Gingrich uses climate change hearing to personally slam Gore.
Gingrich uses climate change hearing to personally slam Gore.
Today, both Newt Gingrich and Al Gore testified before Congress on the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation. While Gore spent the majority of his time explaining the global warming crisis and how investing in clean energy can simultaneously solve the problems of climate, economy and national security, Gingrich chose to spend his time launching into a set of attacks focused at Gore:
GINGRICH: I am an amateur paleontologist. I would be glad to take the Vice President to the Smithsonian or the American Museum of Natural History, where we can all look at all sorts of marine invertebrate life, which is collected as fossils because in fact, they use carbon quite effectively.
ThinkProgress assembled a compilation of Gingrich’s personal attacks on Gore. Watch it:
As ThinkProgress has noted, Gingrich appeared last year in ads for Gore’s “We” campaign, promoting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Republican members present at the hearing appeared to mimic Gingrich’s strategy, spending their time hurling personal attacks at Gore and his credibility, rather than discussing the legislation or the science underpinning climate change.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gingrich must be sad there’s not a Nobel Prize for lying.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:47 pmNewt is hereby nominated for today’s Dumas Award.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:47 pmWhy is he even sitting in on this panel? Who is he anymore?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:50 pmNewt can’t help himself. Personal attacks are all he knows.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:51 pmNewt has a tiny wiener.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pmNewt has bad hair.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pmNewt cheats on his wife. (all of them)
April 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pmDoes this guy have an “off button?”
April 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pmWhen you have no message of your own, the Republican thing to do is attack the messenger.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pmI am an amateur paleontologist.
Wait, I thought he was an amateur economist, historian, mathemetician. I just wonder what people will say 50 years from now when they view these hearings, it’s like watching a bunch of toddlers.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:55 pmNewt is ethically challenged.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:55 pmIf he is a amateur paleontologist, I guess he needs some more classes.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:55 pmSo we should use carbon as efficiently as marine invertebrates? What a moonbat!
April 24th, 2009 at 5:55 pmNewt is a big tub of lard.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pmIt sounds as though Newt Gingrich is shilling for the oil and gas industry. Shouldn’t Gingrich be registered as a lobbyist?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pmNewt is a stupid doo doo head.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pmnewt misses tom delay.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pmGingrich is known for:
1. Creator of : CONTRACT with America.
2. Author of : CONTRACT with Earth
3. Coming soon : CONTRACT with God.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pmbrothabill Says:
USA sucks
So why are we supposed to care what you think? Why are you telling us what you think? You’re completely wasting your time.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pmdelafield Says:
It sounds as though Newt Gingrich is shilling for the oil and gas industry. Shouldn’t Gingrich be registered as a lobbyist?
I’m assuming he is. There must be some legal mechanism for paying him.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pmbrothabill Says: …..
Who cares?
April 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pmPaleontologist Ha!
April 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pmThese guys are dinosaurs alright.
GINGRICH: I am an amateur paleontologist.
– - Great, Newt, and the GOP is a real dinosaur.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pmbrothabill: I’m alright with “opposing views” but, when you say, “America has no skills. It should die and be replaced.” I must say that you’re wrong.
I have sent an Report Abuse notice because you have provided no value to this discussion. Their is enough hate speak in this world and I suggest you concentrate on your own country (Ireland? Australia?) for now.
Thanks and have a nice day!
April 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pmBrothabill,
Have nothing of substance to add, eh?
Keep at it.
In the rest of the world…I’m curious per M-W.com the definition of Paleontology: a science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from fossil remains
Is Newt renouncing creationism? Errr…I mean intelligent design? What’s the Discovery Institute calling that wedge these days?!?
Fossils, fossils they don’t care ’bout no stinkin’ fossils!
April 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pmI think Newt must be confusing himself with this guy, who is a *real* paleontologist…I wonder what he’d have to say about Newt’s opinion:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/
April 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pmNewt runs on cow flatulence.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:17 pmbrothabill Says:
Hey hey, DR. Drywall!
Can you do an on-line diagnosis for me?
I’ve got some bad nail-pops from the drunken red neck sheet rock crew I hired to do my upstairs.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:18 pmShould I perform surgery myself, or can I grind up a bunch of aspirin and paste over them?
Speaking of fossils…
April 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pmNoseeum, you might have to hire a bunch of hippies to fix it.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:20 pmI’m glad that Gore does not make any attacks on people that do not believe in man made climate change.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pmWhy are we listening to this has-been and wife cheater.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pmJohnM Says:
I’m glad that Gore does not make any attacks on people that do not believe in man made climate change.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
———-
Me too. But really, it’s not a matter of “belief,” man made climate change does exist.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmGingrich and Bachmann must be related.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:34 pm.
R E M E M B E R:
This, from a man who thinks his country would have been better off had it been attacked…
… AGAIN!
.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pmbrothabill=loserlunatic
April 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pmMeanwhile:
Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24…“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
April 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pmhttp://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
JohnM Says:
I’m glad that Gore does not make any attacks on people that do not believe in man made climate change.
I agree. It’s dishonorable to single people out by name or title.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pmRealityCheck:
http://www.climatedepot.com/ a/ 429/ Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Climate Depot, a CFACT Project!
Funding
A large proportion of CFACT’s funding comes from corporations in the energy and automobile industries, as well as conservative foundations. Its financial backers include The Exxon Mobil Corporation,[5] The Chevron Corporation,[6] The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund,[6] The U.S. Council on Energy Awareness,[7] The Carthage Foundation, and The Sarah Scaife Foundation.[8]
April 24th, 2009 at 6:42 pmEveryone, thank the good people at Exxon Mobil for helping bring us ClimateDepot.com!!!
April 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pmAd Hominem attacks are easier than talking substance. I didn’t watch the hearing so I’d have a hard time refuting Newt Gingrich’s talking points specifically, but since I know that he is bought and paid for by the energy companies I’m sure his testimony was filled with lies and misrepresentations. See how easy that is?
April 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pmMarc Morano=Asshat
Used to work with Rush.
Nuff said
April 24th, 2009 at 6:48 pmThanks Tweedster, for the check on climatedepot. Proof yet again that the only people disputing science are those that don’t care for anything but money. Disgusting.
RealityCheck you only show that the right only has lies and more lies against science. Keep sticking your head in the sand.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:50 pmMeanwhile.
Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office from 1977-79.
In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, and then a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph’s Magazine in 1981. In 1982 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisor, where he served from 1982 to 1986.
Meh
April 24th, 2009 at 6:52 pmLord Monckton:
In response to the U.K. government’s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, he has argued that the review’s recommendation to invest 1% of global GDP in climate change mitigation would be ineffective, as would the introduction of carbon taxes and emissions trading as a means of curbing carbon emissions. He has proposed instead that the best solution should be to “go nuclear and reverse 20th-century deforestation.”[9]
April 24th, 2009 at 6:54 pmIn an apparent reference to claims made by Gavin Menzies, he [Monckton] further stated “There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.”[8]
In 1421 humankind reached the pinnacle of cartography technology and accuracy.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pmNot a problem Realness. It’s interesting to follow the trail of deceit.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:00 pmDoesn’t that slimy Newt have a rock to slither under or a wife to cheat on?
Fcuk the Republicans
April 24th, 2009 at 7:10 pmThe thing is, stupid trolls, that the Democrats are smart enough to realize that the debate about the existence of global warming, and mankind’s role in it, is over except among energy industry shills. It’s time to begin action to limit human emissions of ALL toxins, including CO2.
We’ve wasted 8 critical years because of the anti-science Reichwhiners. Now it’s time for them to STFU and let rational humans try and mitigate the damage.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pmGingrich is an ” Amateur Adulterer”.
Of Course he converted to Catholicism, who is better at lying, moving and concealing the truth than the Catholic Church?
April 24th, 2009 at 7:15 pmLord Christopher Monckton has absolutely no credentials or qualifications as a scientist or climatologist.
That’s why he wasn’t allowed to sit in.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pmRealityCheck Says:
Meanwhile:
Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24…“Waaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhh!,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!”
.
fletc3her Says:
I didn’t watch the hearing so I’d have a hard time refuting Newt Gingrich’s talking points specifically…
He said this:
It’s quoted up top. And it pretty much refutes itself.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:19 pmApparently Mr “amateur paleontologist” forgot about The Permian–Triassic extinction event. That resulted in the extinction of more than 80% of all sea creatures and it hit shell builders especially hard. Why? Because atmospheric CO2 caused an acidification the oceans and dissolved their shells.
This process is happening today. It’s very well documented and it’s a leading suspect in mass die offs among the World’s modern shell builders.
Let’s face it. Newt’s only reason for his stance is that his party requires a knee-jerk rejection of anything that comes out of a “librul’s” mouth, regardless of validity, just like scientists or secularists. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that any GOoPer’s position on anything scientific is probably the opposite of fact and reason.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:34 pmWith no Republican Leader Newt wants the job and right now only Rush the druggie stands in his way. Eric Britney Cantor is losing in the polls, John Boehner is calling climate change Cow gas and Bachmann is still trying to figure out what CO2. Linsey Graham is changing the topic because Republicans have no plan. Cheney is fighting to save his money and his life. Bush is drunk and depressed and has no clue what’s going on. Fox News is doing the best they can to lie for Bush/Cheney/Wall Street and the Banks. All this as the World watches the United States Comdey Show. Newt wants everyone to forget he cheated on his wife for years with his aide and then dumped the wife for the aide. If Newt get’s in the White House he’ll be looking for a younger wife, as that’s what Newt does.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:04 pmJackie Says:
With no Republican Leader Newt wants the job and right now only Rush the druggie stands in his way…
The hilarious thing is that no actually elected officials are in the running for this. Minor party much?
April 24th, 2009 at 8:17 pmThe GOP loves to show off their 5th grade science education. What they are banking on is the misconception that the majority of Americans are as scientifically naive and illiterate as they are.
Hey Newt. There are organisms that can metabolize hydrogen sulfide gas. Does that mean it’s okay for people to breath it? How about you try it first..
