Wednesday, July 01, 2009
|
|
EPA Substitutes Ideology In Place of Scientific Integrity
|
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
12:27 PM
|
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, also referred to as cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, or the national energy tax, on the premise that if we don't act now to cut carbon emissions, our planet's environment will incur irreversible damage.
Now, we know that cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous economic policy, resulting in higher costs for every single American on energy and all manufactured goods. It is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy that will serve merely as a huge revenue booster for the federal government. We know that.
So supporters of this legislation claimed that we had to pursue this disastrous public policy because science says we must do it to save the environment. Enter the EPA, and its new administrator Lisa Jackson. You’ll recall that the EPA made a similar announcement not long ago, making an endangerment finding and stating that it would have to regulate carbon dioxide if Congress didn’t.
Last week, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government."
CBS states that "the EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'" The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.
In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
But, wait, there’s more.
If we go back to January of this year, it was the EPA's Lisa Jackson who said, " I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."
It seems to me that Jackson substituted ideology in place of scientific integrity in this case. If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate. But in rushing through a major policy initiative of this White House and Congress, I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action.
|
|
Rep. Bachmann says "I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action."
LOL - Rep. Bachmann, it has never stopped you
|
|
Munck writes:
"I personally think that things like the carbon tax, automobile mileage requirements, and most of the other mechanisms proposed to counter global warming will in the long run be of immense value to the human race."
_______________________________________________
Great Britain has been doing this for at least 5 years.....no..nada...0..impact on the temps, environment, etc but each family now pays between $1000-1300 per year for the honor of saying they be doing something!!!!???? Stupid! |
|
Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth’s temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.
All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.
The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.
How many years of declining world temperature would it take now—in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998—to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?
|
|
"I personally think that things like the carbon tax, automobile mileage requirements, and most of the other mechanisms proposed to counter global warming will in the long run be of immense value to the human race."
First, prove that there is such a thing as "global warming" and then demonstrate the value of the items you list, including "most of the mechanisms proposed" providing some verifiable data to support your assertions. |
|
"I just explained the scientific bases of the concept of prove"
You did? Where? |
|
|
No sense explaining anything to those who are politically motivated. Science doesn't apply to these people. They only know and do what they are told! Obamascience! Do as I say or you're fired! |
|
You can't tax the Sun.
Hello, Ms. Sun, Mother of Climate Change, could you please stop doing what you've been doing for millions, or billions of years?
No? Okay. Could you please not plunge us into another ice age any time soon?
Ah, thanks. |
|
I just explained the scientific bases of the concept of prove, I guess you failed science class as well.
I drive a car, use electricity, buy goods and services as do Billions of other people, we should all be impoverished while a certain few in the governement or their friends confiscate all of the wealth and resources of the world.
That is called Socialism...so much for your defense of Barry not being a socialist... |
|
|
Everybody knows it and only the braindead will continue to support this nonsence based on political affiliations. |
|
|
|
"How many years does a trend make?"
That depends on a great many things: the size and complexity of the system, the standard deviation of values in a given measurement, the accuracy with which meansurements can be made, etc. It's a logical fallacy to pick a period in which values are going in one direction and declare that to be a trend; such a declaration has no predictive value for changes outside of the chosen period.
"Science does involve the concept of prove, or at least reach conclusions close to prove."
Either you don't understand how science works, or you don't understand how mathematics works. Possibly both.
"So in the absence of absolute certainty, you think it wise to impoversh most of the human race"
I personally think that things like the carbon tax, automobile mileage requirements, and most of the other mechanisms proposed to counter global warming will in the long run be of immense value to the human race. They may impoverish some of the current vested interests, but that's tough cookies. |
|
"He freely admits that he's repeating what reputable scientists tell him...."
Al Gore cites the (infamous) "hockey stick" of Michael Mann, and, maybe, you also subscribe to that sham. So much for "...the actual scientific results. And the science has credibility because it has been cross-checked, verified, questioned, re-evaluated". |
|
Kill 2 Birds w/ 1 Stone. BOYCOTT algore
BOYCOTT NASHVILLE! BOYCOTT NASHVILLE!
BOYCOTT Nashville to protest AlGore's Cap & Trade Fraud and for Nashville DA Torry Johnson's refusal to investigate Pedophilia by Obama supporters in Nashville.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/nas hville-da-refuses-to-investigate-child-marriage-pedophilia- child-abuse-in-shariah-classes.html
There is an ongoing criminal conspiracy among Obama supporters in Nashville to cover up crimes committed by his campaign in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These crimes include, but are not limited to, VOTER FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, COMPUTER THEFT, INVASION OF PRIVACY and petty BURGLARIES similar to WATERGATE.
Grand Jury forming in Nashville to Investigate crimes committed in 2008 Election.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/nashville-citizen s-grand-jury-forming.html
BOYCOTT NASHVILLE! BOYCOTT NASHVILLE!
|
|
How many years does a trend make?
Science does involve the concept of prove, or at least reach conclusions close to prove.
There is as much evidence to deductively conclude MMGW exists or that MMGW does not exist based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions pointing to both positions being correct, but NO method allows certainty. So in the absence of absolute certainty, you think it wise to impoversh most of the human race and severly limit capitalism in the developed world to change try and vary the global temperateure by a fraction of a degree? that is is like me turning on my Air Conditioner at home to full blast and opening my doors and windows to try and cool the earth....
Also, senile economist or not, the fact that the conclusion was withheld is the problem. remember watergate was not about the crime, but the "cover up"..... |
|
|
The link I have provided here will take you to a petition, signed by over 17,200 scientists who think that the currently available scientific data do not support the conclusion that global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon. The site also contains a peer reviewed scientific paper that gives an overview of the existing climate science. This peer reviewed paper demonstrates that the positive feedback model is not valid and that therefor, the entire hypothesis of man-made global warming is also not validated |
|
"So the fact the earth has been on a cooling trend for the past eight years proves global warming?"
Eight years isn't a trend; it's well within expected variance.
"no one can prove MMGW or MMCG, but yet it is "science"...."
Science doesn't involve the concept of "prove."
"I see you fail to respond to the POTUS' actions of supressing "scientific" information relevant to pending legislation"
A paper by a senile economist isn't "scientific information." |
|
Muncky writes...
I agree with him because I can see that he's accurately reporting the actual scientific results. And the science has credibility because it has been cross-checked, verified, questioned, re-evaluated, and in other ways put through the meat grinder of the Scientific Method. Wingnuts don't understand that.
Me...
So the fact the earth has been on a cooling trend for the past eight years proves global warming?
At least Don Quixote could prove there were actual such things as windmills when he went on his crusade, no one can prove MMGW or MMCG, but yet it is "science"....
Also,
I see you fail to respond to the POTUS' actions of supressing "scientific" information relevant to pending legislation in order to influence the outcome of the vote, a vote that also taxes every person in the country... |
|
"Uh, care to tell us about the academic "area of understanding" of Al Gore, the lefties gold-standard of GW? He has zero academic credentials in Climate Science"
Gore doesn't claim to be a scientist. He freely admits that he's repeating what reputable scientists tell him, and it's obvious that he struggles mightily to understand them.
"you agree with him, so, he has credibility."
No, I've read a great deal of the source documentation from which he derives his presentations. I agree with him because I can see that he's accurately reporting the actual scientific results. And the science has credibility because it has been cross-checked, verified, questioned, re-evaluated, and in other ways put through the meat grinder of the Scientific Method. Wingnuts don't understand that. |
|
"Lists of "tens of thousands" of mechanical engineers and doddering professors emeritus who are willing to express opinions outside their area of understanding do not make for a credible argument."
Uh, care to tell us about the academic "area of understanding" of Al Gore, the lefties gold-standard of GW? He has zero academic credentials in Climate Science, yet, lefties give him awards for his GW rants, and Dem's invite him to testify before congress on GW.
I'll believe the Professors Emeritus and Mechanical Engineers before I believe Al Gore. But, we know the drill; you agree with him, so, he has credibility. |
|
Big Sky Cowboy writes: Wednesday, July, 01, 2009 9:21 PM
Hail Mary for Michael
Hey Mike, not judging here... you seem to need prayer.
You seem to be making a judgement again
Hey you jusy can't help yourself can you?
Why no mention of Rep Bachmann's church and their core doctrine about the Pope being the Anti-Christ?
Did you check it out or don't you want to know?
|
|
I do want to do something. I want to make sure Obama doesnt think "the debate is over."
Numbers aside, the big picture points towards re-evaluating. Most of the money is spent on solidifying a view...as if it were blashpemy to think otherwise. Self skepticism is a healthy component of the democratic process.
|
|
|
Munck. I caught your boy Vlad redhanded in a filthy lie. Heh! Is he still your buddy? |
|
Bob Munck writes: Wednesday, July, 01, 2009 10:54 PM
Dose of Reality 10:41 PM
"The point is there are wingnuts on both sides of this equation"
No, sorry, there are not. Wingnuts (short for "right-wing nut cases") make up almost the entire population of those who reject the science that supports global warming. That side of the argument is in fact marginalizing and suppressing itself, by its inability to do or understand science. Lists of "tens of thousands" of mechanical engineers and doddering professors emeritus who are willing to express opinions outside their area of understanding do not make for a credible argument.
Arch says
Munck. There were myriads of so called scientists and model engineers that predicted the end of the world back in the 70's. They were sorely wrong then as are the AGW proponents of today. Humans are a non factor in co2 emmissions globally. The proponents are simply playing politics with projection of an unproven impending crisis.
Hell. A volcano can expel more co2 than any human factor. You are buying a false prediction and are willing to believe it based upon politics and not valid scientific principles!
Didn't you claim to be an educated man? |
|
|
Your math is simple. If only it were all that simple. Nature and the earth are not so linear. Thats why the vapor issue is hard to model. Try to model all the shapes of clouds you have ever seen. |
|
Um, what exactly do you mean by "current contribution"? That's not a per-year figure, is it, because that would seem awfully high.
And doesn't uncertainty work in favor of those who want to do something, rather than those who want to do nothing? |
|
The 14% is current contribution, not total added. I go to university and science links more than political ones (this being the exception)
Read this NASA publication from March. Its over most peoples head, but the just of it is trying to "model" the assumed stability of water vapor that was made a nonfactor in models used today. There are significant variations that need to be assessed furhter. In other words, Time Out on the whole Crap and Tax until we grasp this.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Wright_etal.pdf
This issue is a moving target.Hypothesis and Theorems need to be tested and retested for validity, especially against observation.
But hey, every day I spend time thinking about a carbon scrubber of Einstein proportions. Not just to "save" the world, but also to become like Al Gore, worth $100 million. (Unless Obama takes my idea from me for "the good of the world" like an Atlas Shrugged moment)....
|
|
|
Now you people play nice now! LOL |
|
The left wingbut side claims a ‘consensus’ of opinion and the debate is ‘over’; the only action left is carbon credits.The carbon credit side marginalizes anyone who disagrees with carbon's negative effect on the environment and characterize those that disagree or even ask to see the unbiased evidence as being someone with their head in the sand who is ignorant or unenlightened. This is a very typical ‘marginalization’ technique. Marginalization means bias; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science which leads to the attempt to confiscate other's resources or wealth in the name of the "Cause".
Now the POTUS is on the side of the left wingnuts in manipulating, withholding and making false representations on an issue which is propoganda in it's truest form. You dont find it irnonic that the freedom of speech crowd will stand by and accept and defend the lies, liar, and the propoganda obvious and willful deciet of the American people? Do you seriously defend any public official supressing information to unduly influence legislation? |
|
As for my math:
The entire greenhouse effect warms the Earth by 33 degrees C. CO2 accounts for at least 12% of that. We haven't doubled CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels yet, but from what I've heard, it's just inevitable that they will. So the additional CO2 will be roughly the same amount as all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. 33 degrees X .12 = 3.9 degrees. I'm over-estimating it, no doubt, because each CO2 increment has a reduced effect, but not that much reduced. And, what do you know, the IPCC predicts an average of 3 degrees of warming, so their prediction is more optimistic than mine. I'm ignoring positive or negative feedback effects, partly because I can't reliably calculate them, but there are more positive feedback effects than negative ones, so I tend to doubt the argument that negative feedbacks will save us all.
Is my math wrong anywhere? (I use this argument quite a bit, so I'd really like to know). |
|
Did you hear about the Judge in the UK that agreed with a man that was fired because his "religous" beliefs were interfering with his job? His belief was in global warming...
______________________________________________
Was he worshipping at the AlGore alter of "Hookem & Beatem"? |
|
Where do you get 14%? CO2 levels have gone up by almost 40%, almost all of it due to human activities.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-co2-rise-is-natural/
And as previously mentioned, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it will cause warming.
______________________________________________
Now you would think that a 40% increase in CO2 levels would really be increasing temps...."given that it will cause warming"!
But then......why?
January 6, 2009
by Christopher Monckton
Scienceandpublicpolicy.org
On 2 January 2009, the Wall Street Journal wrote one of a series of articles apparently co-ordinated throughout the generally alarmist news media throughout the holiday season, trying to overcome the problem posed for "global warming" alarmists by the fact that global mean surface temperatures have been on a downtrend for eight straight years (Figure 1): |
|
I posted this earlier today.This is a peer review discussing your last point;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416
I think one of the commentators on the that blog put it very sussinctly;
"It is well known that the reanalysis data (a combination of model forecast and observational data)is suspect, especially in the tropics where the forcing (heating and cooling) is dominant and poorly understood and over the oceans where the insitu data is sparse (satellite data is questionable where there is no surface data to aid in the temperature retrieval). But at least the authors of this article pointed out those caveats up front (and kudos to them for their honesty). If the modelers pointed out all of the flaws in the climate models in the same manner (unrealistic type and size of dissipation, unresolved spectra and incorrect cascade of enstrophy, unphysical tuning, ill posedness of the continuum system, etc.), then no one would believe any of their results."
Did you hear about the Judge in the UK that agreed with a man that was fired because his "religous" beliefs were interfering with his job? His belief was in global warming... |
|
"CO2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere is CO2. 14% of that comes from burning of fossil fuels, so that means we have added 0.0042% to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. I have yet to see anything more than correlation with rise in temps as a conclusion. Causation is the hypothesis that AGW is based on since it couldn't be explained otherwise. Water Vapor on the otherhand, contributes 95% of the greenhouse effect."
Wow, talk about wrong, wrong, wrong.
Well, not entirely, CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, but it's responsible for at least 12% of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
Where do you get 14%? CO2 levels have gone up by almost 40%, almost all of it due to human activities.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-co2-rise-is-natural/
And as previously mentioned, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it will cause warming.
As for the water vapor claim:
http://www.finepolitics.com/water-vapor-accounts-for-95-of- the-greenhouse-effect-deconstructing-the-claim/
|
|
The IPCC reports rely on a particular computer model which projects temperature changes due to "positive feedback" reactions in the atmosphere. The IPCC report claims that as CO2 levels rise, temperatures will also rise causing more water to be evaporated into the air. Since water vapor is by far the leading greenhouse gas, increased water vapor is supposed to accelerate the global warming process in a runaway feedback loop. The actual scientific data, however, do no support the positive feedback model. The basic methodology used by the IPCC cannot be supported by actual data so the panel relies on the news media to filter the news that reaches the public. This article is an attempt to set the public record straight.
The link I have provided here will take you to a petition, signed by over 17,200 scientists who think that the currently available scientific data do not support the conclusion that global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon. The site also contains a peer reviewed scientific paper that gives an overview of the existing climate science. This peer reviewed paper demonstrates that the positive feedback model is not valid and that therefor, the entire hypothesis of man-made global warming is also not validated |
|
Juan Williams.
SHAMELESS LIARS! Juan now grilling the Liar on Honduras! "What is Obama doing?" Juan asked in disbelief.
It's all falling apart for bo, folks. Juan was a big time supporter of bo.
Here's some restoration, reformation, & revolution that Our Founding Fathers supported:
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9) Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11) Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-to-start-and- lead-citizens-grand.html |
|
Is there a scientific consensus on the topic of man made global warming? If you read the news in the major media you would have cause to believe that there is.
The truth is very different. Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a political body appointed by the UN. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the panel's findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted from the reports.
Several of these scientists have asked to have their names removed from the IPCC report, but have had their requests denied. Several have actually sued the panel to have their names removed, but few have been successful.
|
|
"The point is there are wingnuts on both sides of this equation"
No, sorry, there are not. Wingnuts (short for "right-wing nut cases") make up almost the entire population of those who reject the science that supports global warming. That side of the argument is in fact marginalizing and suppressing itself, by its inability to do or understand science. Lists of "tens of thousands" of mechanical engineers and doddering professors emeritus who are willing to express opinions outside their area of understanding do not make for a credible argument. |
|
We farted one big CO2 in the last hundred years.
Yes, we added 1,750,000,000,000 tons of gas to the 416,667,000,000,000 tons. Decaying matter has added 19,584,000,000,000 tons.
Effect is still the question. The Correlation vs Causation of past "warming" periods is surmised as causation.
We can list all the scientists we want for either side. I am more interested in the continuing to re-examine the original hypothesis. Again, as more energy is put into this, more information that affect the previous ideology needs to be revised. That is the premise behind that"economist's" report.
Some interesting data form a recent study in Asia looking back 2000 years of cooling and warming.(found it poking around).
http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N20/C3.php
"Open up your mind in the rear of your behind" to new knowledge.
|
|
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
|
|
|
The point is there are wingnuts on both sides of this equation...but the way one side is trying to marginalize and supress the other, I agree with you the proponderance of wingnuts are on the left side... |
|
"The other side has tens of thousands of PHd’s who disagree or doubt that carbon is the cause of Global warming."
Funny fact: after the wingnuts produced their list of "tens of thousands of PHd's," real scientists produced a LONGER list of scientists named "Steve" who agree with the theory. That should give you some idea how many are on each side of the debate. |
|
Preponderance of LIES on the part of people like algore and bo on all issues.
Equivocation is not in order. It is time to take sides and take action. |
|
"so that means we have added 0.0042% to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels."
Putting it another way, in the last 100 years the human race has added as much CO2 to the atmosphere as was there originally, a staggering 1,750,000,000,000 tons. I find it utterly astonishing that we could have had that huge an effect on something as large as the Earth's atmosphere. |
|
I agree. Without a clear cut scientific problem - cause & effect, it would be dangerous to embark on a program that would surely create an economic hardship for little to no return.
Again, Europe started cap & trade in 2004 without any impact on the environment but a 5-10% increase in the cost of living. Not good.
In addition, if there is a manmade impact on the environment (which I still doubt) then without China, India, Russia and other 3rd world country participation our economic sacrifice would be useless.
To many other problems on this planet to worry about at this time. |
|
Reverse Speech technology verifies the lying on both sides. . This equates to lies; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science
• Actual data has been very skewed, ignored or simply made up. On both sides. . This equates to overt lies; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science
• The Universities spokesmen have been shown to have hidden agenda’s and funding by very ideological groups (mainly left wing … hey! That’s to be expected on most university campuses. But these groups have picked up the banner because they’ve found it politically expedient as a tool/weapon to further their political end. . This equates to ideology above truth; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science
The point is science on the issue has been hijacked by political and monetary factions. And the bulk of humanity (the sheep to be fleeced) is again the losers…
i.e. we can’t get good clean, unbiased scientific data or common sense solutions.
Now Obama's administration is complicit in the manipulation of data for political purposes... |
|
Here’s some simple indirect proofs of my suspicion:
• One side claims a ‘consensus’ of opinion and the debate is ‘over’; the only action left is carbon credits….The other side has tens of thousands of PHd’s who disagree or doubt that carbon is the cause of Global warming. They’ve even got a petition circulating claiming a ‘biased’ press won’t cover their point of view.
• The carbon credit side marginalizes anyone who disagrees with carbon as the cause as being someone with their head in the sand who ‘doubts global warming’. Did you notice they ‘paint’ them as someone who doesn’t believe in global warming? This is a very typical ‘marginalization’ technique. Marginalization means bias; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science.
• Professors who hold an opposing view can loose their tenure and even their position. That’s boarding on suppression: which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science
• PSE machines show Al Gore, many of the UN proponents, and University professors and ‘climate change experts’ have clearly been shown to engage outright lying to prove their points (facts, reports, figures, ‘the debate is settled’, etc, etc, etc). PSE machines show lying by many of the oil company’s spokesmen about the counter claims. This equates to lies; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science
|
|
So I see this whole global warming thing, not as a science problem, but as an incendiary issue that disallows good science. I’m not all that sure whose numbers are accurate and whose aren’t. I’m not sure which facts are true and which have been twisted.
One thing I’m very sure about is, there have been some very strong distortions presented in the last ten years on both sides. Some have been proven to be outright lies motivated by solely money; some have simply been shoddy science driven by the need to be famous; some have been driven by ideologs. When I do “personality assessments” on some of the strongest proponents of global warming (both sides), it does not give me comfort.
My conclusion is: We’ve got a bunch of ideologists trying to control the situation with their biases; and using obvious indoctrination as a main weapon. Couple that with very powerful monetary/political power issues and people biding for control over other people. It’s very tough to get a clear picture of what’s really causing climate change.
To me, this seems much more of a pressing problem than the issue of climate change we’re dealing with.
The reason I withhold my ‘agreement’ that carbon is a real cause/issue for climat change is simply because control of carbon and carbon credits is the biggest political card. With this in ‘agreement’ you can easily gain control over huge masses of wealth and people; i.e. the energy producing and usage of a planet. If the cause was say volcano’s or solar cycles or natural cycles or shifts in the earth’s magnetic field or something else, how are you going to leverage that into political power?
|
|
Well, since the EPA has labeled it a major pollutant, under the equalities of the law that makes it open to being very, very bad. Just ask a lawyer that will find new ways to sue people.
You better tell that to the AGW world about modeling, they rely on models to forecast our doom and gloom.The problem they that is now surfacing is that the observed data is not correlating to the models. Its hard for them to admit though. wouldn't want to lose that grant money).
I am glad you have an Opinion on this, but thats not science.(Care to explain your "basic" math and physics approach?). CO2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere is CO2. 14% of that comes from burning of fossil fuels, so that means we have added 0.0042% to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. I have yet to see anything more than correlation with rise in temps as a conclusion. Causation is the hypothesis that AGW is based on since it couldn't be explained otherwise. Water Vapor on the otherhand, contributes 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Is there Climate Change? Yes, its always occuring. Is it our fault? We still need to thoroughly answer that before we Cap and Tax ourselves into a bigger govt.
|
|
BK...the Obamanation propoganda machine is just following the socialist game plan to a T.
The normal path of mankind: What you get is someone (or ones) trying to get you to either agree with their bias or to shut up; even if you have to somehow suppress them. This starts with ‘marginalizing’ them with the intent on controlling them. The ultimate end: If they’re strong you get a war. If they’re weak you get slavery. In the middle you get ‘debates’ and arguments and chaos.
There’s a thing about marginalization: If circumstances cause it to be left unchecked the marginalization ends up a ends up intensifying into outright suppression of the opposing point of view… imprisoning them (after all their stuff is confiscated) and ultimately liquidating them. This can be seen trough the annals of history. Example: In prewar Germany it went from marginalization to liquidation in the space of only about 5-7 years
This hasn’t ‘decreased’ over the last few thousand years; quite the contrary. Due to advances technology in the areas communication, transportation and weaponry and indoctrination (mind control) techniques it’s increased. In fact the last hundred years has seen more mass murder due to genocide than all of history before it (specifically: Mao…estimated 150,000,000 of his people were exterminated; Stalin…estimated that 50,000,000 to 80,000,000…note: just these two world leaders ran the genocide numbers higher than all of recorded history prior to the 20th century …then throw in a few more; guys like Hitler 20,000,000; Pow Pot, the nice guys in Ruanda and North Korea, etc.
|
|
|
Hey Mike, not judging here, coldplay has made it clear she doesn't like any religion or anyone who is religous, so I'm not judging I'm just letting her go her way, so i will gladly say my Hail Marys for you, you seem to need prayer. |
|
|
Hey Mike, not judging here, coldplay has made it clear she doesn't like any religion or anyone who is religous, so I'm not judging I'm just letting her go her way, so i will gladly say my Hail Marys for you, you seem to need prayer. |
|
THE HEAT IS ON
British show exposes global warming 'lies'
Documentary's scientists, climatologists agree: 'The whole thing stinks'
Here's how the announcer introduces the controversy at the outset of the 60-minute program:
"Manmade global warming is no longer just a theory about climate change. It is the defining moral and political cause of our age. Campaigners say the time for debate is over. Any criticism, no matter how scientifically rigorous, is illegitimate – even worse, dangerous.
"But in this film, it will be shown that the earth's climate is always changing, that there is nothing unusual about the current temperature, and that the scientific evidence does not support the notion that climate is driven by carbon dioxide, manmade or otherwise.
"Everywhere, you are told that manmade climate change is proved beyond doubt.
"But you are being told lies."
|
|
Who's saying that all CO2 is bad? It's CO2 in excess that's the problem.
And the models argument is frankly a red herring. I don't rely on models for my opinion, just basic math using figures from experimental data. You don't need computers to tell you what is predicted by basic physics. |
|
Huh? Courts in my state never have prayers, and at our high school, where christians are not the majority, no religious prayers are ever offered. Must be creepy to live in evangelical towns. Glad I live in a world that is not stuck in 800.
______________________________________________
First you're a liar. All courts have prayer and swear on the bible. The supreme court even has the ten commandments posted.
It's not christians, it's people who believe in God. Try spending that money with In God We Trust...must really pull your chain to have to do that. I suppose your kids don't say the pledge of allegience either...you must be so proud. Where was that other citizenship from?
The only creepy thing is people like you and yours. But that's OK, we have no problem herding all 8 % of you to the left-coast but remember one day we may have to save your a $$ from falling into the ocean...then again..maybe we won't! |
|
|
Al Carlin is an economist and his "study" was a hobby of his and was not solicited by the agency. The government has thousands of employees. Now Bachmann and other cons wants us to consider every hobby "study" that each and every one of them decides is important. Or do the cons only want us to read the hobby "studies" of those they agree with? Probably. |
|
You can't preach in our schools and other public arenas. You can't. If you try, people like me will take you to court. We will win, and you will pay our legal fees.
Pray all you want. Just don't do it in a school assembly in front of the students.
I don't fear you. I don't hate you. I find your religion to be silly, unsupportable claptrap. No 'god' lets innocent children die, period, born or unborn, right?
"Hope your children never have to play high school sports or become an attorney where they will have no choice in the matter...now will they?"
Huh? Courts in my state never have prayers, and at our high school, where christians are not the majority, no religious prayers are ever offered. Must be creepy to live in evangelical towns. Glad I live in a world that is not stuck in 800. |
|
Big Sky Cowboy said
We Christians and in my case Catholics really don't want your kind in our churches
Seems to me there is something in the Bible about judging others
Better say a few Hail Marys |
|
Big Shy Cowboy said
We Christians and in my case Catholics really don't want your kind in our churches
Rep. Bachmann doesn't want you at all
Michele Bachmann worships at a church, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod who's core doctrine says the Pope is the Anti-Christ
"Luther left no doubt where he stood concerning the Papacy when he wrote, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him” (Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12)."
Check their core doctrines at http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl |
|
I do dislike those who want to push their beliefs onto me and mine. I don't care if they are jewish, islamic, buddhist or christian. Go to your place of worship and pray to your 'messiah'.
______________________________________________
Nobody wants to push their beliefs onto you. If you choose not to believe that is your business. However, we do dislike those who try to tell us where, when and how we worship our beliefs.
We are the majority and as keeping with the constitution, I have a right to practice my religion wherever and whenever I choose. Activist judges who say otherwise are breaking the law and violating the constitution. You don't want to listen to me pray, leave or don't pay attention.
Because you fear what you don't understand, don't make us conform to what you want.
Hope your children never have to play high school sports or become an attorney where they will have no choice in the matter...now will they? |
|
|
all you really can do is feel pity for someone like CPL. Their pathetic lives are bleak and empty, they have nothing. They subconsciously know they have nothing yet they cannot come up with a resolution to that bleak emptiness. They see others happy and content, they can only feel envy and jealousy, so their form of reaction is blaming everyone and everything for their pitiful existences and they lash out with anti-everything! |
|
|
molesters. This alleged Duke homo researcher/molester does not seek to stop gays from exercising their equal right to marry. Sanford did. Sanford can fu'k a goat for all I care. He just can't deny people their equal rights under the ruse that gay marriage damages the sanctity of marriage, when it is adultery and divorce that does. More straight step daddies molest their stepdaughters than there are gay men in the entire world. Let's stop remarriage too. That is how ridiculous your bigotry against gays is. |
|
"Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. It's not the only thing that effects global temperature, but if you add more of it, it will cause the Earth to be warmer than it would be otherwise."
No, it was the hypothesis that there wasn't any other major suspects. And there are many flaws in computer modeling that never get brought up. I am not going get into a lengthy math debate with you if you don't have at least some programming lab time and a knowledge of Calculus. But here is a comment left by a science nerd that does sum up issues with computer models;
"It is well known that the reanalysis data (a combination of model forecast and observational data)is suspect, especially in the tropics where the forcing (heating and cooling) is dominant and poorly understood and over the oceans where the insitu data is sparse (satellite data is questionable where there is no surface data to aid in the temperature retrieval). But at least the authors of this article pointed out those caveats up front (and kudos to them for their honesty). If the modelers pointed out all of the flaws in the climate models in the same manner (unrealistic type and size of dissipation, unresolved spectra and incorrect cascade of enstrophy, unphysical tuning, ill posedness of the continuum system, etc.), then no one would believe any of their results."
Actually, some fatty foods are needed by your body. Your brain really requires it. So your statement is a simple view, just as beleiving its all CO2s fault from us. (don't get me started on physiology, health and diet. Read over 100 books on that area).
btw, I watched Dr Tyson last night on Nova. He was talking up carbon. Interesting fact; there are more molucules comprised with carbon than all other molecules combined, yet CO2 is somehow bad?
|
|
You never really did condemn the behaviour of that Duke researcher who, with his "partner", sexually abused their adopted 5 yr old son and offered the boy for sexual services in return for money.
All the other liberal guy supporters in their "commune" are protecting them, too.
As I recall, you just went into a rant about infidelity in hetero marriages, bypassing the issue of child molestation entirely. |
|
Being and acting gay is a choice. NO one is forced to do it.
You try to lie and turn it into a genetic issue, but it's NOT.
Being gay is a choice, and gays openly engaging in sex acts in public on Folsom street is their choice. Having unprotected sex and spreading AIDS is their choice. Being promiscuous is their choice. Not respecting others' beliefs and religions is their choice. Being a tiny minority and having tantrums is their choice.
Poor choices, all around. |
|
"Given that this part of computer modeling is left at a guess, it leaves much room for debate"
That's one of the better skeptical arguments, but it's not convincing. I couldn't even name every factor that effects my blood circulation, but I do know that eating fatty foods aren't good for it, so I (try to) stay away from them.
Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. It's not the only thing that effects global temperature, but if you add more of it, it will cause the Earth to be warmer than it would be otherwise. |
|
"So you lefties feel the christians should be quiet and not say anything to anyone, but you have a hard time with asking the homosexual soldiers in our military to do the same thing..."
gay people are born that way. you choose your religion.
|
|
Haha? Interesting scientific rebuttal...
Is science my thing? Not my first...BS in Engineering, Acceled in Physics and Mathematics (could have gotten a math degree if I wanted to suffer another year of mind-numbing 10 page problems). For "fun", I've read oceanographic engineering books (thermodynamics). Although I chose a career in Architecture, the leftbrained nerd in me is alive and thirsty for more knowledge. (btw, the architecture thing also requires much knowledge of thermodynamics of building behavior). So while I don't make a living at science outside of "building science" (which leaves me unbiased by grant influences), I do speak the language very fluently. How about some recent research and peer review to bring validity to earlier statements? For starters(Dry science stuff).
On the ocean and computer modeling;
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Pub lications/gray2009.pdf
On water vapor;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416
You said I am coming to conclusions. I am not, I am questioning original hypothesis to be re-examined. Since everyone seems to be locked in to AGW, its not me that lacks objectivity.(I used to believe AGW was the main culprit).
Be more that happy to have a technical debate about the subject if you'd like? We may both learn something.
And how is science your thing? |
|
VR:"The Bush Administration EPA squashed all kinds of science in favor of reports that favored their agenda. "
Like what? What science did the Bush administration squash and in favor of which agenda?
I know you must have at LEAST one example.
|
|
You people truly are daft.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The Bush Administration EPA squashed all kinds of science in favor of reports that favored their agenda.
And now you all want to complain about it when the Obama administration does exactly the same thing?
I have to say the funniest thing going is someone who posted that the liberals were lying about Bush's malfeance. ha ha ha! Too Rich.
So, the left is going to claim you all are lying about Obama's EPA shannigans.
Around and around we go and where we stop, nobody knows.
Since Michele wasn't will to hold the Bush EPA administration accountable, it is beyond laughable that she is now trying to hold the Obama administration accountable.
Washington DC is just one big cesspool of dirty rotten politicians only out to crush their opponents with no notion of what it takes to really govern.
|
|
"Don't you think the gazillions of gallons of ocean waters with its thermal mass and currents may have more to do with climate than human impact?"
Haha, it would be nice if there were any evidence to support it. Unfortunately that data is nonexistant, and no one seriously believes that.
Reading your posts make it obvious that you have the conclusions made up, and are simply looking for the means to justify them. I don't think science is exactly your thing. Objectivity is imperative. |
|
R:"In the meantime, take a deep breathe, and rationally - if it is at all possible for you - explain to us, with proof, how liberals FORCE your children to learn about homosexuality.
I'm waiting....."
See the posts I provided below and rebut them like an adult or come to terms with the fact that you are an intellectually lazy liberal parrot and a complete STOOGE. |
|
|
How about "The CIA spied, Pelosi lied"? |
|
So you lefties feel the christians should be quiet and not say anything to anyone, but you have a hard time with asking the homosexual soldiers in our military to do the same thing...
|
|
|
Obama lied, the economy died. |
|
Some of the issues are brand new science data. The debate is never over, its re-examined.
Interesting thing happened after 9/11. In those 4 days after when no planes where flying, it was discovered how much con-trails and water vapor in general affected global temps. Given that this part of computer modeling is left at a guess, it leaves much room for debate.
|
|
From TELEGRAPH: "Parents who took their children out of school in protest at them being taught about gay, bisexual and transgender history could be prosecuted.
Council bosses said the protest resulted in around 30 primary pupils missing school and had "taken action" against parents who pulled took their children out of George Tomlinson School in Leytonstone, east London, but refused to state what sanctions are being taken.
Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant whose children Saleh, 10, and Abdurrahin, nine, attend the school, said his wife Shaheen, 38, was worried they could be taken to court.
He said he knew of about 30 children who had been taken out of classes during the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Week after parents objected to their youngsters being encouraged to "celebrates the lives and achievements of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in the community".
Under current laws parents can be prosecuted for failing to ensure their children attend school.
Mr Latif, from Leytonstone, said: "We were worried because weren't sure how they were going to teach our children these issues.
"We don't think it is necessary to teach it for a whole week and the children are so young. It is more appropriate for secondary school.
"Most children that age don't understand these things. When we took our children out of school we had to explain why - they didn't know what two parents the same sex meant."
"A spokesman for Waltham Forest Council refused to reveal how many children missed lessons or what action would be taken against pupils but the council's website said parents of truant youngsters can be asked to sign a contract, given an on the spot fine or hauled into court...
"The council does not condone any unauthorised absence from school and action has been taken."
|
|
http://www.truthatschool.org/red_flags.htm
I don't think there are many people who don't know about some of these "flags" in place at their kids' schools... |
|
"In the meantime, take a deep breathe, and rationally - if it is at all possible for you - explain to us, with proof, how liberals FORCE your children to learn about homosexuality."
By LEGISLATING that parents will not be allowed to take their kids out of classes on the days that sex ed courses including topics like homosexuality are taught.
Should I type in all caps? Will you understand any better?
|
|
|
codliver only likes and is comfortable with the "small 'c'" Christians. The "big 'c'" Christians make him feel dirty and ashamed. |
|
"this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate"
The report is pretty much a rehash of contrarian arguments that have been around for years. Believe me, it has been give ample debate. |
|
"And where I live, christians are quiet, confident in their faith, keep it to themselves...."
Then they are not true Christians. Jesus commanded (not requested...not said it might be nice....commanded) us to preach the Gospel. A quiet confident Christian is in for a rude awakening one day, but something tells me you don't know these people very well....if at all.....
We are responsible for getting people like you the Gospel. We are NOT responsible for what you do with it..... |
|
CPL:"we don't have a lot of problems with religious types trying to tell us what to teach our kids"
And you don't have a problem with liberal types FORCING (through legislation) Christian and Muslim parents to allow their kids to be taught homosexuality issues in school, do you?
No, you don't, because you are a self-absorbed, bigoted and ignorant liberal who is happy to be disrtespectful of others' cultures and beliefs when they don't jibe with YOURS.
Cram it. |
|
BOYCOTT algore's hometown!
BOYCOTT NASHVILLE! BOYCOTT NASHVILLE!
BOYCOTT Nashville to protest AlGore's Cap & Trade Fraud and for Nashville DA Torry Johnson's refusal to investigate Pedophilia by Obama supporters in Nashville.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/nas hville-da-refuses-to-investigate-child-marriage-pedophilia- child-abuse-in-shariah-classes.html
There is an ongoing criminal conspiracy among Obama supporters in Nashville to cover up crimes committed by his campaign in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These crimes include, but are not limited to, VOTER FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, COMPUTER THEFT, INVASION OF PRIVACY and petty BURGLARIES similar to WATERGATE.
Grand Jury forming in Nashville to Investigate crimes committed in 2008 Election.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/nashville-citizen s-grand-jury-forming.html
BOYCOTT NASHVILLE! BOYCOTT NASHVILLE!
|
|
Don't you think the gazillions of gallons of ocean waters with its thermal mass and currents may have more to do with climate than human impact?
Humans can and do change local climate. Cities have become Heat Islands. Vegas now has humidity. The average nighttime ambient tempurature in LA is 9 degrees warmer in the last century due to all the concrete...
To compete against the oceans and solar radiation fluxuations on a macro-level is a bit arrogant.
Fun science quiz; the mass of ants is greater than the mass of humans? true or false. |
|
The establishment clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion. That's all it does.
Liberal, bigoted and stupid is no way to go through life, CPL. |
|
they don't have a union.
And where I live, christians are quiet, confident in their faith, keep it to themselves, as do all the other religions. Since most families around here are mixed religions and races (LA is where people move to get away from the 8th century), we don't have a lot of problems with religious types trying to tell us what to teach our kids. Homeschooled kids are considered freaks on the westside (you know, like Michael Jackson's kids). |
|
"You have "messenger" issues."
That is certainly true with this study, maybe even an understatement. Funding and sourcing are the first two things I look at when reviewing a study, as they are the telltale signs of a bunk study. I have sourcing issues with Carlin's study, and funding issues with CEI. If this study contained reliable sourcing I would have joined you in reading it this weekend, but I'll still be interested to see what you take away from it. |
|
the establishment clause protects me from you.
Why do people like you keep saying that things are 'our fault'? Don't you think that trillions of humans have a bigger impact on the earth than only thousands or millions did? Don't you think that families having one car have less of an impact than families with 4?
There are many of you who believe that men and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time. Talk to them about your theory.
No one is going to control you. This paranoia is so very funny.
|
|
|
their union will back them up.Yes we are all trying to convert you. |
|
Looking at satelite photos and then beleiving its "our" fault isnt science. The earth has been changing for 6000 years! haha. (Did you ever think the bible is speaking in figurative terms of time, as in the first 6 days were actually 6 billion years.) The discussion is whether its AGW or natural cycles.
New York just had the 8th coldest June on record. Yes, crazy weather cycling through its decadal oscillations.
Sidebar nutter discussion aside, don't pressume skeptics don't care about the earth. I have been surfing for 40 years and am deeply attached to the ocean and mother earth. I just don't want Govt hijacking another part of life based on something not completely understood. I also trust CalTech, three of their professors taught me alot about thermodynamics, computer modeling and structural analysis. They could make students heads explode from overload! |
|
I am almost finished reading your cei post. Interestingly, I did not even know of the cei push until you pointed fingers. I have been reading about this issue for years and will delve into the mathematics and science of the arguements. The cei report has many relevant points of contention to the current ideology.
The most relevant are the water vapor and deep ocean currents. Thermodynamics of the GCMs are very suspect in long term planning. (For instance; the reason why a 10 day weather forecast is sometimes so unreliable is that it relies on measurements in which tolerances are very low). When one reduces a computer model to one major variable, it will only show the affects of lowering or raising that factor. The cei paper gives a good case to re-examine the hypothesis' of current models and give proper weight to the dynamics of GCM.
You have "messenger" issues. I have skepticism/re-examine/time-out issues with the science.
By Monday, I promise to get through the cei referenced material as well... |
|
How about you keep YOUR religion (liberalism/homosexuality/paganism/statism) to YOURSELF?
Christians founded this country on Judeo-Christian principles.
Christians will keep fighting for it long after sodomites like you have either failed to reproduce or have died of horrible diseases. |
|
we just don't buy into it.
We want you to keep your religion to yourself. If my doctor is Jewish, or my attorney Muslim, my kids' teachers christians, my son's pediatrician a Sikh (all of which is true), so be it. But if any of them dare share that religion with me while they are doing their jobs, I will report the teachers for violating the establishment clause and will quit the other professionals.
Somehow, until evangelical christian types here and islamics in the mid east decided that they had to reinstitute the crusades via sharing their faith and teaching it as an alternative to science, etc, in the public arena, things were fine.
In other words, keep your religion to yourself. |
|
The hatred for Christianity just seems so unfounded. Nobody is praying in school anymore. No one makes you read the bible and as I said no one makes you go to church. I never ask my friends what religion they are. This is a free country and that is how I like it. There is really no reason for fear or hatred of christianity. Truth is we are primarily a Christian nation and nothing is going to change that, not even Obama.
Kayann certainly is just a faithful fawner. She will always stand up for the left no matter what they say. A true follower. As my mother used to say "never a follower be" it can get you in a lot of trouble. |
|
|
We Christians and in my case Catholics really don't want your kind in our churches, and I would never want you to convert, trust me, I could care less that you and your kind think that having a strong belief Jesus Christ is a fantasy, that has no effect on me and my beliefs. Your fear of Jesus is comical. You think you are so special, not really just another Christian hater, take a number and get in line. |
|
Take Your Pick
Diane writes: Wednesday, July, 01, 2009 1:24 PM
CPL
Libs love lies. That is why they fawn over Obama
or Neocons love lie. That's why they fawn over Bachmann
Today's Saint Cloud Times (MN 6th District Newspaper) Our view: Bachmann touts fear, not facts
Never one to let the facts get in the way of some good old-fashioned scare tactics, 6th District U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is at it again.
The extremist Republican recently spewed more of her patented long-on-fear, short-on-facts, made-for-TV rhetoric when she implied the 2010 Census is nothing but government intrusion....
From the Minneapolis Tribune Editorial: After census dither, take a reality check
Bachmann finds conspiracies in the strangest places. Last update: June 27, 2009 - 9:50 PM
What Bachmann is doing -- on national television, no less -- is encouraging people to break the law. That's not right-wing. That's not conservative. That's just wrong.
|
|
|
His kids attend CA schools. They are incapable of independent thought. So, if someone says, "You must become a Bible thumper," they fall right into it. Ditto for someone demanding they become Muslim, pagan, Scientologist, anarchist, gay, straight, and, gasp! Republican! |
|
It is about time you figured that out about our "opponents"; most are as unhinged as the people they purport to be debating. For CPL, the debate means nothing; he's just aching to skewer a Christian. For him, everything returns to Christianity. For Kay, well she is just an unhinged partisan who spends her time ensuring that sites like TH increase thier revenues (through ad hits).
They both are irrational in thier thoughts and beliefs, and prove an old dictum from Rousseau. Rousseau observed that the athieistic irrational revolutionairies of his day would have been irrational clerics in earlier generations.
Of course CPL is blissfully ignorant of the fact that Issac Newton was a devout Puritan; Descartes was a devout Catholic; Pascal, one of the most brilliant scientists ever walked away from science in the name of religion; and Euler, one of the giants of Mathematics was a pious Lutheran.
In todays world, the world of CPL, none of these men would have even gotten tenure. |
|
BOYCOTT algore's hometown!
BOYCOTT NASHVILLE! BOYCOTT NASHVILLE!
BOYCOTT Nashville to protest AlGore's Cap & Trade Fraud and for Nashville DA Torry Johnson's refusal to investigate Pedophilia by Obama supporters in Nashville.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/nas hville-da-refuses-to-investigate-child-marriage-pedophilia- child-abuse-in-shariah-classes.html
There is an ongoing criminal conspiracy among Obama supporters in Nashville to cover up crimes committed by his campaign in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These crimes include, but are not limited to, VOTER FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, COMPUTER THEFT, INVASION OF PRIVACY and petty BURGLARIES similar to WATERGATE.
Grand Jury forming in Nashville to Investigate crimes committed in 2008 Election.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/nashville-citizen s-grand-jury-forming.html
BOYCOTT NASHVILLE! BOYCOTT NASHVILLE!
|
|
I don't hate christianity anymore than I hate wiccans. Both are fictional.
I do dislike those who want to push their beliefs onto me and mine. I don't care if they are jewish, islamic, buddhist or christian. Go to your place of worship and pray to your 'messiah'. |
|
|
CPL has now exposed herself. She is eating herself alive over her hatred of christianity. I agree that dual citizenship would serve her and her children well now. We are still primarily a christian nation regardless of what Obama says. |
|
|
who understands the meaning of transparency? Is there anyone in this admin who can read a fact-based report and accept it even though it contradicts ideology or the mythology so prevalent in this admin? Is there anyone in this admin who is honest? Obviously these three questions have already been answered in the negative! |
|
|
I now completely understand you. All of your ideas are just skewed by your hatred of Christianity. Sad you would rally behind a party that would destroy the country rather than accept a hint of christianity in your life. By the way there is no prayer in school and no one makes you go to church or read the bible. Your fears are really unfounded. |
|
Forcing christian prayers in schools, legislating morality based on judeochristian fable books, that is all much more of a threat than anything else, in the near term at least.
My children are well provided for; you could tax them 90% and they'd still have more than enough money to live well. They have dual citizenship so they can live and work wherever they feel like.
_______________________________________________
For one, I pity you and your children. I really feel sorry for your children who will have to endure a lifetime of turmoil.
Sounds like you would be better off excersizing that dual citizenship. So would we! |
|
"I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. And I don't believe you have the right to force me to labor for the sake of others, regardless of how big your mob is."
You do. It is called the 16th amendment to the US constitution. If you don't like taxes, then elect people who will cut them. You failed.
Diane, my children are more threatened by theocrats who want to run our government than by anything else. Forcing christian prayers in schools, legislating morality based on judeochristian fable books, that is all much more of a threat than anything else, in the near term at least.
My children are well provided for; you could tax them 90% and they'd still have more than enough money to live well. They have dual citizenship so they can live and work wherever they feel like.
If doctors and med providers didn't make mistakes and cover them up (this was the practice for many years, a little fraternity), the malpractice problem wouldn't be there. Lawyers don't make up the negligent acts, and juries want to make sure that kids who were denied oxygen at birth and are mentally incapacitated because of medical errors are taken care of. The biggest administrative costs are the insurance companies and all their demands, and refusal to provide treatment. Oh, and making sure the shareholders make a nice fat profit off of sick people. |
|
|
I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. And I don't believe you have the right to force me to labor for the sake of others, regardless of how big your mob is. |
|
|
If you cared about your children you would care that they are being saddled with a mountain of debt. If you cared about your children you would want them to continue to know the freedoms that we have enjoyed all of our lives. Doctors would surely be happy to treat patients regardless of their means of payment. I worked with physicians for many years and rarely saw someone turned away. They treat medicare patient although they barely make a dime because they feel a social responsibility. Take lawyers and malpractice out of the equation and you would see a lot more doctors being charitable. You love your children but you want to sign on to a program that might just decide they have a disease that does not pass the cost benefit analysis test done by some govenment panel. Your child might die but the government just does not think they are worth the investment. As far as global warming I want to hear all the facts, not from algore but from all of the scientists. If it can be proven then yes we start to address it. We do not spend money at a time when people can barely afford to feed their families or keep their home. The world will not self destruct if we wait and get all the evidence. If the evidence proves global warming I doubt we have to jump in with a bill that no one even read. We can take time and carefully approach the problem. Jumping in to say you are saving the world by just passing bills seems to be the way libs address problems. How about thinking, researching and then acting. |
|
"Using the IPCC, who merely interprets data that is NOT scientific."
How is the data used by the IPCC not scientific? |
|
"Carlin keeps being labeled as an Ecomonist. He is an Anylist with a science background. His work at the EPA and the Rand Corporation before, has focused on polution issues."
He might keep being labeled an economist as long as that is what his own biography states.
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
Employment
Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present
Economist, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1963-71.
Also, he did not begin writing about climate change until 2007. And to say he focused on pollution is quite a stretch at best. All his work is listed in the bio site I listed. |
|
Cold,
Are you that stupid? There is this thing called the scientific method. Read about it, because this method and repeatability then creates reliable information based on facts!! Imagine that!!
Using the IPCC, who merely interprets data that is NOT scientific.
And Vlad, WTH? Is the na-na-na I'm better than you kind of kid argument??? Really. If anyone suppresses the truth, it's wrong. Period. You're in the category of chestpuffer, like munckey boy these days, hey? |
|
I look at photos of the ice caps. I see aberrant weather all over this country.
I know that the earth is more than 6000 years old. I trust MIT and Cal Tech more than I trust anecdotal scientists who know they can sucker you righties into buying their books. I know that Gingrich believes in global warming, until the nutty types got to him and now he wavers.
Believe what you want. You're going to lose on this topic. And since you can only 'pray' for Obama and our nation (and now our world) to fail, if you are wrong and the majority of scientists are right (instead of rush and sean), gosh, no only will you be pis-sed about us not failing, but you'll be really hot too. |
|
|
Focus, This is not about Bush Cheney, This is today, focus. |
|
|
Wrong, I'm a rich Republican, the rest of the country is going to be busted, I'll be fine. |
|
|
...needing cancellation, like Education, HHS. By the way, Marxists, why don't you want global warming? Longer growing seasons, less heating costs. If you really loved Gaia, you'd be emptying cases of hairspray daily. |
|
I care a lot about our world. My kids will live in it. They have a lot better chance at a good life if even 1/100000 of the global warming problem can be reversed. Yet, you worry about whether a deficit (which we've had in many administrations and have somehow overcome, again, and again) and not the actual condition of the air and water our children must rely upon to survive.
Yes, I believe all Americans should have access to healthcare regardless of whether they can afford it or not. I think that healthcare should not be a for profit business. I believe that because I am the daughter of a now deceased doctor who lived that life--no patient went untreated regardless of whether they could pay or not. My father was not a rich man, but he did what the Hippocratic oath told him to do, not what some insurance exec thought was best. You think that the government will 'ration' care, yet it is rationed now by every possible insurance company and HMO. New diabetes meters are much less onerous to the users--Kaiser won't pay for them. How's that for rationing?
We voted for Obama because of his policies. That's what folks like you hate--people voted for a man they thought was superior to the competition both in terms of who he was and what policies he wanted to implement. The people gave him a mandate (53% and a huge Electoral vote majority, plus House and Senate majorities is a mandate) to do those things, which is what you hate.
