logic? The irony is remarkable!

One thing is open-mindedness and another is playing your little game of “I challenge you to prove me wrong”. If you have anything in the way of evidence to back up what you said, present it. Otherwise, I will repeat myself: Anyone can spout nonsense, as you have proven. Once again.

By: hits

hits — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:05:11 +0000

Gregor Samsa,

Your first statement goes thusly – “anyone can spout nonsense”. So, you have already dismissed the possibility that my statement can be true, without even considering an evaluation. So, now, you have the temerity to lecture people about being open to scientific rationale and logic? The irony is remarkable!

And, I meant “well received”, not “well researched”. Well researched may as well be garbage, if not well received and understood and appreciated.

Hits

By: hits

hits — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:02:22 +0000

Foreyes,

The thread is indeed not about me. My opinion about the way the WH treated the lady is that she has a choice – to quit if she disagrees. By not doing so, she espouses the WH opinion, and in doing so, negates your perceived sympathy for her!

Hits

By: sdunes

sdunes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:52:50 +0000

And action without knowledge is stupidity.

Comment by hits â€” October 24, 2007 @ 8:51 am

And inaction with knowledge is the height of stupidity.

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:36:10 +0000

Little Miss Perino has rejected the argument that the WH redacted 10 pages of the report. She said the WH only “suggested” changes and the CDC did it themselves.
Anyone believe that?
It must have been a lunchtime joke.

By: LividLib

LividLib — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:20:21 +0000

Articles?
Were those â€œarticlesâ€ written by climatologists and published in peer-reviwed journals?

TCDon,
You are not credible.

Comment by LividLib â€” October 24, 2007 @ 1:18 pm

Correction – peer-reviewed.

By: LividLib

LividLib — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:19:13 +0000

Gregor Samsa,

Thank you for your posts!

By: LividLib

LividLib — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:18:17 +0000

That cannot be true LL, when TP deletes most rational posts from the Right, and only leaves those that it thinks can be easily attacked (some of which are probably posted by Leftest pretending to be conservatives). Letâ€™s see how long before this post gets deleted. BTW, if you want to learn something about the subject of â€œglobal warming,â€ you may want to read some of the 224 + articles linked here. http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html

Comment by TCDon â€” October 24, 2007 @ 9:48 am

Articles?
Were those “articles” written by climatologists and published in peer-reviwed journals?

TCDon,
You are not credible.

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:59:01 +0000

VerbalKint, I explictly challenge you to show me one specific piece of well received work that contradicts my statement.
Comment by hits â€” October 24, 2007 @ 9:41 am

I think you are putting logic on its head. Anyone can spout nonsense, as you have proven.

You are the one who made the statement, the burden is on you to bring evidence to support it. Preferably, it should meet your own standard of “well received work” -by which I think you meant “well researched”.

Otherwise it’s just an opinion lacking any basis on facts, or reality.

By: foreyes

foreyes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:35:11 +0000

if you want to learn something about the subject of â€œglobal warming,â€ you may want to read some of the 224 + articles linked here.

Comment by TCDon â€” October 24, 2007 @ 9:48 am

Imagine that, TCDon wants us to learn about global warming from the articles selected by some sh*thead radio talk show host who runs “The
Schnitt Show”. Seriously folks, “The Schnitt Show” is TC’s source for scientific facts.

How does it go? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

By: foreyes

foreyes — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:13:26 +0000

It is my complete failure and that of this medium if I am unable to convince you of my rationale.

Thanks
Hits

Comment by hits â€” October 24, 2007 @ 9:45 am

This thread is not about you Mr. hits. It is about a government official being censored by the Bush Regime for daring to address the problem of global warming in its full scope. You’re trying to make people here concentrate on your particular views not on the topic. Now, do you have and opinion on the on the way Dr. Julie Gerberding has been treated by the WH?

By: texaslady

texaslady — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:14:59 +0000

So many are in denial about the radical changes happening. Why is it a yes or no issue instead of something is happening and we all need to be reseaching as to why?

By: hits

hits — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:45:46 +0000

Nevar,

It is my complete failure and that of this medium if I am unable to convince you of my rationale.

Thanks
Hits

By: hits

hits — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:43:51 +0000

Democrat Soldier,

My comments were not specifically directed towards you. They just happened to materialize after your posts. Further, I do not claim to know “everything”. Hell, I don’t even understand the concept of “everything”. Here’s what I do know – that I do NOT know all there is to know.

Thanks
Hits

By: hits

hits — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:41:56 +0000

VerbalKint, I explictly challenge you to show me one specific piece of well received work that contradicts my statement. Mind you, no generics, or “read the National Geographic” allowed. Also, be careful to negate the statement you have challenged. Remember, I have not doubted the existence of global warming, or that we are causing it.