April 24th, 2009 at 8:52 pm“the Democrats are smart enough to realize that the debate about the existence of global warming, and mankind’s role in it, is over except among energy industry shills.”
At some point, you have to accept that everybody can be considered somebody’s shill. For example, isn’t ThinkProgress itself a 501c(4), which is to say, a lobby? And weren’t its founders recruited by George Soros, a billionaire who advocates socialism and says he wants to bring down the U.S. as a world power? He’s not exactly objective, either.
Since political adversaries don’t trust each other’s godfathers, it makes more sense to focus on factual arguments and principles. (Which was advocated at the top of this thread.) Personally, I have interviewed many of global warming’s believers and skeptics and read their papers. And I have lived through the past several decades. I haven’t found the evidence that mankind causes global temperature change as convincing as the evidence that it’s caused by fluctuation in the sun’s energy output. (I mean, why did temperatures on Mars go through global warming when we did? Alien SUVs?)
April 24th, 2009 at 8:58 pmBanana Republicans slip on their own peels.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:01 pmLOL, almost 60 comments from ignorant arm-waving liberals and not one substantive comment yet! Come on, folks, ad-homs and make-believe don’t add anything. LOL.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:04 pmHi DMan: I’m not attacking you here.
Weather global warming is human made or not is not “my” stance. Being responsible about how we exist and produce human made products is the issue for me.
Another point: If humankind is not responsible for global warming, I still want corporations to stop polluting as much as possible. We can only benefit from it in the long run.
Thanks for reading.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pmHow about this, stupid trolls?
The scientific consensus leaves no doubt. We humans are changing the fundamental chemistry of the Worlds atmosphere and oceans. Fundamental changes in the Earth’s chemistry cause mass extinctions. Mass extinctions hit the top of the food chain the hardest. These facts are available from thousands of scientific works.
Hows that for substance? Oh yeah. Stupid trolls are scientifically illiterate by design. I’ll put it in simpler terms.
If we continue to phuck with the basic chemistry of the planet? Human civilization will end. When the worst possible case is, everybody dies, it’s time to stop whining about finances or political points.
And, just in case you want to read an independent report, released despite the dissembling of Busco morons, try and make sense of these numbers from just one of those thousands of sources.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
April 24th, 2009 at 9:17 pmBTW. If some stupid troll wants to play the Bachmann card of “CO2 is good for plants”? Keep in mind that we humans have also wantonly destroyed the very plant life that could make use of excess CO2. We’ve replaced the World’s “CO2 sponge” with concrete and bare earth.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pmAlas, rightwing-leftwing, we need to do more than reign in corporations. We humans, as a species, need to make a fundamental change in what, why, and how we burn things. Concurrently we need to make a fundamental change in what, where, and how we dispose of the toxins we produce.
The really funny thing is that these changes will create industry and wealth, not to mention leading to better health. The ONLY arguments against it are based on greed and politics.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pmpete: you are certifiably insane. Why don’t you help the gene pool and the planet and kill yourself?
April 24th, 2009 at 9:31 pmAh yes, the old “solar activity” line.
The fact is that solar activity waxes and wanes according to an 11 year cycle. It reached a peak in 2001 and will hit a low in 2012. The hottest year in recorded history, 1998, occured before the last peak. While solar activity has decreased, we have witnessed 7 of the hottest years since accurate records were kept. And? At no point in the last thirty years has solar activity reached a historic high. The sun is no hotter now than it was in 1980, or 1880 for that matter.
Also, solar output is self correcting, to a great extent, because increased solar activity increases evaporation. Higher evaporation rates result in more cloud cover. Cloud cover adds a stabilizing effect on temperatures.
Despite what Reichwing “experts” may claim, global warming exists independently of solar activity.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pmjae Says:
pete: you are certifiably insane.
Prove it, stupid troll. Produce one, just one, peer reviewed scientific work that contradicts what I’ve said.
NOTE: “Studies” commissioned by the energy industry or a Reichwhiner think tank don’t count as peer reviewed.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:47 pmAlmost every liberal comment on here is either arrogant, crude, just plain rude, or all of the above, none of which encourages constructive debate.
To the close-minded, gullible, mostly-liberal fools who say the debate is over, here is what I think:
Carbon cap and trade is unnecessary, illogical, and patently unworkable and ripe for corruption and abuse, and it is just another excuse for Al Gore and his friends, like George Soros, to attempt to control us (because they KNOW what is best for the rest of us.).
Al Gore is an arrogant windbag.
Man’s contribution to the current warming cycle is miniscule, and is offset by a miriad of hugely more significant forces (you know, like the SUN, and our proximity to it (!), and the cyclical energy it produces, etc.).
Nonetheless, good stewardship of our resources and moving toward energy independence is smart, moral, ethical, strategic, and economically vital. (Boone Pickens has the right ideas, and he is NOT a polarizing idealogue like Gore.).
April 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pmYou see, stupid trolls, I was about 15 years ahead of Al Gore and I consider his input to be irrelevant. When I want to study a scientific problem I go straight to the scientists. I have more than a passing acquaintance with science in general and I’m quite capable of understanding the raw data and what it implies.
The simple fact remains that the only ones who dispute the evidence are paid by the energy industry, other polluters, or politicians.
In fact, I can even agree on one point. Al Gore should have never made that stupid movie. He, and the other producers, should have predicted that his advocacy would result in a knee-jerk reaction from his political foes.
I can’t expect a bunch of Reichwhiners to understand this but, I would be just as adamant if the GOP and DNC reversed their positions. It’s simply not a political debate. It’s a scientific debate that’s already over.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pmWho do you think you are, Pete? GOD? It is preposterously arrogant to say that this scientific debate is over. NOBODY has all the answers about this subject…not even YOU!
P. S. I have already disproven one of your “facts”. I dispute your conclusions, and I am not “paid by the energy industry, other polluters, or politicians.”
Be careful whom you call “stupid”, stupid.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:11 pmI don’t usually offer links to Wikipedia but, this one is accurate and footnoted.
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[68]
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
April 24th, 2009 at 10:14 pmGingrich should be investigated, like all RepubliCons for complicity to treason and war crimes. He brought this nation down with his Contract on America.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pmWell, Philip50, I didn’t call you a “stupid troll”. You assumed the title on your own. And, since you have initiated a direct dialogue, I’ll specifically exclude you from the club, pending review.
I must ask, which one of my facts have you “disproven”(sic)? Try as I might, I can’t see what you mean.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:21 pmOh, that’s convincing! I surrender!
Just because it is not currently PC to dispute Gore/Soros/et al. doesn’t make it FACT (expect maybe to those whose minds are already closed and want to believe it!).
There are hundreds of reputable scientists who dispute man’s effect on the climate, and the conclusions that capping carbon emissions will make a significant difference.
I support conservation and energy independence. I do not support close-minded, politically-motivated campaigns in futility like those supported by you and Al Gore.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:26 pmPete, you said: “The simple fact remains that the only ones who dispute the evidence are paid by the energy industry, other polluters, or politicians.”
Obviously, your “fact” is not a fact. I do not belong to those categories, and I dispute your conclusions.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:28 pmHey everyone! The earth is flat! It was also created 5000 years ago! My best friend was abducted by a UFO at Roswell! 9/11 was an inside job!
April 24th, 2009 at 10:30 pmHow much clearer must I be, Phil?
My interest in climatology predates Al Gore, George Soros, and even my realization that the GOP had abandoned me. (NOTE: During my life I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats. My “conversion” wasn’t complete until it became obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq though I started to balk as soon as Reagan started humping Fallwell’s leg.)
And? If one does a little research, as I have, one will realize that those “hundreds of reputable scientists” are either funded by a political/economic interest or are opining outside their field.
Plus, you still haven’t specified which one of the facts I’ve introduced can be “disproven”(sic). I would love to be convinced that the planet will take care of itself and we humans can do whatever the Hell we want. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t support that contention.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[68]”
In 1543, when Fr. Nicoleus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri VI, proposing that the earth orbited the sun, the scientific consensus, including all the respectable bodies, said the opposite. In the Soviet Union, where the government paid all the scientists their salaries, the consensus was that Lysenko was correct: If you cut off the tails of mice, generation after generation, eventually you will get tail-less mice. The problem is that Lysenko was wrong.
Consensus, credentials, respectability—they are useless in evaluating a theory, because what makes science “science” is that the people bearing the message don’t matter. Nor does their emotion, sophistication, coolness, or social class. Whether the message is consistent with the facts as they are known to date is all. To find out the truth, facts and logic are the only measure.
It does not help the impartiality of global-warming investigators that since Al Gore was a Senator, the U.S. government has bankrolled climate research, and the bureaucracy is environmentalist in outlook.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:43 pmI should have refreshed before my last post. Sorry.
You’re right. ““The simple fact remains that the only ones who dispute the evidence are paid by the energy industry, other polluters, or politicians.” Is a sloppy statement.
I should have said, “those who continue to claim a scientific debate are either opining outside their fields or have a political/economic motivation”.
And? It is a fact that there’s not a single national, or international, recognized scientific body that disputes man’s contribution to global warming.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:46 pm(I don’t know how this is relevant at all, but our current VP and our current Sec. of State believed there were WMDs in Iraq, along with most leading Democrats, as well as Republicans.).
Pete, I am a conservative tree hugger. I waste nothing. I have geothermal systems in my home and office. I love my country and my planet. I believe in conservation, good stewardship, and in becoming free of our addiction to foreign oil and madmen like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and even Putin.
Every scientist is funded by someone. That does not in and of itself invalidate their positions. The fact is that scores of reputable scientists do not support your conclusions. Time will tell. But, creating an unworkable, inevitably corrupt and unfair government program for cap and trade of carbon is just plain wrong-headed and futile…in my humble opinion.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:51 pmGINGRICH: I am an amateur paleontologist.
You know, it occurs to me that the title at top should read “Gingrich uses climate change hearing to personally slam himself.”
