DC Tom Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I know, it almost cost him the election! Speaking of sound bytes having no basis in fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Corky, I know you're used to people talking real slowly and loudly when they speak to you but for expedience sake just let me quickly say you've, again, missed the point entirely. You can't cherry pick bits and pieces of a story to make it fit your view of what the story SHOULD be. That's why context is so important. Libertard , I am I am digesting the context of your post .We really should not go by what people but by what we say it should mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Libertard , I am I am digesting the context of your post .We really should not go by what people but by what we say it should mean Not people. Democrats. Republicans...we should absolutely go by the letter of what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Speaking of sound bytes having no basis in fact... I can't believe The King of All Memes Talking Point Tom can't discern a joke, albeit not the best of lines, when he sees one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Can you name one scientific body that denies global warming? (Besides The Union of Petroleum Scientists of course!) And I can bet all of them take gov't money to fund themselves nicely. That link provided gave this gem: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” I made it easy for you to read what really happens, just like lawyers who are ambulance chasers. When they are getting paid from destroying lives the laws are good, but privately they know they suck and destroy careers. Bottom line, when you are getting paid for saying what helps you get paid why stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Heretics! Burn them Somebody call Inquisitor General Gorequemada! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Bottom line, when you are getting paid for saying what helps you get paid why stop? Maybe you should take a look at Senator Inhofe's campaign contributors then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Can you name one scientific body that denies global warming? (Besides The Union of Petroleum Scientists of course!) American Association for the Advancement of Science The American Physical Society The Joint Science Academies at the 2008 G8 Summit International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences The National Research Council Federation of American Scientists The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change World Meteorogical Organization American Meteorogical Society International Union of Geological Sciences Geological Society of America American Geophysical Union American Astronomical Society The EPA The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The InterAcademy Council Royal Meteorological Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences International Union for Quaternary Research American Quaternary Association International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London International Union of Geological Sciences European Geosciences Union Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences American Society for Microbiology American Statistical Association Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society European Academies of Sciences and Arts NASA American Institute of Physics Network of African Science Academies The European Science Foundation Stephen Hawking The CIA and the Pentagon American Chemical Society The Union of Concerned Scientists Maybe all those groups can explain why Florida is experiencing one of the coldest falls in years. We are experiencing temperatures that we normally don't have until after the first of the year. Do you really think all those scientists (650) that were included in the report are idiots? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Do you really think all those scientists (650) that were included in the report are idiots? I don't. Holy Mackerel! 650!!?? This changes everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Maybe you should take a look at Senator Inhofe's campaign contributors then. You are still blatantly ignoring that a scientist said that he can talk freely because he wasn't under the funding perils of speaking against the Great Heresy. It makes your quoting of links more silly because these groups live and breath off the incomplete knowledge that we don't know the cause, and more than likely it's not by us, but they have to pretend to be resolved in their stand otherwise the money goes bye-bye. Irrespective of that I expect you to look more critically and objectively and recognize there is no way of knowing yet. On the one hand it may be true, and on the other it's a money-grab. I say if the science was so conclusive why don't they allow open dissent or why fear losing their grant money? If they were so sure they would allow the discussion, but as my friend from the University of Michigan, whose a professor there, told me they won't allow it or they lose the money and that he knows full well that they must repeat the party line. Sounds very scientific right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 11, 2008 Author Share Posted December 11, 2008 Just read what Global Warming can do. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 With the human population growing, with the middle class of the world set to expand upon the resumption of economic growth, it behoves us to do something about energy, pollution and conservation whether global warming is real or not. In my view the environmentalists are right even if global warming is wrong. Things will change whether we lead or do nothing. Its better to get out in front on this and ignore the howls of the pro-pollution crowd. And it looks like Obama is serious about this change: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/12/10/steven_chu/ "You should interview Steven Chu," the scientist at the Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., told me. "He already has one Nobel Prize. He wants to get a second one for solving the energy crisis." That was two years ago, and I sorely regret not following through and landing an interview with Chu, a physicist who has dedicated his post-Nobel Prize career to the development of alternative sources of energy. Because as Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of energy, Steven Chu is going to get a chance to make his dreams come true, with the full backing of the U.S. government. Since 2004, Chu has served as the director of the University of California-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spearheading, among other things, a massive research effort in solar power. To get a sense of the man's interests, here's the second sentence of his bio at the LBNL Web site. (LBNL, located in Berkeley, Calif., should be distinguished from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which does weapons research for the U.S. government.) Chu, an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change, has guided Berkeley Lab on a new mission to become the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy. Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Doesn't matter who hung the banner. Nor do I care one way or the other. Doesn't matter in the least. The fact it was there to serve as a backdrop was bound to have the impact it had on Bush's speech. That's the issue. That FRAMED the context forever. That said I will NEVER believe that all the media savvy personnel on the White House staff from Rove on down didn't know for ONE NY SECOND that the sign was going to be visible while Bush made his speech. The White House very carefully plans the background for EVERY televised presidential appearance, especially one so important and with as much fanfare as that one on the carrier. That tells me they LIKED the fact the banner was there and thought it would serve the president and his speech in a positive manner. It wasn't until the ensuing public backlash that everyone backtracked and pointed fingers at who/what was responsible for the banner being there in the first place. Which is precisely why the analogy to Gore's inventing the Internet came in. Gore did not invent the Internet, nor did he say that he did. However, the Internet as you know it only became the Internet after it was privatized and a massive rush of network capacity was added in the late '90s, thanks in part to flawed telecom laws that Al Gore helped champion. So to slam Bush for the banner backdrop, and then to ignore Gore's act in conveniently wrapping himself with the banner of private Internet during the insdustry's bubble run up is equally disingenius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 .....guess not. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...f0-274616db87e6 Inofe Blog, now there is one Senator who doesn't have a clue and is a source of credibility... Not.... Please, I would believe Wacka's facts before this clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Just read what Global Warming can do. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html Here in the SF Bay area, they are predicting snow this weekend down to about 2000 feet or even lower.Last time that happened, the 3800 foot tall mountain that I can see from my house had about 2 feet of snow and it lasted a week. The 1000-1100 foot hills about 2 miles away had a dusting. Global warming my ass. It's 35 right now (7:30 AM). We have frost on the roofs and grass.They are predicting a high of 45 with rain on Tuesday!!!! Fresno, which is in the Central Valley of CA at an altitude of 300 feet has SNOW today! They also got a few inches of snow in New Orleans today. Is Gore traveling the south today? It must be the Gore effect. Whenever he talks about global warming at a conference, the city has unusually cold and bad weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Which is precisely why the analogy to Gore's inventing the Internet came in. Gore did not invent the Internet, nor did he say that he did. However, the Internet as you know it only became the Internet after it was privatized and a massive rush of network capacity was added in the late '90s, thanks in part to flawed telecom laws that Al Gore helped champion. So to slam Bush for the banner backdrop, and then to ignore Gore's act in conveniently wrapping himself with the banner of private Internet during the insdustry's bubble run up is equally disingenius. I don't recall slamming Bush for the banner fiasco if that's what you're implying. I know others have but I'm pretty sure Bush didn't select that backdrop. And I am not ignoring Gore's convenient use of the Internet driven boom as a campaign tool and I've agreed it was a foolish thing for him to say given the context of the internet in 1999. I also agree the Telecom Act he helped champion is majorly flawed to say the least. Lots of pols in the back pockets of the major carriers. These are subjects for different posts. As for the internet as we know it, that's precisely what I was NOT referring to. I was referring, as was Gingrich AND Gore, to the creation of the internet long before the term internet was even part of the vernacular. I'm talking late 70s here. What prompted my response in this thread is simple context and the desire by some to ignore it and continue to perpetuate the lies that result from it especially after it was debunked and explained and re-debunked and re-explained too many times for even the most inflexible partisan to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Here in the SF Bay area, they are predicting snow this weekend down to about 2000 feet or even lower.Last time that happened, the 3800 foot tall mountain that I can see from my house had about 2 feet of snow and it lasted a week. The 1000-1100 foot hills about 2 miles away had a dusting. Global warming my ass. It's 35 right now (7:30 AM). We have frost on the roofs and grass.They are predicting a high of 45 with rain on Tuesday!!!! Fresno, which is in the Central Valley of CA at an altitude of 300 feet has SNOW today! They also got a few inches of snow in New Orleans today. Is Gore traveling the south today? It must be the Gore effect. Whenever he talks about global warming at a conference, the city has unusually cold and bad weather. Yes, one of the flaws in most colloquial global warming arguments is insisting it's possible to derive long-term trends from short-term variations. So let's do the same thing in the counter-argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts