1 - 8
In response to:

Beware of the Coming....Ice Age?

Peter259 Wrote: Sep 04, 2011 9:09 PM
Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, there were articles about a fairly elaborate theory of how the cycle of four Pleistocene-Holocene ice ages went. An intriguing part of the theory was that during each Ice Age, the Arctic Ocean was NOT covered by ice but was open water; and that this increased the snowfall on land due to increased evaporation from the Arctic Ocean. And, paradoxically, it was the re-freezing of the polar ice cap that was supposed to begin the reversal of the ice age--less precipitation gradually leading to melting of glaciers that had covered almost all of Canada. Scientists ought to review this theory in the light of the dramatic decrease in Arctic Ocean ice recently.
In response to:

Beware of the Coming....Ice Age?

Peter259 Wrote: Sep 04, 2011 9:03 PM
What justifies your label "lunatic" for a perfectly factual quote?
In response to:

Beware of the Coming....Ice Age?

Peter259 Wrote: Sep 04, 2011 9:02 PM
We are IN a period of solar quiescence! Sunspots were expected to start increasing several years ago, and there are still much fewer than were expected for this time. You may argue that this is just a small delay, but on what basis?
There are two issues here: one, is Michele's clinic doing "reparative therapy? You have a valid point in that we deserve to be told the truth about this. Second, there is your undocumented claim about what "most credible medical organizations". Let's see you NAME what you think those organizations are, and where we might find the statements whose existence you are alleging. Is it not the case that the most credible medical organizations have not claimed that the therapy NEVER works, and have not made any claims about the relative amounts of good and harm the therapy does to different people? I've seen enough spin doctors with your style in operation to NEVER assume anything they are implying without spelling it out explicitly,...
In response to:

Chasing Sarah: The Boys Behind the Bus

Peter259 Wrote: Jun 01, 2011 8:45 AM
wiseone has called Roman Lion a troll and the latest idiocy by RL only tends to confirm that. Look at the thoroughly illogical response he made to Smother's words, ""One of Sarah Palin's virtues is that she has made all the right enemies." His dishonest response was: "That you think of your fellow Americans as "enemies" says a lot about you, actually, Smother." I have never seen a right winger, no matter how obnoxious, use that particular brand of logic. Hence I believe RL lied when he wrote in the same comment: "the ironic thing is that I used to be as right wing as you are until 3 years ago," His explanation for the alleged change is as phony as a 3 dollar bill hot off the presses: "and figured out that it was all a sham...
In response to:

Chasing Sarah: The Boys Behind the Bus

Peter259 Wrote: Jun 01, 2011 8:28 AM
I agree with what you say as far as it goes, DHE, but Sarah is invaluable as a "kingmaker": thanks to her support, Nikki Haley is now Governor of South Carolina. Nikki ran a low profile campaign, not even sending out mailings, yet she beat a field of well-known veteran pols, and is now the youngest Governor South Carolina ever had.
In response to:

Mom Plays God: Brings Good from Evil

Peter259 Wrote: May 28, 2011 6:25 PM
No women ever received mammograms at Planned Parenthood; this has been thoroughly researched starting with the Live Action sting and then chasing down the few examples that were offered. The last holdout, a Waco, Texas PP also was shown to have referred their customers to a health facility that did the actual mammograms. As for that 3% figure, it refers to the number of "contacts"; picking up a condom for a boyfriend is just as much a single item of "what PP does" as is an abortion; the bottom line is, what percentage of money PP receives from customers is from abortion? Kyl had it wrong.
I find it very strange that the one example given for "communal responsibility for the welfare of children" by PhilipC is a case where the parents paid no attention to their child and did not want it near to them while they ate. I would have thought that he'd at least mention that in Dennmark, passers-by would, out of a sense of communal responsibility for the child, entertain it to keep it from being bored. But I think it is pretty obvious, from what he writes later, that no such thing happens. It also looks to me like Philip C knows nothing about David Blankenhorn [whose name he does not even mention but just expresses gratuitous skepticism about him being a liberal] nor his writings; the term "cherry-picked" apparently just refers...
1 - 8