.
DMan Says:
At some point, you have to accept that everybody can be considered somebody’s shill. For example, isn’t ThinkProgress itself a 501c(4), which is to say, a lobby?
Absolutely. But nobody’s denying accepted science around here.
Except for you trolls.
.
DMan Says:
George Soros, a billionaire who advocates socialism and says he wants to bring down the U.S. as a world power?
Wow, you make him sound like a badass Bond villian. Citations, please?
.
DMan Says:
Since political adversaries don’t trust each other’s godfathers, it makes more sense to focus on factual arguments and principles.
Sounds good to me…
.
DMan Says:
Personally, I have interviewed many of global warming’s believers and skeptics and read their papers. And I have lived through the past several decades. I haven’t found the evidence that mankind causes global temperature change as convincing as the evidence that it’s caused by fluctuation in the sun’s energy output.
Oh, you went totally off the rails there. You haven’t interviewed anybody, read any papers or examined any evidence. Because you (who’s entire qualifications seem to be “living several decades”) have determined that all the scientists everywhere are wrong. And you believe that every complex global effect can have one and only one cause.
.
jae Says:
LOL, almost 60 comments from ignorant arm-waving liberals and not one substantive comment yet!
What’s your definition of “substantive?” Or do you not believe in definitions of words?
.
Philip50 Says:
Almost every liberal comment on here is either arrogant, crude, just plain rude, or all of the above, none of which encourages constructive debate.
Three of the four comments preceding yours (thanks, pete) consist entirely of constructive, useful and relevant facts presented by pete. Between you and jae (who also calls him “insane” for doing nothing more than reiterating scientific facts), I’m wondering if you even know what words are for, much less anything about their meanings…
.
Philip50 Says:
…it is just another excuse for Al Gore and his friends, like George Soros, to attempt to control us (because they KNOW what is best for the rest of us.).
You’re disregarding all the evidence as a mere conspiracy theory? Oh yeah, that’s real convincing.
.
Philip50 Says:
Nonetheless, good stewardship of our resources and moving toward energy independence is smart, moral, ethical, strategic, and economically vital.
There may be more room for agreement on this issue than I thought. Tell you what: if the guys we don’t like on your side and the guys you don’t like on our side all shut up and sit down, can we maybe actually do something constructive? Or are you just going to continue to block all attempts to show some of that stewardship of which you speak?
.
pete Says:
You see, stupid trolls, I was about 15 years ahead of Al Gore and I consider his input to be irrelevant. When I want to study a scientific problem I go straight to the scientists.
Al Gore isn’t a scientist, but he has spent most of his life explaining science and the consequences of scientific research to laypersons. And yes, we can thank him for the development of the Internet.
But you’re right – you don’t have to trust Al Gore to check with what he says, even if that means you end up agreeing with it.
.
Philip50 Says:
Who do you think you are, Pete? GOD? It is preposterously arrogant to say that this scientific debate is over.
No scientific debate is ever “over,” but that doesn’t mean there’s any significant controversy within the scientific community, either.
.
Philip50 Says:
There are hundreds of reputable scientists who dispute man’s effect on the climate…
No, there aren’t. There are hundreds of crackpot conspiracy theorists and corporate-paid shills, but not a “reputable scientist” among the bunch.
.
DMan Says:
In 1543, when Fr. Nicoleus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri VI, proposing that the earth orbited the sun, the scientific consensus, including all the respectable bodies, said the opposite.
Unfortunately, the “respectable bodies” at the time were conservatives, not scientists. They opposed it for social and economic reasons, not based on the evidence. Exactly as you are doing now. You’re the ones denying the findings and logical conclusions thereof today, not us.
Heliocentrism; evolution; dinosaurs; the age of the Earth; air having mass – your kind have no political capital to expend regarding scientific issues left. You’ve already spent centuries discrediting yourselves.
.
DMan Says:
Consensus, credentials, respectability—they are useless in evaluating a theory, because what makes science “science” is that the people bearing the message don’t matter. Nor does their emotion, sophistication, coolness, or social class. Whether the message is consistent with the facts as they are known to date is all. To find out the truth, facts and logic are the only measure.
Absolutely. The great thing about science is that you can actually check how they gathered the data, what they did with it and how they reached their conclusions. For the people publishing these reports, many other qualified people have done this – that’s what we mean when we use the words “peer reviewed.” But you don’t even have to trust the reviewers; you can get the scientific training and do so yourself. But running to oppositional politicians to get a second opinion doesn’t actually count as investigating the issue.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pmWell, well. It looks like my whole fan-club is here. I’m honored.
Phil:
You are playing fair and I respect that. Believe it, or not, I’m a lifelong moderate who usually tends a little right of center on most issues. I’ve registered as an independent my whole life and it’s only my conclusion that the GOP has abandoned all reason that leads me to post on “progressive” blogs.
I’m also a lifelong outdoors man, of a scientific bent, who’s witnessed first hand what we are doing to our planet. I’ve watched migration patterns change, the Northward expansion of the range of plants/animals, and seen the local frogs go from healthy to mutated to extirpated in a few decades.
Also, believe it or not, I’m not a fan of “cap and trade”. As I said earlier. We humans, as a species, need to clean up our act. And I have arrived at the conclusion that we need to start investing in preserving or environment. It’s the only one we’ve got.
DMan:
If you want to compare “scientific consensus” in the Middle Ages to Today? I can’t help you. And? The former head of the Weather Channel is not a climatologist, a meteorologist, or a scientist of standing. He’s no more fit to comment on the issue than Newt, Crazy Shelly, or effing Scooby Doo.
Stupid self-proclaimed Irish troll:
You aren’t making any sense and your “science” is made-up. Lay off the Guinness, or whiskey, or magic mushrooms, or whatever.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:19 pmPhilip50 Says:
Here is what I think. YOU are a punk with a big mouth and a brain the size of a fruitfly’s. The scientific part of this debate is OVER. That is because ONLY the scientists took part in it. They did studies, they wrote peer reviewed papers about a thousand of them. The only part of this debate left is industry brainwashing gullible fools like YOU into carrying water for THEM. Good luck with that. IF however you actually want to be taken SERIOUSLY then DO THE DARN SCIENCE, get it peer reviewed then get back to us until the have the decency to be embarassed by your stupidity and STFU
April 24th, 2009 at 11:19 pmbrothabill Says:
You are an ignorant punkass troll. Until you are banned no one is doing anything but laughing at your abject stupidity
April 24th, 2009 at 11:19 pmPhilip50 Says:
Time will tell. But, creating an unworkable, inevitably corrupt and unfair government program for cap and trade of carbon is just plain wrong-headed and futile…in my humble opinion.
Unworkable? Inevitably corrupt? Unfair? I see no support for any of these claims.
.
brothabill Says:
Pete hasnt taken his anti-pyschotic meds today it seems, or this week at all :( scary
This is just patently ridiculous. pete has posted nothing but perfectly reasonable logical argumentation reiterating widely known facts throughout here. Is this some Rovian “attack their strength” strategy? That’s the only thing I can imagine – “wow, that guy is incredibly rational and level-headed, better start saying he’s a loony.” If so, knock it off.
.
brothabill Says:
And really, the globe has gotten cooler.
Except for how that’s the opposite of the truth.
Also, please stop saying you’re an Australian doctor, construction worker, government worker or whatever today. I’m a little teapot (short and stout), but I don’t yammer on and on about my special insights into both Earl Grey and Brownian motion. The Appeal To Authority fallacy won’t work on us. We are immune to your Sith mind tricks here.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:23 pmAfter all of the earlier juvenile insults directed at former Congressman Gingrich, I appreciate the recent healthy exchanges. What is interesting to me, is that I finally just listened to the Gingrich clips, and his comments directed at former VP Gore were very reasonable, appropriate, and, indeed, professorial. The same cannot be said for the classless comments directed at the former congressman by some very small-minded, shallow people on here. Goodnight all!
April 24th, 2009 at 11:23 pmEugene atrax robustus Debs Says:
Philip50 Says:
Here is what I think…
See what you’ve done, wingnuts? We tried being reasonable and presenting facts. You played the “opposite-world” tactic in response. Now you’ve attracted Eugene; rhf is sure to follow, and between the two of them (and me once I get my drink on) you’re going to spend the rest of your Friday night sobbing into your pillow because the big mean liberals called you names.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:25 pmG’night Phil.
However, did you catch the part where Newt claimed that sea creatures will use the excess CO2? It’s just plain wrong. The excess CO2 will kill the sea creatures by preventing them from forming shells.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:27 pmThanks for the support, ElBruce and Eugene etc. It’s always nice to have some outside confirmation that I’m making sense.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:35 pmDMan Says:
Since political adversaries don’t trust each other’s godfathers, it makes more sense to focus on factual arguments and principles. (Which was advocated at the top of this thread.) Personally, I have interviewed many of global warming’s believers and skeptics and read their papers. And I have lived through the past several decades. I haven’t found the evidence that mankind causes global temperature change as convincing as the evidence that it’s caused by fluctuation in the sun’s energy output. (I mean, why did temperatures on Mars go through global warming when we did? Alien SUVs?)
So, troll, would you admit that we dump tons of pollution into our atmosphere on a daily basis? This is a fact. So, how can you possibly think that would not have a negative impact on our climate or on our earth?
April 24th, 2009 at 11:39 pmbrothabill Says:
bunch of sheeple who believe in global warming despite the earth hasnt warmed in the last 10 yearsl
A sheeple who thinks that we can dump tons of pollution into our environment daily and have it NOT have a negative affect on our planet.
I suggest that we start pumping those pollutants into brothabill’s house.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:40 pmPhilip50 Says:
“Time will tell. But, creating an unworkable, inevitably corrupt and unfair government program for cap and trade of carbon is just plain wrong-headed and futile…in my humble opinion.”
ELBruce says: “Unworkable? Inevitably corrupt? Unfair? I see no support for any of these claims.”