You disparage the majority of your fellow citizens, and act like the losses in 2006 and 2008 were flukes. Get used to them. Your side is on the wrong side of every issue.
But surely do not lecture us on science when your 'science' comes from a book of fables.
I will not respond to your taunts or nonsense anymore. With Sen. Franken taking his seat, along with Sens. Snowe and Collins, President Obama can pass just about anything he wants. If his policies succeed, the GOP just sinks into the Whig grave. |
|
I'm not going to argue with your type anymore. You and your ilk believe in a god that you cannot prove exists. You believe in an earth that is 6000 years old, and that evolution is some kind of scientific ruse. You are no more advanced than those who thought Galileo was crazy and a heretic.
You are the ones who believe in a man who allegedly lived 2000 years ago who you refer to as a messiah. No 'liberal' has ever referred to President Obama as a messiah, nor do most of us think he is anywhere near perfect. Most of us have our differences with him, but after 8 years of government by someone who had no business running a baseball team, let alone the most powerful country in the world, yes, Obama is a welcome and wonderful change. But no, not a messiah. You are confused. You are the ones who believe in a messiah, yet you have to rely on the book he rejected, the Torah and Old Testament, to justify the kind of hatred and judgment that you show towards gays and others with whom you disagree. What a bunch of rot--using the bible of the religion your messiah rejected to justify modern conduct you claim your messiah would accept.
|
|
|
It's the economist's side that won't release the report. That's how it works, isn't it? Like with Cheney who now claims he has proof that torture worked, in order to support that claim, they've yet to show us hard proof to this day. It's not enough to bluster, big sky. Most intelligent adults don't just take things at face value and repeat it without so much as a cursory investigation into viability. Oh, I forgot. I'm talking to the Party that bases all of it's success on lying while withholding facts. |
|
And what is you science background you pontificate from?
Carlin keeps being labeled as an Ecomonist. He is an Anylist with a science background. His work at the EPA and the Rand Corporation before, has focused on polution issues. And given his PhD, I am pretty sure we could have a chat about Calculas, Matrix Linear Algebra or Physics. No calculators required... |
|
"..release the report even if it has no merit, we call your bluff EPA, we are all in."
You just busted. Again. |
|
"Open Transparent BS, release the report let the chips fall..."
I don't think you quite understand the situation. The pdf is readily available (98 pages). Here's a link:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
It is "released". It is not, however, fit to publish. A quick look at the sourcing tells you all you need to know if you are at all familiar with scientific research. |
|
|
so release the report, show that this economist has his head up his butt,and don't give me that the EPA is protecting Mr. Carlin from making a fool of himself, release the report even if it has no merit, we call your bluff EPA, we are all in. |
|
More examples are surfacing of the incredibly arrogant POWER HUNGRY democrats in what they are efforting to accomplish:
1.) The EPA is found to be suppressing substantive information, the motivations are obvious.
2.) Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to Rahm, wrote into the "bail-out" bill that only those companies declaring allegiance to the administration would be considered for any bail out monies. WOW!!! Smacks of Nazis, and Third Reich edicts.
3.) OBummer firing officials at the Inspectors General offices for no reason and without adhering to the "30-day notice" policy as instituted by democrats during the Bush administration.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-in spectors-0617-0618jun18,0,5718990.story
4.) Nancy Pelosi's strong arm tactics in getting many members of congress to vote last week on the "cap and trade" bill. Her methods were nothing short of dubious.
Power, for the democrats is apriori.
Nothing shall get in their way and their agenda. |
|
|
Libs love lies. That is why they fawn over Obama. You don't give a darn about global warming, healthcare of anything else. You idiots jump on the bandwagon of anything your messiah spouts. If next week he tells you to jump off a bridge you will quickly ask him which one. You people are down to a single brain cell for sure. |
|
Was actually told to go back to work on what he knew best: economics.
The fact that one employee did his own kind of 'research' out of the realm of his expertise based on his own ideology does not make a great argument for stopping the entire energy bill that was being passed. |
|
spare us your outrage. You think the earth is 6000 years old. Your understanding of 'science' isn't worth a moment's consideration.
|
|
|
Open Transparent BS, release the report let the chips fall, Oh Bush Lied, We Won Deal With It BS. |
|
U.S. Congress so egregiously wrong is that it will wreak economic havoc and totally fail in its supposed objective (reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).
Our congressmen and women are not stupid. Consequently, one can only theorize that they expect to benefit themselves by passing this bill.
The congresscritters know very well that unless India, China and other developing countries adopt similar policies greenhouse gases will continue to increase.
Thus, the congresscritters (primarily demonrats) are destroying the U.S. economy for some reason other than man-made global climate change.
When you leftists are told the true reason for the cap n trade (not the Cap'n Crunch) bill, please let the rest of us know.
Right now all we know is that the proposed bill will do nothing to stop the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that it will have serious negative impacts on our economy and consequently on the world economy.
Bachman, et al, if you were even a little talented at representing Americans you would be able to convince your peers that foolishness at this extreme must not be supported or tolerated.
The public perception of the U.S. Congress is sinking rapidly. At this rate, we are not far from the day when no one approves of the performance of the U.S. Congress. |
|
Bachman and Inhofe, oh God I love you poor souls.
"If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate."
Friends of Science is cited. Is anybody surprised this wasn't published? |
|
|
Right you are this is nothing but more control. Obama also knows that he is satisfying the group that think we should be living in huts and eating bark. Two birds with one stone. Oh also his buddy algore and friends get to make lots of money which of course they will share with certain people. |
|
|
Still hanging upside down too long, yeah we like our government dishonest,wrong we want a non corrupt government all the time, you want it only when republicans are in office. |
|
The difference was that the liberal's claims about Bush admin. manipulation of EPA were all histrionic lies.
That's all the left does is lie. They don't give a crap about the environment. They want power to control people, that's all.
Quit buying into the sham, Obamabot. |
|
So are you saying that you are OK with Ms Jackson lying and supressing reports contrary to the administration's agenda?
Some "libertarian" you are. |
|
I believe you are completely in the right the evidence of global warming has not been solid and has never made sense. If a cows own gases out weigh the green house gas emissions of a Humvee in a single day why would we be worried about the impact of tour cars and trucks.
Also it does not surprise me that they would suppress the report because it would discredit their controlling policy to limit trade and further put more clamps on the economy which is NOT helping.
Government needs to decrease and free market needs to be allowed to flourish. |
|
Gee, seems I heard the same claims leveled at the Bush administration in regards to suppressing skeptical reports.
Reap what you sow.
Did you hound dog Bush for it?
Nope.
Reap what you sow. The liberals lambasted Bush for manipulating the EPA all the while you stood by and did nothing.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. Do you think Obama is going to give you any more credence than Bush gave liberals.
Proving, once again, it is easier to get your own house in order before you attempt someone else's. Every vagary and slight you all enabled Bush to get away with Obama will trump in spades.
Sign statements, EPA, etc. I can't wait till Obama outs a CIA agent as political payback via the NYT. I can just see the right wing going apoplectic. Wooo hooo! Warrantless, wireless wire tapping. Yup, every thing the liberals complained about with Bush, Obama will trump and you all will only have to look in the mirror to find the right person to complain too.
Delicious. Going to be a fun 8 years watch a repeat of the last 8 years. |
|
|
When it comes to pushing through the agenda of this administration. Little frightening I would say. It looks like you will not see much truth for the next four years. Anyone who dares try to put it out there will be severely punished. Sounds more like communism each day. |
|
|
We are not shocked that your dept. is not transparent, not honest, not looking out for us. |
|
|
|