House Democrats refuse to hear skeptic of Manbearpig

[/dev/null]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-D...ssional-Hearing

[Alaska Darin]

Not only did Congress refuse, apparently the mass media refuses to report on it.

 

Let's keep debating the nuances, partisans.

[Nixon]

Not only did Congress refuse, apparently the mass media refuses to report on it.

 

Let's keep debating the nuances, partisans.

 

 

No thanks. I'd prefer debating the fact that conner is either 12 or 29. I'm struggling with how to respond to his america sucks posts. Any thoughts?

[IDBillzFan]

The Congress can't host a guy who's title is Lord when they are already worshipping their own Jesus.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Gore would"chicken out" on a debate with a potato. "Ladies and gentlemen,the debate is over,and I have the judges score cards. In the meaningful insight category Gore zero,potato zero. In the presenting my argument with proven facts category,Gore zero,potato zero. Therefore we will go to the tiebreaker of who did you find the less obnoxious,boring and predictable. And the first runner up is....Al Gore!

[Fastback]

Why should this suprise anyone? We're going to have a massive energy tax regardless of what the people want. The writing is on the wall. Gore is simply their pawn (although he's getting rich as one).

 

Leftists- I thought the annointed one wasn't going to raise taxes on 'middle class' people? Oh, I forgot, cap and trade isn't a tax.

[Gene Frenkle]

The Global Warming deniers may be right - only time will tell. I've certainly taken a wait and see attitude toward this whole thing lately. I don't believe it is as cut-and-dry as Al Gore would make it sound, though a lot of people seem to be basing their judgments on the messenger instead of the message. A lot of Liberal types do just the opposite, embracing the message because of the messenger.

 

That said, the Global Warming deniers sure do display many of the defining characteristics of Intelligent Design proponents, AIDS deniers, Holocaust deniers, anti-Vaccinationists, 911 Truthers, etc... First, we should only base our judgments and actions only on our current scientific understanding of the subject, as imperfect as it may be. That's the absolute best we can do at any given time. Like it or not, the consensus of more than 90% of the climate scientists in the world points to man-made global warming. There is no real debate about this among the vast majority of these people. Anyone who is arrogant enough, with no relative knowledge on the subject, who chooses not to accept this as the most likely truth has a belief. Belief is driven by ideology.

 

None of the groups above have shown the ability to change in the face of evidence. They all make wild accusations of vast, complicated conspiracies. When evidence is presented, they bend and twist their story as fantastically as needed to continue to fit their pre-conceived notions. No matter what science says, there will always be deniers, conspiracy theorists and various other crackpots trying to make noise. The Global Warming denier crackpots are receiving more credit and attention than they would normally get because normal people have other reasons to deny man made Global Warming that have nothing to do with science. Flame away.

[IDBillzFan]

Why should this suprise anyone? We're going to have a massive energy tax regardless of what the people want. The writing is on the wall. Gore is simply their pawn (although he's getting rich as one).

 

Leftists- I thought the annointed one wasn't going to raise taxes on 'middle class' people? Oh, I forgot, cap and trade isn't a tax.

Cap and trade is not a tax on the people. In fact, Obama explained to everyone that

 

But they're not government taxes, so you can't say that he is raising taxes on the middle class. Because he's not.

 

Dude's a genius.

 

Nothing up his sleeve. Nothing up his hat.

[Alaska Darin]

First, we should only base our judgments and actions only on our current scientific understanding of the subject, as imperfect as it may be.

[Gene Frenkle]

What's your alternative, go with your gut?

[Wacka]

More interesting information

[DC Tom]

More interesting information

 

If by "interesting" you mean "bull sh--". You're indulging the same fallacy as the people you're arguing against.

[OCinBuffalo]

I am getting a little sick of a-holes co-opting the suffix "denier" when talking about anything that is clearly still a matter of opinion. The Holocaust was a fact and we should categorize anybody who denies it as a nut, hence Holocaust-denier.

 

Global Warming^TM is a lame attempt to force a political agenda on Americans based on science that clearly remains unproven. Attempting to attach a similar stigma, in the guise of "Holocaust-denier", to somebody who values reason and common sense over political ideology is bullschit.

 

Lets cut the BS:

1. There are no more new worlds to explore/conquer etc.

2. The borders of the world are what they are

3. Every country has to do the best they can with the land/resources/people they have

4. Due to 1-3, the deck is stacked heavily in the USA's favor, not to mention that we currently(unless the socialists get their way) have a culture that values hard work and individual accomplishment over self-gratification and collective mediocrity.

5. The only way to deal with 4, for the Europeans and the rest of the 1-3 losers, is to make up a new set of rules and tell us that we CAN'T use our resources, both natural and human, to the best of our ability.

 

5 is the only chance they have left. Otherwise the US will lead the world in everything, permanently, and there will be little that can change that. We will continue to be the best country to live in, and that means we will continue to attract the world's best talent, which means we keep inventing/building/working = we are the best country to live in.

 

Unfortunately they have fooled many idiots in this coutry(and let's face it, aren't these the same people who believe in aliens? scientology? etc.) that their economic attack on the USA's ability to produce is actually some high-minded moral imperative.

 

So what are we to do? I have a simple suggestion: use the same arguments anti-Scientology people use on those retards.

 

Hey Congress: if this is such a serious issue, and you claim to have "scientific evidence" how come you won't allow others to observe/reproduce/study/scrutinize that evidence?

 

Typical Scientologist response:

1. I will attack you personally

2. You don't know what you are talking about

3. We don't need to waste time re-proving something we already know works

Sound familiar?

[Ramius]

And the damn global warming morons wonder why we call it a "religion."

[Gene Frenkle]

I am getting a little sick of a-holes co-opting the suffix "denier" when talking about anything that is clearly still a matter of opinion. The Holocaust was a fact and we should categorize anybody who denies it as a nut, hence Holocaust-denier.

 

Global Warming^TM is a lame attempt to force a political agenda on Americans based on science that clearly remains unproven. Attempting to attach a similar stigma, in the guise of "Holocaust-denier", to somebody who values reason and common sense over political ideology is bullschit.

 

Lets cut the BS:

1. There are no more new worlds to explore/conquer etc.

2. The borders of the world are what they are

3. Every country has to do the best they can with the land/resources/people they have

4. Due to 1-3, the deck is stacked heavily in the USA's favor, not to mention that we currently(unless the socialists get their way) have a culture that values hard work and individual accomplishment over self-gratification and collective mediocrity.

5. The only way to deal with 4, for the Europeans and the rest of the 1-3 losers, is to make up a new set of rules and tell us that we CAN'T use our resources, both natural and human, to the best of our ability.

 

5 is the only chance they have left. Otherwise the US will lead the world in everything, permanently, and there will be little that can change that. We will continue to be the best country to live in, and that means we will continue to attract the world's best talent, which means we keep inventing/building/working = we are the best country to live in.

 

Unfortunately they have fooled many idiots in this coutry(and let's face it, aren't these the same people who believe in aliens? scientology? etc.) that their economic attack on the USA's ability to produce is actually some high-minded moral imperative.

Oh, you're right. Is it too late to take back the part where I lumped you in with 'vast conspiracy theary' nuts?

 

Your explanation is Occam's Razor to a tee.

 

So what are we to do? I have a simple suggestion: use the same arguments anti-Scientology people use on those retards.

 

Hey Congress: if this is such a serious issue, and you claim to have "scientific evidence" how come you won't allow others to observe/reproduce/study/scrutinize that evidence?

 

Typical Scientologist response:

1. I will attack you personally

2. You don't know what you are talking about

3. We don't need to waste time re-proving something we already know works

Sound familiar?

That's just inaccurate. You are free to conduct your own experiments and disprove Global Warming even though you think you are being persecuted. The Men in Black are not after you - take off your tinfoil hat. The compiled data is freely available. Disprove away! Just not with illogical unsupportable claims.

 

Oh yeah, if it's just about the science then you've got nothing to B word about.

 

Ideology.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, you're right. Is it too late to take back the part where I lumped you in with 'vast conspiracy theary' nuts?

 

Your explanation is Occam's Razor to a tee.

Yeah, you're explanation, which:

1. doesn't explain how this has happened before on this planet when men didn't exist

2. directly contradicts multiple laws of physics

3. pretends that these little sh------- countries AREN'T going to benefit huge from its precepts

4. allows China/Inida to become the biggest polluters and doesn't punish them at all because we don't want to hinder THEIR economic development-->which implies ours can go to hell

is a much better adherence to Occam's Razor principles than mine.

That's just inaccurate.

Yes it is. Read the original post. Not letting any scientist come in to present a reasonable case against man made Global warming is the best example of Scientologist behavior there is.

You are free to conduct your own experiments and disprove Global Warming even though you think you are being persecuted. The Men in Black are not after you - take off your tinfoil hat. The compiled data is freely available. Disprove away! Just not with illogical unsupportable claims.

Ha! As if you would believe anything that your "faith" says is wrong. I might as well be showing proof that Jesus didn't exist to an evangelist baptist.

 

Let's assume I did, and I came back with incontrovertible proof the Sun/magnetic shifts etc. was responsible for the increasing temps. Would you go around and apologize to everyone for contributing to this hysteria? Would you go around and admit that the hysteria was largely used for political gain? Would scold Environtologists for crying wolf...again?(Last time it was an ice age.)

 

Of course you wouldn't. And here's my most important question: If I had proof and could show it to you, would it change anything in that small, addled brain of yours? Of course not. You wouldn't accept my proof and tell me that I made it up, that I work for oil companies, that I'm militarist, corporate a-hole, and most importantly you would tell me that I am trying to "suppress" your views, your "science". Then you'd classify me as a "suppressive person" just like the Scientologists do, and go after me with lawyers, personal attacks, etc.

 

They funny part is you have already exhibited this behavior in this thread, especially with with your "Global Warming-denier" moniker. You are already prepared to treat huge segments of the population as "them", and there is no finer example of Scientologist, or any other cult, behavior.

Hint: Making up names for whole segments of the population(you) is the paranoid behavior here, pal, not simply doing a proper economic analysis(me).

Oh yeah, if it's just about the science then you've got nothing to B word about.

 

Ideology.

My entire argument is get ALL the science together, period, not just the science that suits this OBVIOUS political agenda. My point is simple: separate from the OBVIOUS political agenda, there may actually be a real threat here. Let's deal with the realities and the required solutions, not the OBVIOUS political agenda and the WISHES of the environtologists.

[DC Tom]

That's just inaccurate. You are free to conduct your own experiments and disprove Global Warming even though you think you are being persecuted. The Men in Black are not after you - take off your tinfoil hat. The compiled data is freely available. Disprove away! Just not with illogical unsupportable claims.

 

Actually, you're not. You won't get funding.

 

Y'know...kind-of like how people bitched that stem cell research wasn't done because of the lack of funding...?

[Alaska Darin]

Actually, you're not. You won't get funding.

 

Y'know...kind-of like how people bitched that stem cell research wasn't done because of the lack of funding...?

Shut up! Those arguments are only hypocritical on stuff we don't like.

 

Global Warming is an invention of the "scientists" on the UN payroll. It's not even remotely science.

 

That is not to say that we don't need to be better stewards of the environment, either. That much is abundantly clear.

[Gene Frenkle]

Actually, you're not. You won't get funding.

 

Y'know...kind-of like how people bitched that stem cell research wasn't done because of the lack of funding...?

All things being equal, promising research gets funding, provided there's no retarded executive bias against the outcome.

 

Now go ahead and tell me how naive I am as to how things really work in the 'academic textbook writing' world.

[Gene Frenkle]

Shut up! Those arguments are only hypocritical on stuff we don't like.

 

Global Warming is an invention of the "scientists" on the UN payroll. It's not even remotely science.

 

That is not to say that we don't need to be better stewards of the environment, either. That much is abundantly clear.

I get it, you're a Libertarian, government is bad. Be suspicious of the government. You can say it until you're blue in the face.

 

In this case, you're wrong. The science today says man made global warming. You are not a climate scientist, though you may know one or think you know about it or something like that. You're no more of an authority on the subject than I and what you have to say about it means very little, just like me.

 

Without an agenda, the best either of us can do is to agree with the latest science, even if it disagrees with our ideologies.

 

But of course, you know better and will share that opinion. Thanks in advance.