ARE YOU KIDDING US?! It is the GOVERNMENT!! Who decides the rules? THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION, including Pelosi and Reid, advised by Gore and Soros!!
Philip nailed that one!
April 24th, 2009 at 11:43 pmI don’t “believe in” anything, stupid alleged Irish troll. I form conclusions based on evidence whether it’s science, politics, religion, sports, or most anything.
Oh yeah. You’re either stupid or lying or both. While 1998 was the warmest year on record, 10 of the warmest years on record occurred between 1997 and 2008. The thirty year trend is up. The fifty year trend is up. The hundred year trend is up and, since 1850, we have trended up compared to the thousand year average.
Try to wrap your brain around this:
CO2 is at it’s highest level in 600,000 years or more. Temps are rising at a rate that hasn’t been seen in 150,000 years, or so. Atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature exist in direct proportion. Atmospheric CO2 has risen in direct proportion to measured human emissions since the dawn of the industrial age.
Can you see the implications?
April 24th, 2009 at 11:47 pmIsn’t this the former Speaker of the House who has a doctorate in European history? Did he also earn a doctorate in climatology or some other related field? Or did he earn another doctorate in bullsh!t? Smells like it to me. I am so tired of these conservatives misleading the American people to serve their own interests which revolve mainly around lining their pockets with as much money as they can get their hands on, all while claiming to be staunch Christians. Lying, greed, and Christianity are impossible, according to the Bible. They are hypocrites which is also adverse to the teachings of Christianity. Furthermore, raping and destroying the earth for one’s own personal gain doesn’t fit with Christianity either.
April 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pmbrothabill Says:
You ignorant worthless brainwashed punkass troll. There is a cure for your intellectual torpor. Put your back against a brick wall take 20 steps turn around drop your head until it is parallel to the ground, run full speed until you stop. Repeat until the stupid is drained from that useless appendage above your neck
April 25th, 2009 at 12:06 amThough I have made this point in other threads, I must repeat it.
There are two general types of funding provided to scientists. Endowments and commissions.
Endowments, in general, provide funds to support research regardless of direction or results.
Commissions pay for results that support a preconceived conclusion.
With very few exceptions, if any, studies that refute anthropogenic climate change are commissioned.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:06 amMajii: Gingrich is as qualified to analyze climate change as Gore. Slamming Christians has NO PLACE in this debate. Grow up.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:06 ampete Says:
You always make sense pete. Trolls are just immune to sense and allergic to facts. No vampire ever hated holy water the way wingnuts hate facts.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:10 amEugene: You need to grow up, too. Your classless comments are abusive and revolting. I am reporting you for abuse. Why don’t we all stick to discussing the subject of climate change rather than engaging in hate speech.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:10 amWhat if I hate climate speech?
April 25th, 2009 at 12:13 amTo be fair, dpd, Evangelicals who Believe that Jesus saved the World 2,000 years ago are a BIG part of the problem. Dogmatic beliefs are the arch-enemy of scientific progress. This has been true since the first deity plagued Mankind.
Now that that’s out of the way; do you have your own opinion on climate change that can’t be attributed to a politician or energy industry executive?
April 25th, 2009 at 12:20 amGINGRICH: I am an amateur.
Fixed!
April 25th, 2009 at 12:22 amHi pete
April 25th, 2009 at 12:24 amSaltwater fishing is off to a slow start this season but still plenty of life to enjoy. The shifts in bird distributions will be sort of unpleasant as most models have my region shifting significantly away from those conditions favorable to many of my favorite boreal species…
OT:
Good morning, dbadass. 80 degrees the last couple days. The grass is sprouting. The trees are budding. The cormorants are home and even the teal (the wussiest ducks in this neck of the woods) are back. Geese and Mallards are already brooding their eggs. There’s even been a pair of egrets on the nearest pond for about a week. I would love to catch their courtship, I hear it’s quite a show.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:28 am“Oh, you went totally off the rails there. You haven’t interviewed anybody, read any papers or examined any evidence.”
Heh-heh. You’re calling out the wrong guy, but I forgive you. Here’s a little assignment, ye of little faith. To take one small example, I spoke with Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He’s a firm, committed, man-made-global-warming believer, and an IPCC author. He said to me that putting limitations on our CO2 output as outlined in the original Kyoto Accords—which are way beyond what anyone in the Obama administration is promising—would be useless. It would “produce a small decrease in the rate of increase.” He added that it would take “40 Kyotos”—that is, cutting world carbon output to 1/40th of the Kyoto levels—simply to stop the increase and keep CO2 at its supposedly ruinous level of a decade or so ago.
Here’s your assignment: Call Mahlman up and ask him the same question, because you need to understand just what the true GW believers are proposing.
40 Kyotos. Well, that puts mankind back to, I don’t know, 1800 or so, doesn’t it? Even 1900 would be no fun at all. If you think rising global temps would kill people, that wouldn’t be a patch on the death rates you’d get with no central heating, no rapid transportation, no running water or sanitation, no high-tech medicine or big-scale manufacturing, no electricity. . . It means most people in the world need to die, disappear. Is that what you want? Who’s going to tell them, and will they listen, over in China? Which Big Brother is going to decide who lives and who dies? For sheer impracticality, the effort may not be worthwhile.
But Mahlman’s huge number also points to something else. If it takes 40 Kyotos to get anywhere, that actually suggests our individual actions are pretty insignificant in their effects on the climate. If our civilization is so destructive, then why hasn’t everything been more destroyed along the way? Why is it still spring every year? Why has the forested portion of the U.S. been increasing every year since 1920? Why are people here living longer and longer? You could say, “Oh, just you wait till next year, the computer projection will show you. . .” But we’ve been waiting a while, since Jim Hansen started talking about doomsday in 1988. The hottest years on record weren’t in the 1990s; they were back in the 1930s, when farmers plowed their fields with horses. Industrialization has multiplied quite a bit since then.
In short, the scale of global warming’s promised catastrophe doesn’t work with what we can see and measure around us. That’s why investigators like Harvard’s Willie Soon think the main engine of terrestrial temperature change is our ultimate source of heat, the sun. By the way, the sun also has cycles much longer than 11 years. Check out the Maunder Minimum. And back in the 13th century, Europe was much warmer (4 degrees) than it is now: Figs grew in Germany!
April 25th, 2009 at 12:29 amI hear you on the shift of range/migration routes, db. That’s why I stopped wasting my time hunting my old haunts. I can live without a harvest but I got sick of spending endless hours with my gun on my lap.
On the plus side, I went trout fishing today and thoroughly enjoyed a couple brook trout for dinner.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:34 amPete says: “Evangelicals who Believe that Jesus saved the World 2,000 years ago are a BIG part of the problem.”
That is an amazingly misleading, reckless, judgmental, and biased comment by you, Pete. I know a lot of evangelicals, and they are the salt of the earth. They are the kind of people that made this country great through faith, service, and sacrifice.
Pete also says: “Dogmatic beliefs are the arch-enemy of scientific progress.” I agree with that. This thread is full of dogmatic LIBERAL propaganda, passing off theory as fact.
Pete further says: “This has been true since the first deity plagued Mankind.” I agree that most of the world’s ills have been foisted upon victims in the name of religion. Look no further than the Islamists that would kill us all. However, enlightened faith in the God of Creation, revealed through His Son, Jesus Christ has brought the world in general, and the West in particular unprecedented progress and human achievement. There is nothing inconsistent with a vibrant faith and scientific pursuit of the Truth of our world.
We can respectfully disagree on matters of faith. But, don’t paint all people of faith with a broad brush.
As to your final question, Pete: I have a scientific background, including a doctoral degree. I don’t just swallow what ANYONE says. I have my own opinion. I believe intuitively that man has affected climate some. I do not believe that we are the major source of the current warming trend. I DO believe that we can agree on good stewardship of our resources, regardless of our viewpoint on the causes of global warming.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:36 amLook no further than the Islamists that would kill us all But, don’t paint all people of faith with a broad brush.
—
April 25th, 2009 at 12:40 amI like that combo…
Here’s the deal. We can argue all day long about global warming and whether or not it exists. The thing is, our climate is changing. Here in northeast TN our snowfall amounts are down significantly compared to just 30 years ago. In the 1970s and early 1980s, if you added up the total days missed from school due to snowfall, it would range from 5 to 10 days per year. 3 and 4 inch snowfalls were not uncommon, and we’d get 2 or 3 a year. I remember at least one or two years in which we were out 5 days in a row. In 1977 we missed so much school that we had make up some of the days on Saturdays for half a day, or else the last day of school would be in the second week of June. Yet in the last 9 years we have been lucky to get one good snowfall each winter, and even then it was an inch or less. My daughter is almost 9 years old and since she was born we have had enough snow to make a snowman only during two of those years.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:45 amGood points, Bad Eye. However, they mean nothing. Your experience is purely anecdotal. That is the nature of weather.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:46 amIs that the same Willie Soon who’s work was commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute? Yep.
He also based his conclusions on anecdotal information from 1645-1715. One really can’t compare the data collection to he last 150 years. Current conditions are not consistent with the Maunder Minimum or a hypothetical maximum.
The temps in Europe, or any other individual region, are not the same as average global temperature. The best data suggests that average global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate and are in direct proportion to human emissions of CO2.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:52 amI don’t just swallow what ANYONE says
April 25th, 2009 at 12:54 am—
Funny that is how I feel too especially about all that hocus pocus about Jesus and stuff like that I was told by others
What is it called when people refuse to see what is right in front of them?
To show the right that I can be a true capitalist. I am starting the GW program. It’s a 12 step program for GWD sufferers.
anyone else want in?
April 25th, 2009 at 1:01 amHey, badass. I hear you, and I agree with you. You have to come to know Him for yourself…or not. It is a choice, and I respect yours.
I did not swallow what anyone said about Jesus. Indeed, I have heard a lot of hypocritical and down-right wrong stuff. My faith is based on my own experience in my own heart and mind. We are talking about science here, which is a different matter. I would not try to prove my faith to anyone. It is a personal choice.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:06 ambrothabill Says:
bunch of sheeple who believe in global warming despite the earth hasnt warmed in the last 10 yearsl
bunch of sheeple who believe in gravity despite I can levitate!
.
dpd Says:
ARE YOU KIDDING US?! It is the GOVERNMENT!! Who decides the rules? THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION, including Pelosi and Reid, advised by Gore and Soros!!
Philip nailed that one!
He made some claims. I asked him to provide support for them. He has not. Can you?
.
dpd Says:
Your classless comments are abusive and revolting. I am reporting you for abuse.
Wingnut tears taste like delicious candy.
.
pete Says:
Good morning, dbadass.
Morning? What are you, some kinda pinko European? It’s like midnight CST.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:11 amO.K. I’ll play nice, dpd.
I made a specific statement about “Evangelicals who Believe Jesus saved the World 2,000 years ago”. I mean, specifically, those who think God/Jesus will save us from our follies. And I subscribe to the theory that those who embrace dogmatic thought, whether religious or “scientific”, are the problem.
I can’t speak for anyone else but, I’m neither “liberal” nor dogmatic. I think I make that clear in my posts.
Furthermore, we Europeans (that is, people of European descent) have been successful because we are aggressive and technological. I’m so firmly convinced that deities have nothing to do with it that I’m convinced that anyone who takes the position that we are specially blessed is not worth arguing with.
I don’t have a doctorate in any subject but, I have a B.S. in biochemistry and another in electrical engineering. And I’ve learned a lot in the 30 years since I ended my formal education.
I’m convinced that we humans have to sacrifice fiscal efficiency, and greed, for reduced emissions. That’s as simply as I can phrase it.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:19 amRemember, don’t pollute – Ma Earth. Don’t buy anything, don’t produce anything, don’t drive anywhere, don’t patronize any stores or even order anything from the net, don’t stay on the internet reading blogs – all this adds pollution and is killing the earth.
Please keep your energy consumption as low as humanly possible and do this for at least the next three years!!!
Oh and, I never realized that thinkprogress was such a left wing, non progressive site. Wow such bias. Why would anyone wanna come here when one could get the same slant on HuffPo or Salon?
Ouch! Why not mention that an expert with another opinion, one who doesn’t believe this hysteria, was forbidden to speak by the dems?
One thing I enjoy is knowing that, coming real soon, are massive taxes on internet sites, including those who are co-located. Ouch you guys are pay through the teeth for all this pollution!
April 25th, 2009 at 1:22 amDMan Says:
I spoke with Jerry Mahlman…
I presume he would have published such an opinion. Link?
.
DMan Says:
If it takes 40 Kyotos to get anywhere, that actually suggests our individual actions are pretty insignificant in their effects on the climate.
No, it would take 40 Kyotos to back CO2 levels up by 10 years. Decreasing the rate of increase may be all we can do, but that’s not nothing.
.
DMan Says:
Why is it still spring every year?
You totally sounded all scientific up to that point. Let me ask you this: will you only believe in global warming when there’s no such thing left as winter? It will be far too late for me to enjoy saying “I told you so” by then.
.
DMan Says:
The hottest years on record weren’t in the 1990s; they were back in the 1930s…
…if you ignore the recorded data and use magic wingnut numbers, pulled fresh and steaming from your ass.
.
dpd Says:
That is an amazingly misleading, reckless, judgmental, and biased comment by you, Pete. I know a lot of evangelicals, and they are the salt of the earth. They are the kind of people that made this country great through faith, service, and sacrifice.
And still, many of them believe fervently in a bunch of crazy sh!t. Like the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and prehistoric Man rode around on dinosaurs.
.
dpd Says:
Good points, Bad Eye. However, they mean nothing. Your experience is purely anecdotal. That is the nature of weather.
I’m now picturing everybody but dpd and Bad Eye dead, and they’re sitting on a flaming cinder when the last blade of grass goes up in smoke. dpd turns to Bad Eye and says: (see above).
.
dpd Says:
I would not try to prove my faith to anyone. It is a personal choice.
That’s cool. Props to you.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:23 amC’mon, ElBruce.
After midnight is, technically, “morning”.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:23 ampete Says:
I’m convinced that we humans have to sacrifice fiscal efficiency, and greed, for reduced emissions. That’s as simply as I can phrase it.
But sacrifice of fiscal efficiency need not be very permanent at all. When they first started coming out with useful internal combustion vehicles, everybody was extremely worried about the massive loss to an economy that was heavily invested in horse-based transportation.
.
The Purple Finger Says:
Oh and, I never realized that thinkprogress was such a left wing, non progressive site. Wow such bias. Why would anyone wanna come here when one could get the same slant on HuffPo or Salon?
How does “left wing” correspond to “non progressive?” Do you consider “right wing” to be “progressive?” Because you’re like the only person in the world I’ve heard of who does it that way.
Also, HuffPo makes a moderator look at any post before it shows up. And Salon bugs me with “splash” ads that take up the whole screen before I realize there’s a way to bypass them. And then those snot-nosed elitists try to tell me they just gave me a “guest pass” for looking at the damn ad!
.
The Purple Finger Says:
One thing I enjoy is knowing that, coming real soon, are massive taxes on internet sites…
Why would you enjoy that? You’re on the Internet too. Citation, please?
.
pete Says:
C’mon, ElBruce.
After midnight is, technically, “morning”.
Ah, one of those East-coast arugula-eating New Yorkers… (ever notice how they hate New York so much except for 9/11 when they love it?)
April 25th, 2009 at 1:30 amI accept and respect your point of view, Pete. I would encourage your expansion of tolerance on this point that you made: “I’m so firmly convinced that deities have nothing to do with it that I’m convinced that anyone who takes the position that we are specially blessed is not worth arguing with.”
Hmmm. You may be surprised at the common ground we may have on that subject. For example, whether we have been “specially blessed” or whether at least the partial application of liberal Christian principles, upon which this nation began, resulted at least partially in our prosperity I think can be thoughtfully debated. But, that may be another time and place.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:31 amSigh. If one reads the history of this nation, without “Biblical glasses”, one will see that our founders built our nation on a secular interpretation of English Common Law. Many, if not most, of those founders were neither Christian nor particularly religious.
Our “greatness” would probably not have happened if we really based our society on Christianity. In fact, most American Evangelical Christians held themselves outside politics until the rise of the so-called “Moral Majority” in the late 70’s.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:41 amPete, that is a whole other debate, but your last statements are revisionist history and just plain wrong. Besides, English common law itself was a product of the Christian enlightenment of Europe and the innate value and worth of every person in the light of Judaeo-Christian values.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:47 amOur greatness, Pete, I believe is directly related to the predominate influence of Christian values and thought in our laws and our society.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:48 am“In fact, most American Evangelical Christians held themselves outside politics until the rise of the so-called “Moral Majority” in the late 70’s.”
It can easily be proven that that is just a totally false statement.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:51 ampete Says:
If one reads the history of this nation, without “Biblical glasses”, one will see that our founders built our nation on a secular interpretation of English Common Law. Many, if not most, of those founders were neither Christian nor particularly religious.
Most of what became America was pretty much an extension of Enlightenment philosophy, particularly that of John Locke.
I will agree that much of went into America was based on the Pilgrim experience. However, the Pilgrims didn’t “escape” a non-Christian country; England held Christianity as an official state religion. However, the specific flavor of the Pilgrims’ (Protestant) Christianity contradicted that of the Anglican (Protestant) Church of England. And this is exactly the problem that you have when you start mixing church and state – even if you and they are both Christian (or whatever) they can still try to suppress the way that you want to practice Christianity (or whatever).
The only way to keep the state out of church is to keep church out of state. Also, vice versa.
Wingnuts should realize that if they keep pushing this “America is a Christian nation” thing and trying to make the tenets of modern Christianity into legal code, inevitably they will find that the way they wish to practice Christianity will become illegal. As a simple example, most of the evangelical Christians trying to mix church and state these days are Protestants (and a majority of those, Southern Baptists). But the actual majority of Christians in this country are Catholic. Which means that if the evangelicals get their wish, they may well lose the legal right to their second (and third and fourth, etc) marriages. And Newt Gingrich would be officially living in sin, just like teh gays.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:56 amdpd, I think you meant, “the European enlightenment in spite of Christian values”.
The founding fathers were very specific on two issues.
1. No monarchy.
2. No theocracy.
The “revisionist history” is any claim that we were not, first and foremost, founded as a secular nation. Our nation was carefully founded on the ideal that neither gods nor kings were above the common man. For honest people who grew up when I did, there’s no debate at all.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:57 amElBruce says:
“The only way to keep the state out of church is to keep church out of state. Also, vice versa.
Wingnuts should realize that if they keep pushing this “America is a Christian nation” thing and trying to make the tenets of modern Christianity into legal code, inevitably they will find that the way they wish to practice Christianity will become illegal. As a simple example, most of the evangelical Christians trying to mix church and state these days are Protestants (and a majority of those, Southern Baptists). But the actual majority of Christians in this country are Catholic. Which means that if the evangelicals get their wish, they may well lose the legal right to their second (and third and fourth, etc) marriages. And Newt Gingrich would be officially living in sin, just like teh gays.”
The above is a pathetic attempt to discredit the need for Christian values to permeate government, without government dictating religion. The so-called Establishment Clause was not to protect the state from religious faith; it was to protect the “free exercise” of religion.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:01 am… as another example of the church/state problem, most of the Iranians supporting the ‘79 revolution practiced Islam in a variety of ways, as befits a Persian nation with a rich and nuanced history. However, as soon as they established a religious government, all forms of Islam but that directly beholden to the Khomeini family was suppressed. There are a great many Iranians who feel pretty “punk’d” over that about now; they had supported putting religious people in government because the previous governments had been incredibly corrupt. What they got instead was religious suppression and dictatorship, forcing them to practice their own religion in ways that they themselves did not choose.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:02 amIt is interesting, Pete, that as “enlightened” as you want to pretend to be, you keep using phrases like “there’s no debate at all” when people have a different point of view than you. It is almost like you are afraid to even consider a different point of view.
I challenge you to read one or more of the following books:
Faith and Freedom by Hart
You’ve Hear It Said by DeMar
The Light and The Glory by Marshall & Manuel
Also, books by David Barton.
I am sure these books can be found on Amazon.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:05 amIndeed. Our country was founded by the descendants of Christian Europeans. However, they specifically rejected the “divine right of kings/nobles”.
“All men are created equal” is a direct contradiction of “God’s chosen”. It matters not whether the “chosen” are the Tribes of Israel or the God-blessed rulers.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:05 amElBruce: Aren’t you blessed to have been born into a country founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, rather than the oppressive, intolerant principles of Islam?!
April 25th, 2009 at 2:06 amdpd Says:
The above is a pathetic attempt to discredit the need for Christian values to permeate government, without government dictating religion.
Whenever you get one, you get the other. It’s impossible to do what you describe. The Pilgrims knew that. People of every faith being suppressed around the world know that. Our own founding fathers made it explicit, for many very good reasons.
.
dpd Says:
The so-called Establishment Clause was not to protect the state from religious faith; it was to protect the “free exercise” of religion.
They’re the same thing. As soon as religious faith permeates the state, the free exercise of religion becomes outlawed. Many generations have suffered their entire lives to bring you that lesson; don’t discard it so readily.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:07 am“He also based his conclusions on anecdotal information from 1645-1715.”
Ice cores.
Anecdotal information—if it’s contemporary—can be useful evidence. (Why would a guy 400 years ago lie to his diary?) But it’s the ice cores that are the basis of Soon’s measurements. They tell you what cosmic rays were doing each year. He’s quite painstaking. Just read his papers.
The level of recklessness on this site does amaze me. Guys are saying a lot of things they wouldn’t say to someone’s face in a bar.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:07 amRejecting the “divine right of kings/nobles” was not a rejection of Christian principles. Indeed, it was an affirmation of them!
April 25th, 2009 at 2:08 amRead the very scholarly books I posted, gentlemen, and get back to me. I respect our right to disagree. Good luck!
April 25th, 2009 at 2:11 am“Our nation was carefully founded on the ideal that neither gods nor kings were above the common man.”
Half right. Yes, kings were deemed not above the common man.
But the Declaration says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
There are no two ways to read that. Our rights come from God. We delegate power to the state. The Founders read a lot of Thomas Aquinas, and it shows.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:13 amdpd Says:
ElBruce: Aren’t you blessed to have been born into a country founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, rather than the oppressive, intolerant principles of Islam?!
There’s the problem right there. All you can see is that your exact version of religion is “better” than everybody else’s. What I see is that religion in government is always (and has always been) bad, whether “Judeo-Christian” or otherwise.
Here’s where I win: every time in history that someone who believed that everything would be hunky-dory once their exact flavor of religion was imposed on everybody else and all the “bad” religion was outlawed, it led to massive tyranny and suffering. But now you’re trying to tell me that the solution to this historical problem is to impose your exact flavor of religion on everybody else and outlaw all the “bad” religion!
Stop. Imposing. Religion.
That’s what was explicitly and repeatedly written into the founding documents of the United States of America. And you know what? We like it. It works. We won’t let you change it.
If you want a “Christian nation,” go start one somewhere else.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:13 amI would never claim, or pretend, to be “enlightened”. Enlightened is a religious term.
I am, however, a student of history, science, philosophy, and even religion. I find them equally fascinating.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:13 amDMan Says:
Guys are saying a lot of things they wouldn’t say to someone’s face in a bar.
Welcome to the Internet! Enjoy your visit.
.
dpd Says:
Rejecting the “divine right of kings/nobles” was not a rejection of Christian principles. Indeed, it was an affirmation of them!
Not at the time. There was over a millenium of history behind tying “divine right” to Christianity. Nobody who was a devout believer in Christ saw it any other way. If you had been alive at the time, you would have considered any anti-monarchist to be an atheist.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:17 amI’ve read some of Soon’s work. I’ve also read a vast amount of scholarly works that point out the flaws in his reasoning, which is hardly unique, when applying his models to what we observe in the World Today.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:20 amDMan Says:
But the Declaration says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
There are no two ways to read that. Our rights come from God. We delegate power to the state.
“their Creator” is pretty generalized; could be God, Allah, or some deist entity. That’s intentional.
.
DMan Says:
The Founders read a lot of Thomas Aquinas, and it shows.
They also read a lot of Enlightenment philosophy, and it really shows.
.
pete Says:
I would never claim, or pretend, to be “enlightened”. Enlightened is a religious term.
Not so much. After all, the Bavarian Illuminati were merely anti-monarchists, trying to do what we succeeded to, and getting disbanded and supressed for it.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:25 amI’m a confirmed smart-ass and love arguing with people whether in a bar or anywhere else. I even proudly served a suspension form school for calling a teacher an “ignorant savage” and won a dispute with the most senior teacher in my high school over a “matter of honor”. I also got a pissant TA fired because he was a stupid, judgmental, creep.
Rest assured, if I ever find myself afraid to argue, in person or online? I’ll off myself in a very efficient manner.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:29 amVery true, ElBruce. However, when a theist uses the term “enlightened”, I have usually found it safe to assume that they are referring to some kind of divine revelation.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:33 amThat’s all for me.
G’night, good people.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:37 amYou too, trolls. (you know who you are)
Bit late, but; 38 RealityCheck:
Lord Christopher Monckton was an ‘unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords’ in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He received
in the election.
Who cares what this no-nothing has to say on matters on climate policy? Free speech gives him the right to prattle on about matters he knows nothing about, but it doesn’t automatically assure him a public platform on which to do so. Can the deniers really do no better than this? A British politician and business consultant, famous for inventing the Eternity puzzle?
April 25th, 2009 at 3:15 am50 Philip Says: The fact is that scores of reputable scientists do not support your conclusions.
Not true. Repeating a lie does not magically turn it into the truth. No matter how many times the deniers make this bogus claim, it’s still a lie.
If not Phillip, provide the names of these ’scores of reputable scientists’ and a link.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:27 amyelena amorbus alternatus vee Says:
Who cares what this no-nothing has to say on matters on climate policy?
Since he agrees with them, the right wingers trot him out as a “respected scientist.” They often get away with it because nobody in America has any idea who the guy is. Except that he’s a “lord,” which must mean he’s important somewhere.
.
yelena amorbus alternatus vee Says:
If not Phillip, provide the names of these ’scores of reputable scientists’ and a link.
Scores! They’ve got scores! Never mind the tens or hundreds of thousands of scientist who say otherwise. Scores! (hint: most Americans have no idea what a “score” is either)
April 25th, 2009 at 3:34 am81 Brotherbill lies; In Australia, it has actually gotten cooler in the last 15 years. And really, the globe has gotten cooler.
Oh really? Can you provide evidence/links for this? No.
A once in a 1000 year drought. Every year temperatures breaking new records. Record breaking bushfires causing 100’s of deaths. Catastrophic floods up North. Neither Australia, nor the world, has gotten cooler in the last 15 years, quite the opposite.
You have just exposed yourself as either a deliberate liar, or a no-nothing idiot. Or perhaps a psychopath, given your previous homophobic, hate-laden posts which by the way have been FLAGGED.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:39 amyelena amorbus alternatus vee Says:
Oh really? Can you provide evidence/links for this? No.
No. Don’t even bother with this crap. “Gravity? Whenever I let go of a ball, it falls up.” It’s an intentional waste of your time.
.
yelena amorbus alternatus vee Says:
You have just exposed yourself as either a deliberate liar, or a no-nothing idiot. Or perhaps a psychopath…
We call them “conservatives.” “Wingnut” for short.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:54 amScores! They’ve got scores!
heh
April 25th, 2009 at 3:57 amThey’re pretty ‘unique’, your conservatives, aren’t they?.
I’m an Aussie who became interested in US politics after 9-11, (was concerned that the right might use it for their own ends) and your right wingers still manage to amaze me.
Kudos to all you guys at TP, Huffpo etc, for staying sane amongst the all the crazy.
April 25th, 2009 at 4:02 amHello yelena amorbus alternatus vee:
Thanks for taking an interest in our “wonderful” country (as of late). Conservatives are our pathological liar political group – they make lies into fact for others to believe in. The GOP (Republicans) have been hijacked by big oil, big corporations, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, special interest groups and religious zealots. Unfortunately, our political system allows for these politicians to be “bought off” through lobbying, etc. – something that should be illegal! They get elected by us but work for their contributors. It’s NUTS! I hope the masses catch on to this soon – it’s not common knowledge.
With our cable “news” system, it’s very easy to propagate these lies as facts – they use it well. FOX news is one of these. Conservatives have done a good job messing things up over the last 30 years. I’ve been involved in many recessions and spats around the world since 1970. If there’s a war or recession, usually a fear mongering neocon conservative was behind it. It’s very sad that we keep voting these bone heads into office.
In the year 2000 – I was making 50k a year developing software for a big company. After 8-years of Bush (Boosh) and a layoff in 2003, I’m lucky to make 1/2 that working at a retail store! I have two degrees (AAS and BS). I remember when Bush won and someone I worked with said, “Bush won – start buying stock in defense companies.” He was right.
My experience has been better under the Democratic Party even though some of them aren’t always on the up-and-up. I just hope we can get back to where we were in 1994ish – times were very good then and I think (hope) we can do it again.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:19 amyelena amorbus alternatus vee Says:
They’re pretty ‘unique’, your conservatives, aren’t they?.
By this point, we’ve pretty much sorted out liberal vs. conservative to perfectly align with smart vs. stupid, as well as good vs. evil. All that’s neede now is the coup de grace, which will be administered in 2010.
.
rightwing-leftwing Says:
they make lies into fact for others to believe in.
That’s precisely it. Evil people construct lies for stupid people to parrot and get excited about. For any given lie they’re repeating, the chain of transmission can be traced directly back to someone who just freakin’ made it up. Hence, stupid and evil.
.
yelena amorbus alternatus vee Says:
Unfortunately, our political system allows for these politicians to be “bought off” through lobbying, etc. – something that should be illegal!
Can’t be. Just can’t. Of all kinds of speech protected by the first amendment, political speech – talking to politicians – is the most protected. The rest of it is just a side effect of protecting that.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:54 amPhilip50 Says:
Almost every liberal comment on here is either arrogant, crude, just plain rude, or all of the above, none of which encourages constructive debate.
To the close-minded, gullible, mostly-liberal fools who say the debate is over, here is what I think:
Carbon cap and trade is unnecessary, illogical, and patently unworkable and ripe for corruption and abuse, and it is just another excuse for Al Gore and his friends, like George Soros, to attempt to control us (because they KNOW what is best for the rest of us.).
Al Gore is an arrogant windbag.
Man’s contribution to the current warming cycle is miniscule, and is offset by a miriad of hugely more significant forces (you know, like the SUN, and our proximity to it (!), and the cyclical energy it produces, etc.).
Nonetheless, good stewardship of our resources and moving toward energy independence is smart, moral, ethical, strategic, and economically vital. (Boone Pickens has the right ideas, and he is NOT a polarizing idealogue like Gore.).
Most impressive post I have ever seen here. Too bad it is wasted on closed minded people who haven’t a clue.
April 25th, 2009 at 8:03 amGod I hope this bloated piece of shit runs in 2012; after these kinds of performances there won’t be any need for debates. One look at this kind of appearance and even his most rabid supporters will wonder if this clown has even the remotest relationship with reality.
April 25th, 2009 at 8:38 am‘LOL, almost 60 comments from ignorant arm-waving liberals and not one substantive comment yet! Come on, folks, ad-homs and make-believe don’t add anything. LOL.’
And your post adds so much?
April 25th, 2009 at 8:42 amMore of the same from Republicans– nothing to add, nothing constructive to put forward, no ideas for the future of America- just lie, smear, & whine.
April 25th, 2009 at 9:31 amGood morning, all. While I was calmly snoring, I see that there was a considerable amount of fear-mongering toward those of us who don’t swallow the liberal line. Thank goodness for RealityCheck.
rightwing-leftwing Says: “they make lies into fact for others to believe in.”
Response: Are you referring to Al Gore?
yelena amorbus alternatus vee Says: “Unfortunately, our political system allows for these politicians to be “bought off” through lobbying, etc. – something that should be illegal!”
Response: How much money did Obama raise in the last election? How much of it came from FOREIGN sources?! How much did George Soros funnel through 401c organizations? Is that the kind of thing you would like to make illegal? It sounds like you agree with John McCain.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:02 amGood morning Philip50 the Liberal Luver:
Why NO I wasn’t speaking about the idiot Gore. I’m not a fan of him. However, I was speaking about those DUM BASS Conservative Rebublican’ts. Thanks for allowing me to clarify though!
P.S. Where you dreaming of pink elephants?
April 25th, 2009 at 10:12 amIf Gingrich really is a serious student of paleontology, he’d know that one large aspect of paleontology is the reconstruction of past climates and environments. It has been possible for some time to use oxygen isotopes in ocean foraminifera to infer temperature fluctuations over time. Cooling to warming cycles have occurred in the deep past, and it is possible to know how long these cycles generally were. It is possible then to compare the warming we’re experiencing now to those past cycles to see just how accelerated they really are. If memory serves, however, those in the past occurred over many hundreds of thousands of years, not decades or a generation.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:13 amPHILP 50 says:
I see that there was a considerable amount of fear-mongering toward those of us who don’t swallow the LIBERAL line.
So Philip …Why Do you think that relying on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report is a Liberal Position???
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does NOT conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its ROLE is to ASSESS on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic LITERATURE produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change…
And this Report concludes that we have a Serious Problem.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:15 amI just saw something quite sobering. It’s clear that disaster is just about upon us. Look at these predictions from this consensus of scientists:
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” •
Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” •
George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” •
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
“[Within five years] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the [next] decade.” •
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” •
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: [Within 5 years] widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread [within 20 years] to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….Thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” •
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
HOWEVER, all of these predictions were made in 1970. We should all be utterly dead by now. Instead, there are 6 billion of us. Something’s clearly wrong.
Anything’s possible, but there seems to be a pattern of crying ‘wolf’ for fun, profit, involvement, and often, I’m sure, sincere concern for one’s fellow man.
Maybe the pitch should be, “This time, we really, really mean it.”
April 25th, 2009 at 11:34 amYou guys are so bought and sold by the Global Warming fraud that you won’t even let an honest debate happen. That’s pathetic and if you’re as intellectual as you claim, you’d never put yourself in that position. It’s intellectually dishonest and disgraceful. Your position is not scientific… it’s religious. Time for you to read or re-read Atlas Shrugged. You’ll find yourself described there in embarrassing detail.
The other big fraud is our universities. What a disgraceful excuse for education our universities have become when contrary viewpoints are not even allowed. Follow the money or, in this case, follow the grants.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
April 25th, 2009 at 11:36 amDman,
One should remember what eventually happened to the little Boy who Cried WOLF.
I Believe he was EATEN by WOLVES.
April 25th, 2009 at 11:53 amWhile I was doing lawn work, DMan provided balance to the hype. Thank you.
Badger, in the rush to create unmanageable, wasteful, and expensive government intrusion into our lives with the theory that the current warming trend is predominantly or entirely man-made, me thinks many in this movement who are crying “Wolf” will be eaten by their own exaggerated since of importance and self-agrandizement rather by the “Wolf” of MMGW. Even Al Gore is but an insignificant speck in the cycle of life on this magnificent sphere called EARTH, the only place in the enormous universe where we know for certain that life exists! That is no “accident”. And, while I consider it immoral to squander our God-given resources, we should not be spinning our wheels on some fruitless, truly man-made illusion such as rationing carbon molecules.
What will your government-imposed fix be when the current warming cycle ends and the next ice age begins?
I will say it again: Let’s manage all of our resources wisely, let’s get free of foreign oil and the loss of economic and strategic strength that results, let’s keep our environment clean and healthy, let’s develop all of our own resources and those of our allies, let’s not waste anything… because it is the right thing to do regardless of our different beliefs about the affect of man upon this earth.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:46 pmHello Dr. Drywall aka brothabill. Don’t you have a wall to mud you stupid bone head troll?
April 25th, 2009 at 1:05 pmRealityCheck Says:
Most impressive post I have ever seen here.
Define “impressive.”
There are a great many level-headed, intelligent and rational responses from liberals on this page. Ones that provide supporting argumentation for their claims, as well as citations and references, and which refrain from ad hominem attacks on either the other debaters or any public figures.
The fact that they are invisible to you kinda demonstrates that you are incapable of being rationally argued with.
.
DMan Says:
HOWEVER, all of these predictions were made in 1970. We should all be utterly dead by now. Instead, there are 6 billion of us. Something’s clearly wrong.
So previous false predictions discredit all future predictions. If I say you’re going to get run over by a bus tomorrow and you don’t, does that make you immortal?
.
DMan Says:
Anything’s possible, but there seems to be a pattern of crying ‘wolf’ for fun, profit, involvement, and often, I’m sure, sincere concern for one’s fellow man.
You’d have to be able to show a causal link to such motives. You have not.
.
brothabill Says:
People like these fascists would recreate the killing fields of Cambodia, the anti-thinking revolution of China, the list of communist atrocities of mass murder and “purging” of populations that disagree with them is historical fact.
We’re the ones who are against torturing people. Conservatives have consistently developed greater willingness, both in the past and in contemporary history, to murder people in order to further their agenda.
.
brothabill Says:
Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
There’s no major world leader or belief system (religious or secular) who doesn’t have oceans of blood on their hands. Truth is not a game of counting the bodies.
.
brothabill Says:
I suggest you two take a huge amount of hallucinogenic drugs and realize the truth.
I suggest dxm as it really does provide you a god-like experience to where things finally make sense.
I was wondering how somebody becomes a conservative. Thanks for cluing me in.
.
brothabill Says:
I cant believe I am arguing the global warming scam with people who drive cars.
I don’t drive a car, but that’s beside the issue. Your position is that nobody can explain the science of the matter unless they live in the woods? Now you’re just being silly.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pmStupid, ignorant, irrelevant remark by ElBruce: “We’re the ones who are against torturing people. Conservatives have consistently developed greater willingness, both in the past and in contemporary history, to murder people in order to further their agenda.”
When I have time, I will educate you on the vast majority of sincere political conservatives in this country who happen to believe that society is best equipped when its citizens have the greatest incentive and opportunity to make their own decisions and to take care of themselves, rather than to look to Uncle Obama to “spread the wealth around.” None of those people advocate murder or torture. They do believe in a strong, vigilant program to stop terrorism BEFORE it happens. It is people like Obama who wants to make it “legal” to murder a perfectly viable fetus who is born alive during a botched abortion! Is that the civilized utopia you aspire to, ElBruce?
April 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pmPhilip50 Says:
None of those people advocate murder or torture.
Check the news. They’re doing it right now.
.
Philip50 Says:
They do believe in a strong, vigilant program to stop terrorism BEFORE it happens.
…by murdering and torturing people.
.
Philip50 Says:
…sincere political conservatives in this country who happen to believe that society is best equipped when its citizens have the greatest incentive and opportunity to make their own decisions and to take care of themselves, rather than to look to Uncle Obama to “spread the wealth around.”
Can I make the decision to dump poison in your city’s aquifer? That’s the sort of thing we’re talking about here.
Also, do you remember what Obama said before and after those four words? If all you heard him say was four words, then you’re uneducated on what he’s saying, and I win any arguments relative to it by default.
.
Philip50 Says:
It is people like Obama who wants to make it “legal” to murder a perfectly viable fetus who is born alive during a botched abortion!
It was already illegal when he blocked a law in Illinois that would make it illegal twice, plus load up a bunch of other restrictions. He didn’t try to make it legal. Either you’re lying about it, or somebody lied to you and you believed them. But it’s all a matter of public record.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pmPhilip50 Says:
When I have time, I will educate you on the vast majority of sincere political conservatives in this country…
I thought you said you were in Ireland. Stupid, lying, POS troll. You’ve busted yourself, again.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:52 pmBTW. I’m still waiting for someone to identify some of these “hundreds”, or “scores”, of “respectable” scientists who dissent from the consensus. I’m starting to think the trolls get their “scientific education” from FAUX and Reichradio.
April 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pmvsmith: “You guys are so bought and sold by the Global Warming fraud that you won’t even let an honest debate happen. That’s pathetic and if you’re as intellectual as you claim, you’d never put yourself in that position. It’s intellectually dishonest and disgraceful. Your position is not scientific… it’s religious. Time for you to read or re-read Atlas Shrugged. You’ll find yourself described there in embarrassing detail.”
Again, as I wrote above, if Gingrich really is a serious student of paleontology, he’d know that one large aspect of paleontology is the reconstruction of past climates and environments. It has been possible for some time to use oxygen isotopes in ocean foraminifera to infer temperature fluctuations over time. Cooling to warming cycles have occurred in the deep past, and it is possible to know how long these cycles generally were. It is possible then to compare the warming we’re experiencing now to those past cycles to see just how accelerated they really are. If memory serves, however, those in the past occurred over many hundreds of thousands of years, not decades or a generation. Do you have any credible reason why the ocean isotope data are not valid? Atlas Shrugged has no bearing on the issue of accelerated global warming. It’s also based upon a faulty pseudo-philosophy. Ayn Rand was a Hollywood script writer who had delusions of grandeur.
vsmith: “…The other big fraud is our universities. What a disgraceful excuse for education our universities have become when contrary viewpoints are not even allowed. Follow the money or, in this case, follow the grants…”
Except that neoconservatives laid out a plan several decades ago to seed universities with neoconservatives and to promote their agenda, so I guess what you’re describing is the fruit of that plan.
April 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pmCorrection:
I confused my trolls. Phil never claimed to be from Ireland. Sorry!
April 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pmvsmith
Time for you to read or re-read Atlas Shrugged.
Whiny industrialist quits job, forms hippie commune? That’s not relevant to science at all. Which constitutes an admission that it is your scientific opinion that is reverse-engineered from your political opinion, not ours.
.
vsmith
What a disgraceful excuse for education our universities have become when contrary viewpoints are not even allowed.
Any conclusion reached by the scientific method is “allowed.” It’s not about “viewpoints.”
.
vsmith
Follow the money or, in this case, follow the grants…
The explanation of types and aims of funding has been explained above. Use your pageup key.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm“Whiny industrialist quits job, forms hippie commune? That’s not relevant to science at all. Which constitutes an admission that it is your scientific opinion that is reverse-engineered from your political opinion, not ours.”
The whiny industrialist type who invented all the shit you use to write your incessant drivel. Liberals are and always will be ingrates. You’re operating under the illusion that the last 25 years of prosperity can last no matter how much you undermine the things that made it happen. When the inevitable collapse comes you will say we need more power and government control to “make it right.” You will never make it right. You plan has always proven to be flawed. Sooner or later you always run out of others peoples money. Usually it’s those whiny industrialists types money.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pmvsmith Says:
The whiny industrialist type who invented all the shit you use to write your incessant drivel.
John Galt didn’t invent sh!t. Fictional characters are not real! Sheesh people, how many times do we have to say this?
Besides, Al Gore is the one who secured the public funding that led to the Internet. And Bill Gates is a liberal. Your heroes are all nothing more than leeches.
April 25th, 2009 at 7:29 pmBadger Says:
Dman,
One should remember what eventually happened to the little Boy who Cried WOLF.
I Believe he was EATEN by WOLVES.
Correct. Now, applying our SAT analogy skills, who is the Little Boy in this example? That would be the enviro-shysters selling global warming by the column-inch. What nasty thing could happen to them as a result of their little pranks? As you can tell, I don’t think it will be catastrophic global warming. It might be a suitcase nuke or two from Pakistan or London that won’t be detected because of the billions we’ll be diverting from military intelligence into pop-bottle recycling programs or tricycle-sized electric cars.
Depending on what happens with the budget in two years, it could be there will be no more Federal funding for enviro-shysters or for real science either, because America and the West will go so completely broke. Because socialism ends when you run out of other people’s money.
Now, I don’t think it will be a bad thing if the government gets out of the science and education business. Universities and corporations can raise their own money just fine. But I would prefer that we figure this out without swallowing the socialist pill and setting off a world-wide depression first.
April 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pmElBruce Says:
DMan Says:
I spoke with Jerry Mahlman…
I presume he would have published such an opinion. Link?
(Just noticed this.) Pick up a phone. I did. You can reach him easily with what I gave you. Unless you’re afraid to.
Or look up his papers on this subject in the literature. Start with one of the IPCCs. He’s not cagey about his views.
April 25th, 2009 at 9:03 pmHey, gang…this is totally off the subject, but I have a sincere recommendation for each of you. I was getting all stressed out hearing about all the dire MMGW predictions, along with feeling the pressure of proving all the things some of you so gracefully demanded (and which I am fully capable of doing if I so choose) that I decided to call my masseuse, Hannah. After an hour with her abusing my entire body, I am a new man! I highly recommend it! Now, on the chance that some of your dire predictions are correct, I think I will go out and find some future beach-front property….in Kentucky.
In other words, lighten up guys and ease off the insults. Life is short, we are all in this together, and we had darned well better learn to work together to solve our challenges, whatever the future holds.
April 25th, 2009 at 9:09 pmDMan Says:
Now, I don’t think it will be a bad thing if the government gets out of the science and education business. Universities and corporations can raise their own money just fine.
…by producing commissioned, politicized reports for industry. Isn’t that the problem here? Now you’re all for cutting the only funding researchers get for studies in which the outcome isn’t predetermined. I find that interesting.
.
DMan Says:
(Just noticed this.) Pick up a phone. I did. You can reach him easily with what I gave you. Unless you’re afraid to.
Or look up his papers on this subject in the literature. Start with one of the IPCCs. He’s not cagey about his views.
You put forth the claim, you supply the evidence for it. I’m not going to research claims that may or may not exist for you.
I was talking with Newt Gingrich the other day, and he said he’s switching to pro-choice on the abortion debate. You go look up the citations for that, I’ve got better things to do. But you have to believe me.
.
Philip50 Says:
In other words, lighten up guys and ease off the insults. Life is short, we are all in this together, and we had darned well better learn to work together to solve our challenges, whatever the future holds.
People who are willing to believe anything just to try to stop anyone from doing anything about our challenges, are my enemy. We’ve seen plenty enough of what happens when your kind are allowed to get their way. You must be stopped, period. Civility don’t even enter in to it.
Idiot.
April 25th, 2009 at 10:08 pmElBruce Says:
DMan Says:
Universities and corporations can raise their own money just fine.
Now you’re all for cutting the only funding researchers get for studies in which the outcome isn’t predetermined.
The difference here is that I don’t believe in fairies. If the Feds are underwriting the research, it’s going to be to help some Congressman or Senator make a name for himself. He’s not looking for a non-problem. For the researcher, no problem, no grant. Many researchers will find a disastrous problem to focus on. Some will call them as they see them. Similarly, some industry-sponsored studies won’t find results that might damage the industry. But some will. Some ground-breaking epidemiological studies on cancer in the ’60s and ’70s were done by DuPont, with the finger pointing at DuPont factories as the cause.
University studies are all over the map. On the one hand, industries support the labs. On the other hand, most academics are Lefties, and in any case, don’t like to be messed with. Universities are essentially run by their faculties, and most build firewalls between funding and research.
But who is objective? No one. The scientific method and the reproducibility of results are the only tools that make science accurate. That was the problem with Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph, showing world temperatures climbing into the stratosphere just beyond the present moment. (As it happens, this was six years ago, and those temperatures didn’t happen.) He wouldn’t share his data so the graph could be reproduced—or revealed as propaganda.
ElBruce Says:
DMan Says:
Pick up a phone. I did. You can reach him easily with what I gave you. . .
You put forth the claim, you supply the evidence for it. I’m not going to research claims that may or may not exist for you.
In the science business, the citation for my reporting what the guy told me on the phone or in personal correspondence would read: “personal communication.” That’s the evidence. It’s just as checkable as a page reference. All you have to do is . . . pick up a phone.
If you can’t do that, or type “malhlman 30 kyotos” into google, I can’t help you because you’re not honest, and you’re afraid of what you might find out.
April 26th, 2009 at 12:09 amDMan Says:
If you can’t do that, or type “malhlman 30 kyotos” into google
I should mention that Mahlman was saying “30 kyotos” in 2001, but by the time I talked to him in 2003, he’d upped his estimate, because of what he characterized as additional CO2 build-up to “40 successful kyotos”, as he told National Geographic.
April 26th, 2009 at 8:14 amOkay, I have gotten over trying to be nice.
ElBruce, you have some major anger issues and show a major lack of discretion and maturity in your comments. Do your parents know you are using their computer?
April 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pmI listened to a more complete version of Gingrich’s testimony, rather than the edited one on here that tries to disparage him. His rebutal to the pompous Gore was very polite and factual, contrary to what the managers of this site would have us believe. Can anyone refute to facts Newt put forth as a counterweight to Gore’s assertions? In no way did Newt attack or slam Gore. He simply refuted some of his facts and assertions, something many of you close-minded and defensive liberals just cannot stomach. Why are you unwilling to consider ALL the information, rather than just the portion that supports your theories?
April 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pmThanks SitesSesli Sohbet
April 30th, 2009 at 9:01 amSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat