An Inconvenient Truth opens in Seattle today at Pacific Place and the Guild 45th. I’m going to the 8:40 show tonight at Pacific Place, and a bunch of Drinking Liberally folk are going to the 8:40 show on Saturday.
You must see this movie this weekend. Big crowds will assure wider release.
I wholeheartedly agree. You have to see The Truth.
I’m on my way out the door for the 7:15PM show.
I’m buying land in Alaska to plant pineapple!!! Thank you George Bush!!!
It’s about time Hollywood started making some good “B” sci-fi movies again like “Plan 9 From Outer Space” and “Forbidden Planet”. I’m sure “An Incontinent Truth” will be much in the same vein.
And yes I’ll be at The Guild chortling and chuckling with quite a few like-minded folks. Who needs to wait for Mystery Science Theater when Algore provides this comedic master piece.
I’ll give my review on Tuesday if you need it, Goldy.
Goldy,
“I always thought I’d grow up to pursue a career in law.” […………….Myron Silverstein, Goldystein, Stein, and Lowenstein, ESQ] hehe, JCH
Although I guess this movie is also a gripping tale of self-discovery since it’s an “…eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his ‘traveling global warming show,’ Gore also proves himself to be one of the most misunderstood characters in modern American public life.”
ecent news of Al Gore’s atrocious dealings as a landlord should come as no surprise, given his stingy record as a humanitarian. His tenants say they complained 30 times before going to the media, and only then did the Vice President agree to have the necessary repairs made. Even though Gore frequently preaches to the public about the need for compassion, he didn’t even follow through oh the simple request of an impoverished and disabled family whom he was legally obligated to help.
Gore’s dedication to government planning originates in his belief that liberty is “a risky scheme.” If not coerced, according to Gore, individuals will not accept the burden of helping society’s poorest people. Compassion is a characteristic, therefore, exclusive to government, because as far as Gore is concerned, his own lack of interest in personally helping others is universally shared.
Gore’s politics reveal an overarching philosophy that mirrors his behavior. Consider his views on the environment, which are developed at length in his book, Earth in the Balance. He claims the doomsday consequences of global warming are inevitable if intrusive government regulation is not immediately adopted. He then says that protecting the earth, as opposed to preserving individual rights and freedoms, ought to be the “central organizing principle for civilization.”
As a Democrat, he believes in centralized government that has the capability to regulate on a federal level. Instead of permitting each community to establish its own environmental standards, Gore attests to the need for national regulation. Instead of supporting a privatized Social Security system, Gore calls individual retirement accounts “a risky scheme” for permitting individuals the right to invest their money.
Instead of favoring voluntary charity, Gore prefers the welfare state. Instead of responding to demands for school vouchers with open arms, he says, “We shouldn’t give up on public schools.” And instead of opposing campaign-finance reform and holding candidates accountable for their decisions while in office, Gore has called repeatedly for an end to soft money (as if that would solve the problem of corruption in elected officials).
Instead of favoring voluntary charity, Gore prefers the welfare state. Instead of responding to demands for school vouchers with open arms, he says, “We shouldn’t give up on public schools.” And instead of opposing campaign-finance reform and holding candidates accountable for their decisions while in office, Gore has called repeatedly for an end to soft money (as if that would solve the problem of corruption in elected officials).
These government-mandated initiatives are intended to take the place of individually sponsored charity. While he is less than generous when it comes to helping others — in 1997, Gore had an income of $197,729 and gave only $353 to charity — he is willing to spend other people’s money on his own needs: Last summer, in spite of the fear Gore has so often expressed about the depletion of natural resources and harm to the environment, he didn’t hesitate to waste 96 million gallons of water (costing taxpayers $59,000) just for a photo-op of him canoeing down the Connecticut River. When it came time for Gore’s children to begin their education, he appears to have lost sight of his previous dedication to public education — one by one his children were enrolled in private schools. And most recently, in the absence of government regulation (ignoring for the moment his characteristic disregard for the law), Gore broke his promise and spent soft money before George W. Bush.
Despite their pissing and moaning, the trolls will have no effect on the success, or the impact of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
Tree Frog…….Review posts 8 and 9. Do your fucking homework!!
Christ, it was a pleasant break for a few days without JCH! Who let that skum sucker out of the straight jacket? Janet the Nazi Nurse from hell?
Global warming. The new age religion of the gullible moonbat left.
Go worship your hero.
And don’t forget… as Rakeface said…. The sun CAN’T cause global warming. Only SUVs can.
When you guys come back, can you tell me if Algore shows a chi squared analysis of temperature data to prove current temps are beyond historical norms.
Also, find out how accurate the temperature data was from 100 years ago. Do you think the sailors throwing buckets overboard and measuring the water temperature is a scientifically valid method? Google the word “Cal-Cert” and then let’s talk.
Gullible fucking idiots….
4
Again Don Ward graces us. Here’s a review from one of your fellow Republicans you might want to peruse before you hermetically seal you already much too narrowed mind.
However, don’t let anything stop you from chortling away Don. We all know how the right noises can make the right impressions on certain members of the crowd one runs with.
It must be hard making ends meet on a reporter’s salary. Oppo for
Ted StevensMike McGavick must come in handy.This movie makes me happy because I realize that every right wing asshole on this planet will eventually be wiped out by his own stupidity!
This movie makes me happy because I realize that every right wing asshole on this planet will eventually be wiped out by his own stupidity!
Commentby LeftTurn […………………………………………………………….Left Turn, If true, who will pay the taxes to support you?]
will eventually be wiped out by his own stupidity!
Commentby LeftTurn— 6/2/06@ 9:04 pm
Hey LT, I think you stumbled on the perfect motto for the lefty Seattle public schools. But who am I to say, I just wipe out cars and young females.
Hey,
REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX]
Stop wasting your time and filling up the net with drivel and go and get a job!
An Inconvenient Truth will be in Tacoma at The Grand Cinema on June 16th.
13
Shut the fuck up already with your chi squared bullshit, redneck. Unless you’re ready to demonstrate to all of us right here, right now, with “hard” scientific evidence that global warming is 100% fake, then you’ve got no intellectual credibility whatsoever.
Dr. E. @ 20,
I’ve been enjoying watching Mark the Thieving Redneck spout his bullshit about doing a “chi-square analysis.” A chi-square goodness of fit test is wholly inappropriate for what he is proposing to test.
Mark the Thieving Redneck doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. What a fucking DOLT!
Example of how democrat stupidity destroys itself:
Sweeney to N.J. workers: Cut pay
The senator, a labor leader, said he was angered by union support for an N.J. sales-tax increase. Reaction was swift.
By Elisa Ung
Inquirer Trenton Bureau
TRENTON – Democratic State Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney, a major union leader from Gloucester County, shocked state employee unions yesterday by calling on their members to take a 15 percent cut in salaries and benefits.
Sweeney’s proposal threw a bomb into talks over a $30.9 billion New Jersey budget full of unpopular taxes but championed by the unions because it would spare them painful cuts.
“New Jersey has a government that we can’t afford any longer,” said Sweeney, a powerful Iron Workers business agent, who held a Statehouse news conference with a fellow Gloucester County Democrat, Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, and a Union County Democrat, Assemblyman Jerry Green.
Sweeney said he was angered by a union flyer that asked legislators to support a proposed increase in the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent – “so that,” he said, “state workers don’t have to experience the pain that every taxpayer in the state is going to experience.”
Sweeney, Moriarty and Green said that salaries and benefits totaled $4.6 billion, and that a 15 percent cut would save nearly $700 million. They are also calling for reductions in paid holidays, vacation time and workers’ compensation.
But the Corzine administration all but dismissed the proposal yesterday, and unions immediately balked.
“He’s whipping up public sentiment against people who are working hard,” said Bob Master, regional legislative political director for the Communications Workers of America, the largest state union, which represents 35,000 state employees.
“This is frankly the kind of rhetoric we would expect from a right-wing Republican,” said Master, who added that state employees had accepted two years of wage freezes and health-care concessions in the contract that will end in the summer of 2007. “I don’t know what his motivations are, but he obviously has no sense of union solidarity.”
The CWA has mounted a campaign in support of Gov. Corzine’s budget, including a rally scheduled for June 19.
Further complicating the matter is that Carla Katz, president of CWA Local 1034, is Corzine’s former girlfriend, and he made headlines for forgiving a $470,000 mortgage to her. Both have said their former relationship would not affect contract talks.
“The budget is not the time or place for contract negotiations,” Corzine spokesman Anthony Coley said yesterday.
State Treasurer Bradley Abelow added that the state had no legal right to overturn union contracts. “We can’t take unilateral action because of an agreement we’ve entered into,” he said.
Senate President Richard J. Codey (D., Essex) and Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D., Camden) issued noncommittal statements saying they would study the proposal.
Assemblyman Joseph Cryan of Union County, the state Democratic chairman, said such talks should be left at the bargaining table.
“Frankly, I’m mystified that [Sweeney] would take such an open and direct approach,” Cryan said, adding that it overlooks “our obligation to the bargaining process.”
Assemblyman Bill Baroni (R., Mercer), who said his district had the most state employees, said burdening the rank-and-file did not equate with slashing government waste.
“I do not believe we should balance the state budget on the backs of public employees,” he said.
The proposal did have supporters, including another South Jersey Democrat, State Sen. John Adler of Camden County, who called a potential state payroll reduction “unfortunate but necessary,” and Assemblyman Kevin O’Toole (R., Passaic), who immediately offered to cosponsor any legislation.
Sweeney, Moriarty and Green displayed charts comparing the state’s “Government World” with the “Real World.”
They said most state government employees had a 35-hour workweek, were among the highest-paid state employees in the country, had a generous health and workers’ compensation plan, and were allowed to accumulate and cash in on unused sick time. The average state salary is about $50,000.
“Trenton is one of the few places where if you leave work at 5 p.m., you’ve already missed the rush hour,” Moriarty said.
They said they would immediately begin work on legislation – including a bill that would allow those with dual public offices to withdraw from the state pension plan or receive a pension from only one job.
Sweeney is also Gloucester County’s freeholder director, and Moriarty is mayor of Washington Township. Both said the system forces them to accept both pensions.
“We totally expect to be picketed, protested and vilified,” Moriarty said.
Indeed, their news conference had barely ended before three surprised, angry union leaders confronted Sweeney.
“Some of these proposals are a violation of our contract,” said one, Robert Regan of the CWA.
Sweeney emphasized afterward that the proposal was not an attack on unions, but a matter of fairness. He said organized labor had historically volunteered concessions, and he hoped the employee unions would too. “They’re dear friends of mine,” he said.
But, he said of the ironworkers he represents, “my guys haven’t gotten a raise in two years because their entire raise went to their health and pension costs. That’s real world.”
How predictable.
My Kennedy Cousins: Lookie here about AL GORE:
http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm
” Look carefully at Gore’s charts and you’ll see that the worst horrors take place in the future of his imagination.
His implication that he is our only hope – every ticket bought for this movie amounts to a soft-money contribution to his 2008 campaign – is ridiculous. He and his friends were in charge for eight years. His charts say global warming got worse in that time. The environment doesn’t seem to care whether the president is a Texas oilman or the Man from Hope.
Global warming hasn’t noticed that we got the lead out of our gasoline or that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in 2004. All regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint that pollution isn’t the cause?
CHI-SQUARED GOES LIMP
SCENE: Mark the Redneck is in bed with a prostitute named Rosebud. Despite much effort he fails to get it up. Mark is embarrassed and dejected.
ROSEBUD: Don’t worry about it, Red, it’s probably because you’ve had a tough week. That even happens to super-studs like you, ya know.
Redneck holds up his limp noodle and then flicks it away.
REDNECK: Yeah, you’re right. I’ve been working lots of extra hours on the blogs trying to beat back the mojo Al Gore is getting from his new flick. For awhile I was doing great, but I think I’m losing the battle now.
ROSEBUD: Oh, Red, why would you say that? I’ve always told you that you’re the smartest person I know!
REDNECK: Well I have done good by my daddy — he never got no AA degree. And I did real well in my stats class. But I just can’t keep up with these guys with grad degrees. They laugh at me.
Rosebud carefully reached for her bra without trying to look to impatient to leave.
ROSEBUD: You’re being to hard on yourself, Red. Just keep on trying. Pour on that charm of yours — it’s hot enough to melt an ice berg. You sure melt mine!
She dressed and slipped out the trailer door, and Redneck stared at the ceiling for deep into the night.
REDNECK: I just can’t keep getting my ass kicked like this. Maybe I better go back and get my BA before I turn 40.
Hevesi Gaffe ‘Incredibly Moronic’
By JILL GARDINER – Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 2, 2006
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, is getting his race for re-election off to an unusual start by describing his own remarks as “remarkably stupid,” “incredibly moronic,” and “totally offensive.”
Mr. Hevesi was referring to a remark he had made when he described Senator Schumer as someone who would “put a bullet between the president’s eyes, if he could get away with it.”
“We really feel bad for poor Chuck – United States senator. The man who, uh, uh, how do I phrase this diplomatically, will put a bullet between the president’s eyes, if he could get away with it,” Mr. Hevesi told graduating students at Queens College.
Mr. Schumer had spoken a few moments earlier.
Mr. Hevesi held a news conference a few hours later where he apologized for the remark. He said the comment was “blurted out” and was meant to praise Mr. Schumer’s tenacity in standing up to the president on policy issues.
A spokesman for the Secret Service, Jonathan Cherry, would not comment. White House officials did not return calls.
The remark comes as Mr. Hevesi is gearing up for his re-election campaign. His Republican challenger, J. Christopher Callaghan, the treasurer of Saratoga County, called the comment “appalling.” He said: “It’s shocking. You can’t unring a bell. It’s horrid judgment.”
A spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Risa Heller, said, “Comptroller Hevesi was trying to make a point, he went way too far and it was inappropriate and wrong.” Ms. Heller said via e-mail that Mr. Hevesi “has apologized to both the Senator and the President and we believe that ends the matter.”
Hmmm the apoloyy should end this matter huh. I wonder if this applies to Ann Coulter?
Here is some “TRUTH” for you friggin’ KLOWNS—-
Here is an excerpt from today’s Peninsula Daily News that shows YOUR WSDOT and TAX DOLLARS at work–
4 years late and way over Budget!
I’ve got an idea, let’s give these incompetent fools MORE tax dollars!!!!!!!! And since they did so well on this project, let’s give them one 200 times more complicated (Alaska Way TUNNEL) and see how badly they fuck that one up!
How the state lost $86.9 million in Port Angeles
2006-06-02
by JIM CASEY
Planning that came too late and construction that sped ahead too fast doomed the Hood Canal Bridge graving yard, a legislative audit of the project says.
Today’s report to the state Transportation Performance Audit Board also lays blame for the multimillion-dollar debacle on what it calls inadequate work by an archeological consultant and on poor communications with the Lower Elwha Klallam tribe.
Nearly 200 pages long, the long-delayed report will be released this morning in Seattle.
The document is in two parts:
* The first, a fiscal review of the graving yard project, concludes that the state Department of Transportation was correct when it continued work at the yard even after human remains were found there in August 2003.
* The second part analyzes how the state failed to discover that its construction site lay on top of an ancient Native American cemetery.
The state lost almost $86.9 million on the Port Angeles project after the Lower Elwha Klallam tribe asked that construction cease.
The sum is broken down to $60.5 million in construction; $11.2 million to reassemble equipment, labor and supplies at new sites; and $15.2 million to choose a new graving yard location and renegotiate its agreement with contractor Kiewit-General Construction Co. of Poulsbo.
$1.5 million still on site
An additional $1.5 million in materials remains at the site on the Port Angeles Harbor.
Still, if construction could have been completed in Port Angeles, the audit said the loss would have been $15 million less than the eventual cost of moving the project to other places.
The graving yard would have built 20 giant concrete anchors and 55 pontoons, plus highway decks, to replace the aging east end of the floating bridge.
The retrofit was budgeted at $275.8 million in 2003 but has climbed to $470.1 million as of last March.
About $15 million of the increase came from contract renegotiations and engineering changes.
The rest came from higher materials costs, project delays and separate construction sites.
Pontoon construction is under way at Concrete Technologies in Tacoma, while the draw span and decks will be constructed in Seattle and the anchors will be poured in Port Gamble.
Completion, originally scheduled for this year, now is set for 2010.
Of course I am with Anne. The only good democrat is a dead one. Ah just kidding… no wait no I am not. Wait yes … no…
Here is the real wrath of Gore hot air, Wen Ho Lee
http://apnews.myway.com/articl.....AMB81.html
“Lee was fired from his job at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, but he was never charged with espionage. He was held in solitary confinement for nine months, then released in 2000 after pleading guilty to mishandling computer files. A judge apologized for Lee’s treatment.”
Typical donk. Guilty before the trial. Maybe Los Alamos discovered the real cause of global warming, cigar insertions! Wen Ho Lee was ready to expose it and blamo he be fired!
@25- has Anne Coulter apologized? For how many of her offensive comments?
Hmmm. Dj and Dr E. Two mighty perfessers here on ASSHeads, part of the Goldy Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats!
I did pretty well in my Sadistics and Probability Classes. I remember Chi Squared. I didn’t enter into this fray until I went back and looked up the definition, which I know most DONKS DIDN’T DO!
From da web:
“Chi square is a non-parametric test of statistical significance for bivariate tabular analysis (also known as crossbreaks). Any appropriately performed test of statistical significance lets you know the degree of confidence you can have in accepting or rejecting an hypothesis. Typically, the hypothesis tested with chi square is whether or not two different samples (of people, texts, whatever) are different enough in some characteristic or aspect of their behavior that we can generalize from our samples that the populations from which our samples are drawn are also different in the behavior or characteristic.
A non-parametric test, like chi square, is a rough estimate of confidence; it accepts weaker, less accurate data as input than parametric tests (like t-tests and analysis of variance, for example) and therefore has less status in the pantheon of statistical tests. Nonetheless, its limitations are also its strengths; because chi square is more ‘forgiving’ in the data it will accept, it can be used in a wide variety of research contexts.
Chi square is used most frequently to test the statistical significance of results reported in bivariate tables, and interpreting bivariate tables is integral to interpreting the results of a chi square test, so we’ll take a look at bivariate tabular (crossbreak) analysis.
Bivariate Tabular Analysis
Bivariate tabular (crossbreak) analysis is used when you are trying to summarize the intersections of independent and dependent variables and understand the relationship (if any) between those variables.
So let’s look at the relationship of global warming and man-made pollutants. You evaluate the estimate of the amount of man-made pollutants in the air over the last 100 years per year (broken down in specific sections) and look to see if there is a temperature correlation. But you have to remove the natural disasters like volcanic action, Al Gore bellicosiveness, Old Faithful Geyser, etc. from the equation. I can see it as plain as day. Why can’t you donks? Maybe it will be “An Inconvenient Truth”?
I’d agree with Mr. Cynical @ 26 that the aborted Port Angeles project is an important story. It’s one of those situations that will be studied for years.
Now, Mr. Cynical uses the story to beat up on . . . what, government? Gregoire? It isn’t clear, but what he doesn’t say is that the situation would have turned out all that differently under a Republican administration.
One reason is that a develop-at-all-costs Rossi administration would have been even less sensitive to archeological issues and less willing to collaborate with the local tribe. In addition, whatever else you can say about Gregoire, she does deserve credit for putting in place an executive order that plugs a policy loophole that allowed the boondoggle to occur in the first place.
Not that Mr. Cynical would acknowledge any of this. He’s too much of a knee-jerk ideologue to display a shred a nuance.
Come on Puddy and/or Mark- if you are as educated as you claim, you understand the concept of peer review. What about the FACT that Science Magazine’s analysis of PEER REVIEWED articles on climate change found NOT ONE disagreed with the finding? Is that an “Inconvenient Truth”?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5702/1686
“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
“Cyn and JCH Kennedy – Check out the thread here where Rakeface makes the claim that the sun not only doesn’t cause global warming, but in fact it can’t cause global warming.
Do we need any more proof that global warming is the new age religion of moonbats?
Commentby Mark The Redneck Kennedy— 6/2/06@ 5:40 pm”
The latest Progressive idea is a quasi-Internal Combustion Engine where it runs on their own shit! As they climb into their little piece of crap car, they jam a big plastic tube up their ass and voila…..KLOWNTURD POWERED ENGINE!!!
Now that is environmentally friendly…and sustainable!
There is no end to their shit supply!
4
Wingnuts have raised scientific denial and gloating about their stupidity and ignorance to an art form.
No takers on the issue of peer reviewed articles? Then off to bed.
Remember when Pope-A-Dope came up with his insane rationalization that Seattle was actually getting the same amount of terrorism money when it wasn’t? Well a REPUBLICAN blasts the Bush regime for that same twisted logic in New York.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13...../newsweek/
Dickie, even your fellow inbred morons think you’re an idiot!
K @ 32, thanks for linking to the Science article. That’s one of the best examples of how a consensus HAS emerged on global warming.
The simple fact of the matter is that the research on global warming is unprecedented in its scope. Never before has one topic been studied so intently by so many scientists from so many disciplines from so many nations. The IPCC’s reports on global warming are as mainstream as you could possibly get in such a sprawling scientific community.
To dismiss the science as leftist religion is either 1) completely nuts, or 2) the ultimate Big Lie.
So which one is it, MTR? Are you nuts or a big, fat liar?
No takers on the issue of peer reviewed articles? Then off to bed.
Commentby K— 6/2/06@ 10:47 pm
We should do a chi square analysis on how many of those scientists are on the public dole for their research. Hmmmm I wonder what the result would be.. Nah I already know.
We repubs learn from history unlike you donks. We remmeber all the donks science from the 60’s and 70’s saying that there would be mass starvation and we will run out of oil. The sky is still there.
13
“to prove current temps are beyond historical norms”
It’s been done.
Temperature records based on instrument measurement have been kept since 1850; scientists use other methods to reconstruct the Earth’s temperature history for prior periods.
The instrument record since 1850 shows “a general warming,” and 2005 is the warmest year on record. The 20th century had the largest increase in temperature of the last 1,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....1000_years
“The scientific opinion on climate change is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C over the 20th century, and that it is likely that ‘most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities[.]'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Rufus, you have a choice: If you deny the scientific consensus on global warming (e.g., as demonstrated in the Science article linked to in 32) you are either:
1) completely nuts, or
2) a big liar.
Which one is it?
Speaking of global warming (and hot air / inflated egos) – how funny is it that Sharkansky thinks his ranting against the Mayor’s limo caused him to pick a Toyota Prius recently? It just goes to show that the ignorant right wing blogger set doesn’t differ much from the self-absorbed “solar system revolves around the earth” demagogue of yesteryear.
And how appropriate is it that Sharkansky hasn’t even tried to mount a crazed right-wing/libertarian attack on the science behind Greenhouse theory?
It’s hard to be a rabid Republican these days, despite the limited results of their ‘war on science.’
I mean, Shark’s cult leader (and future real estate agent) Dino Lossi had WA State Patrol escorts long after he lost his election – and yet, Stefan never uttered a peep about that fleet of Crown Victorias.
“We should do a chi square analysis on how many of those scientists are on the public dole for their research.”
Yeah, that’s it, RUFUS. It’s all one big conspiracy.
Your tinfoil hat theory might mean something, if even Bush’s NASA scientists (as well as 99% of all other scientists) didn’t come to the same conclusion.
Oh well, at least you have the tobacco company…I mean Oil Company…hacks on your side.
Thank you for smoking, RUFUS. It’s good for you. And so are the emissions coming out of the tailpipe of your Dodge Dart.
JoeBob, of course the wingers are inconsistent. The whole point is to drive up the “negatives” on Democrats. Particularly in a difficult year like 2006, the key to Republican victories is to drive down turnout to such a degree that their cadre of true believers can turn the tide.
It really doesn’t matter what the wingers hit the Democrats on. Of greater importance is a steady drip, drip, drip of accusations. This puts the Democrats on the defensive, and it also leaves a negative impression in the minds of those who aren’t paying all that much attention. Those folks tend to be swing voters.
Rufus, you have a choice: If you deny the scientific consensus on overpopulation and massive food shortage by the end of the century (e.g., as demonstrated in the Science article linked to in 32) you are either:
1) completely nuts, or
2) a big liar.
Which one is it?
Commentby Green Thumb— 6/2/1966@ 11:10 pm
“As a Democrat, he believes in centralized government that has the capability to regulate on a federal level. Instead of permitting each community to establish its own environmental standards, Gore attests to the need for national regulation. ”
Good point, JCH/Puddy/Kennedy @7. Everybody knows that polluted water and air never crosses political boundaries.
I think you need to stick to your racist and anti-semitic troll ranting. Every time you actually try to tackle an actual issue, you fall flat on your face.
Carbon Dioxide Variations
This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.
Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.
CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time in 650,000 years.
Rufus, I know it is a tough choice, so let me tell you my impression. I suspect that it is both. Your logic on a variety of issues suggests that you are a rigid and extreme ideologue. You don’t let any new information into your brain unless it conforms to your view of reality.
At the same time, I can’t believe that you are merely nuts. You seem to linked to the winger propaganda machine to be a mere dupe. On a certain level I suspect that you know you are spewing bad information. You do it because winning is more important than being ethical.
What do you say Rufus? Did I not nail you with incredible accuracy?
“JoeBob, of course the wingers are inconsistent. The whole point is to drive up the “negatives” on Democrats.”
Actually, Green Thumb, after reading this thread, it’s pretty clear that the ‘whole point’ is for right wingers to work out their frustrations, hatred of people who don’t look like them, and personal vendettas on the rest of us. Inconsistency isn’t really an issue when values and ideology only play second fiddle for these nutcases…what they’re really trying to do is blame liberals for their own failings.
“I’m buying land in Alaska to plant pineapple!!! Thank you George Bush!!! ”
The right wing trolls are also a bit…er…mentally ill…
Unless, of course, that was a pathetic attempt at humor. It’s always tough to tell.
Actually another film to see is “United 93”.
The threads here lately remind me of the last scenes of the movie with the hijackers being our wingnutty trolls and the passengers being all the liberal regulars here doing everything we can to take back the plane before it hits the ground.
JoeBob, sometimes it’s hard to tell what is a psychotic ranting and what is a agitprop. The two go together so well.
It’s the onion theory of propaganda. In the center of the onion are the PACs and think tanks that create the memes. These are done by professionals who have drawn upon some pretty sophisticated research in psychological warfare.
Their carefully pre-tested memes are then filtered out through the layers of the onion, e.g., state Republican party operatives, journalists, blogs, and ultimately the freelance volunteers. The latter may be merely implementers, but they can be extremely valuable because they give down-home “authenticity” to the memes.
The thing that impresses — and scares — me most about the right-wing propaganda machine is the way it feeds off of group psychosis. It’s been a long time in American history when the nutcases played such a major role in a movement.
Folks like Rufus, JCH and MTR should enjoy their status while they can, because what goes up invariably comes down . . . particularly when their whole argument is based on fantasy.
A very inconvenient truth: Al Gore controls several hundred thousand dollars worth of Occidental Petroleum stock. How’s that for global warming, folks???
NY Post article about who’s got the hot air!
http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm
NY Post? Now there’s an unbiased source. Next, we’ll consult the Washington “Moonie” Times and the John Birch Daily Review. That’s not a review, its a mugging.
And what do getting lead out of gasoline and no smoggy days in LA have to do with anything? Neither was a CO2 issue.
The eleven of the hottest years in the past 650,000 have occured since 1991. The warmest year was 2005, followed by 1998, then by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 & 1999 (tied) and 1991 & 2000 (tied).
Al Gore owned the Occidental Petroleum stock indirectly through his father’s estate. Gore did not purchase the shares and did not have control over the estate with which to sell them. Rehashing this claim of guilt by inheritance indicates how flimsy the wingnuts case for ignoring the fact of global climate change is..
Hey Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats like K, Green Dumb, DJ, Dr E. For the Cluesless, etc.: I have said before there is global warming and more is coming. God is in control. Read Revelation. The burning sun will be the first of the last seven plagues before Jesus is coming again.
But you Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats miss the BOAT! The Kyoto treaty allowed developing nations to get away with their high emission levels. That was one of the objections from Bush. The other was the economic impact on our manufacturing segment. Developed nations would have to pay so much that companies would move to non-Kyoto treaty covered countries to manufacture. Under-developed or developing nations get away almost scott free. You have no answer for that. Most of you Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats have never gone to Asia and watched the cars and trucks belch out their highly concentrated hydrocarbon emissions. Yet you decry the US emissions. If LA didn’t have one smog day in 2004, what’s your point?
Thread post #30 lays out the argument. Whay say you Lunatic Moonbats?
Roger Ebert has given An Inconvenient Truth a Four-star rating
“The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore’s concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.”
While you guys are at “church” today worshiping the hero of your new religion, just remember what Rakeface said: the sun CAN’T cause global warming.
OH yeah… one more thing…. there’s no data that shows current temps are beyond historical norms. If you think I’m FOS, show me the chi squared.
And no dj… chi squared is NOT goodness of fit… it’s statistical significance. Better hit the books a little harder next time.
Only a fool would question the statistical significance of a 650,000 year record.
FIrst Moonbats look here: http://www.rppi.org/ebrief105.html
Next here are some questions:
Where are the commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide from manufacturing and power plants?
Why does the Kyoto Treaty exempts 80 percent of the world from compliance?
Why did the Clinton Administration agree that developing countries like China and India; number two and number five in oil consumption in 2005 be excluded from Kyoto?
Why did the Clinton Administration sign the Kyoto treaty on November 12, 1998 sixteen months after the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 98 stating that it would not ratify any global climate treaty that would seriously harm the U.S. economy. The Senate also stated in the resolution (July 1997) that the Kyoto Treaty failed to require developing countries to reduce their emissions within the same time frame as the developed countries.
Why did Al Gore have his bud sign into law appropriations bills for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 that included language prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from using its funds to “issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol” Moonbats see P.L. 105-276 (Conference Report 105-769), P.L. 106-74 (Conference Report 106-379), and P.L. 106-377 (Conference Report 106-988).
If fossil fuels are the major culprit, why not allow more nuclear power plants?
Next look at a librul news paper editorial opinion!:http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne.....-headlines
“The economic consulting firm CRA International analyzed the economic impact of the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal and found that it would cost average U.S. households $450 to $720 a year. The United States would lose as many as 840,000 jobs in 2010 and up to 1.3 million jobs by 2020.”
Why did it take until March 2002 for the EU to ratify the Kyoto Treaty and now many of it’s member states are bartering over their pollution credits because they are having issues meeting their targets? Looks like Spain and Greece are overshooting their targets. The Dutch are 6 percent over their target.
Canada is 30% higher than it was when it signed the treaty. 17 other countries have not reported in at all. Hmmm…?
Scary Tuttle AKA Mummified Brain: Do you BELIEVE in GOD?
1) Yes I do – How can the earth be 650K years old?
2) No I don’t – Never mind. Keep up the “good” work!
BTW the Senate vote was 95-0. I am trying to see who the five missing were.
Senate Resolution 98 sponsored by Senator Robert 3K Sheets Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
63: I think that the earth is only 5,000 years old and that geologic records and dinosaurs were meant to trick us into going to hell. Why does God hate us so much?
Hey Moonbats did you know that Gore blames Bush for not getting the Kyoto Treaty to include developing countries under its mandates? Yet when he had Clinton sign it over the Senate objections, he didn’t push for the language change! Why is that moonbats?
Looks like John Kerry and Uncle Ted Marathon Swimmer did sign it. Would John Friggin Kerry signed the treaty before he unsigned it if he was president John Friggin Kerry?
Hey Moonbats, I guess you all forgot the ALF-CIO was against the treaty also. GOldy Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats look up the press conference opposing a treaty that would discourage fossil fuel use!
Union donks against President Clinton and VP Al Gore? Naah, say it ain’t so!
Damn AFL-CIO. I guess I had ELF bozos on the brain!
Hey Goldy Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats: Why not have your activists rally around ‘Torture Awareness Month‘? This Al Gore torture is sure getting to people!
Here are the cosponsors to SR 98 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....00098:@@@P. Patty “Brains” Murray is not here!
Still trying to see who didn’t vote.
Puddybud @ 58:
“Hey Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbats like K, Green Dumb, DJ, Dr E. For the Cluesless, etc.: I have said before there is global warming and more is coming. God is in control. Read Revelation. The burning sun will be the first of the last seven plagues before Jesus is coming again.”
This is the argument I find most dangerous because it throws out the window any human responsibility. Puddybud here is essentially saying that we should use one particular religion to make public policy on a life and death issue that impacts EVERYONE ON THE PLANET FOREVER.
Puddybud clearly pines to turn the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.
Thank you, Puddybud for finally being honest enough to put your cards on the table. What’s really going on here isn’t a debate about the science — it’s a religious war.
Puddy, I had a dream anm hn that dream Falwell, The Gerbil and jch all said that if you would sacrifice your 2 inbred sons god will stop global warming and make the workd ice cold…like your wife
Puddy always finds his stuff on the Internet!
Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Not Voting
Bumpers (D-AR), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
D’Amato (R-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Faircloth (R-NC), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Ford (D-KY), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Glenn (D-OH), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Not Voting
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Not Voting
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerrey (D-NE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea
Moynihan (D-NY), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Not Voting
Robb (D-VA), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Typical Donk Reid is a sponsor then he doesn’t vote! Sen Reid, Harry [NV] – 7/23/1997 See URL in Post #71
Bryan (D-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grams (R-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Reid (D-NV)
Looks like Mt Rainer and Anonymous are the left and right halves of the same atrophied brain! But which half? What does “dream anm hn” mean anyway?
BTW sons are not inbred. My island wife is infinitely better looking than anything you could ever find to marry. Good looking women like successful men. Good looking women like good looking strong character men. You don’t fit either category!!! You are donk!!!!
Green Dumb: You have no Biblical concept. I suppose the Bible mama gave you collects dust in the bookcase! God leads men to fulfill His will. God is against SIN. He sent His only begotton Son to die for all mans sins except Donnageddon who rejects Him. Goldy rejects him cuz he don’t believe in Jesus!
Jesus came to have men stop SINNING. God will eventually cleanse the universe of your god, Satan, and his minions of imps. Since Satan and his imps occupy this planet, God will rid this world of ALL SIN! How does he do this? Read Revelation bud!
63.
Really, Puddybud, you believe the earth is not, at least, 650,000 years old?
Green Dumb: Jesus is the way the truth and the life. I see you believe something else. Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
I said I believe there is global warming because God is in control.
Aside from Puddybud’s lapse into Christian fundamentalist honesty on 58, he is cutting and pasting the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda virtually word for word.
These guys have a decision tree of talking points. When one stops working (e.g., that the science is inconclusive) they move on to the next one.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of these arguments can — and has — been roundly refutted. This is a classic disinformation campaign developed at enormous expense.
Correct Mummified Brain. It’s a little more than 6000 years old! And when judgment day arrives, what will you say to your maker for believing junk science?
81
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Uhhh Green Dumb: What cutting and pasting? You saying the senate resolution was driven by the fossil fuel industry. Try again Dumb Green. Maybe you have been eating so much broccoli that your thumb up your ass is now green?
How was Clinton driven by the FF industry. Dumb!!!
AFL-CIO, full of union donks driven by the FF industry? Dumb!!!
I love it when the donk refer back to the Think Progress mindset. Can spot it a mile away!!!
What’s funny is that Puddybud is undercutting MTR’s insistence that the “left” — all those mainstream scientists! — is allowing religion to determine their views.
But there is a very serious underlying issue here: Puddybud seems to think that just because his religion believes in an apocalyse that no action need to taken to avoid the enormous pain and suffering that global warming could cause.
Yes, let’s just continue to drive our SUVs knowing that it is God’s will that the ice caps will melt, causing untold damage to parts of the world that have made very little contribution to global warming.
That’s mass psychosis, folks. Puddybud is mentally ill, and he wants you to join him.
So Green Dumb:
The Baltimore Sun driven by the FF industry? Dumb!!!
Kerry and Uncle Ted signing the senate resolution were driven by the FF industry? Dumb!!!
The Kyoto Treaty giving a pass to China (#2) and India (#5) in oil use was driven by the FF industry? Dumb!!!
Green Dumb@84: I never said that, you did. Hellova try at wordsmithing and word injection!!! You could have been a contenda!
You are a liar, Puddybud, and a superstitious twit, as well.
86
Then why the reference to Revelations?
Oh, really, Puddbud? So then what is your point? What I read is that you are saying that global warming is God’s will, so we don’t have any responsibility to stop it.
Is that not what you mean? Are you saying that American do have a responsibility to act? If so, what actions do YOU recommend?
84
I read so little of what our trolls spew, I didn’t realize these guys were such Neaderthals. Of course, they don’t believe they ever existed.
Carbon Dioxide Variations
This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.
Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.
CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time in 650,000 years.
Ten of the hottest years in the past 650,000 have occurred since 1991. The warmest year was 2005, followed by 1998, then by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999 and 1991 & 2000 (tied).
The earth is a little more than 6000 years old!
So Puddybud, did Noah and his ancestors in Genesis “walk with the dinosaurs”?
I shake my head sadly.
Notice how Puddybud disappeared when confronted with what should be a very simple question (see 89).
He can’t answer it without looking like an idiot. So he disappears instead. And when he comes back he will pretend that this discussion never occurred, and start right where he left off . . . talking point No. 34 from the fossil fuel industry’s greatest hits.
Here is the best approach to Global Warming I’ve read thus far:
Reduce Global Warming? Let’s Start With KLOWNS
Dennis Avery
Virtually all of the Kyoto Protocol’s member countries have increased their CO2 emissions since signing the treaty. The political and economic costs of reducing CO2 from cars and factories have proven very high. So they just haven’t happened.
Why don’t eco-activists support a major cut in methane emissions from THEMSELVES instead? Each molecule of methane has 21 times as much global warming potential as a molecule of CO2, and we already have cost-effective ways that KLOWNS can cut their methane emissions.
The KLOWNS won’t care.
A new study in Canada found about 20 different ways to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from KLOWNS—each of them capable of cutting these emissions by one-third. North America has more than 1 million hard-core KLOWNS, millions of NEO-KLOWNS, and more than 20 million JUNIOR KLOWNS, together emitting billions of tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses every year.
The Canadian authors, Karin Wittinberg and Dinah Boadi of the University of Manitoba, say that such methane reduction strategies should be a top priority in any greenhouse gas reduction effort.
Simply grinding and pelleting the SPROUTS for confined KLOWNS reduced methane by 20 to 40 percent, because it makes the feed more fully digestible.
ALFA KLOWNS grazing on high-quality alfalfa-grass pastures emit 50 percent less methane than ALFA KLOWNS grazing on mature SPROUT-only pastures. Rotational grazing—changing where the KLOWNS graze every few days—also cuts methane emissions. It would cost only a few dollars per acre to encourage KLOWN PIED PIPERS LIKE ALGORE to rotatationally graze, replant their SPROUT PASTURES more often.
Methane emissions in NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE KLOWNS were reduced by one-third when 4 percent canola oil was added to their free-range TOFU rations. The canola oil costs only slightly more than comparable grain calories.
Genetically engineered KLOWN growth hormone reduces methane emissions by 10 percent in GAY KLOWNS. The growth hormone hasn’t even been legalized in Canada, thanks largely to opposition from activist groups such as Greenpeace and NAMBLA!
Keeping young KLOWN and KLOWNETTES separated by age groups, and phasing their feeds by growth stages can cut greenhouse emissions by 50 percent and sharply reduce bad smells too. Again, KLOWN farmers would need only modest encouragement to use the system because it also increases feed efficiency.
The activists who warn of an overheated planet say we should focus on “no-regrets” energy strategies, and make the easiest, most cost-effective changes first. They ignore, however, such major sources of cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions as nuclear power—and encouraging KLOWNS to cut their OWN GODDAMN greenhouse emissions FIRST!
Instead, the Greens demanded ridiculous battery-powered electric cars. They demand we spend billions to clutter the landscape with tens of thousands of huge, unsightly wind turbines that kill birds and bats. They say we can’t approve nuclear plants until we demonstrate safe storage of spent fuel—for 10,000 years! They’re even suing to stop geothermal power plants that have no emissions, no radioactive waste and virtually no footprint on the land.
Let’s make a deal with the global warming crowd. We’ll reconsider CO2 emissions from cars and factories—after they shepherd through Congress a reasonable and effective cost-sharing plan to reduce a billion CO2 tons worth of methane and nitrous oxide from livestock. That will show they’re serious about global warming.
Until now, they’ve seemed more interested in reducing American lifestyles to poverty levels than in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Cynical, do you agree with Puddybud that global warming is God’s will?
The BOZO is of course full of gas and with Puddybud believes the earth is a little more than 6000 years old.
Praise be.
94 – Puddybud I believe is a Seventh Day Adventist who has to get in a few digs of self-satisfaction before he performs his weekly ablution of submission to the Almighty.
99
Is that what he thinks he’s doing when he sticks his head up his ass? And after he’s got his head up his ass, does he think he sees God in there?
I don’t think Puddy is a Seventh Day Adventist. He’s more likely an Eleventh Hour Descentist.
* An Eleventh Hour Descentist is someone who thinks Armageddon is at hand and everyone is going to Hell except him.
84
Puttybutt has a First Amendment right to believe in whatever apocalypse suits his fancy. But he has no fucking right to make the rest of us drink his kool-aid. This is public policy we’re talking about, not private religious beliefs. Global warming, like war, is too important to let religious fanatics monkey with it.
klake is a nazi
hey klake, don’t take it personally … I pick on you because it’s fun
Looks like Puddybud is getting his head slammed against the table pretty hard this morning. Good work, guys.
When I hear western reserves I think of Bill Clinton and his toad, Bruce Babbit, declaring vast areas of CLEAN burning, LOW sulphur coal, off limits via ‘national park’. All as a direct, PROVEN, result from a BRIBE paid to Billary from the owners of the only OTHER low sulphur coal fields located in Souteast Asia.
Imagine the media roar if the Bushs or Reagan had done that.
Green Dumb: I didn’t disappear, I took a shower because the slime you were throwing was disgusting. And Green Dumb if you looked at the Internet you would easily determine I took most of my arguing points from Green & Lefty Sites. You are true to your nature DUMB.
For the Cluesless: Don’t shake the head too much as the bolts on the neck will fall out!
Rabbit Pellet: I could care less what your or your alter ego Pendejo Gordito Alberto says. And head slammed ha ha ha ha ha! I provided unique proofs not presented before on ASSHeads and you all provide the same warmed over crap! But Pellet when Jesus does return, what will you have to say?
I have to go out now ASSHeads so I expect some raucous moonbat sliming soon!
Looks like Puddybutt’s friends and relatives are in deeper trouble still. Hookergate won’t go away. And this is from a REPUBLICAN on Hardball…
You had the orgies going on at the Watergate Hotel, with prostitutes, pimps, booze, card games, Duke Cunningham, lobbyists, CIA. The people were driven and the prostitutes were driven to the Watergate Hotel in limousines owned by a company which was run by a crook, which lost two of its previous contracts but was given a $21 million contract by the Department of Homeland Security to drive the top executives of the department around Washington. . . .
And there’s a lobbyist who was involved with the company who is also involved with Duke Cunningham and somehow mysteriously this company gets a $21 million contract to escort or to drive around the Department of Homeland Security’s top officials.
But Pellet when Jesus does return, what will you have to say?
I know what I’ll say:
Do your worst.
Notice how Mr. Cynical never answered the question (see 96). MTR won’t answer it either.
It’s a very simple and honest question.
Puddybud at 107:
“And Green Dumb if you looked at the Internet you would easily determine I took most of my arguing points from Green & Lefty Sites. You are true to your nature DUMB.”
This is just priceless double-speak. Lefty sites? Like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the leading sources of corporate disinformation on global warming?
Come on Puddybud, if you’re going to engage in the Big Lie you could at least make it plausible.
Rep. William J. Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, LA [hehe]
So if oil stock is in my family’s estate that I control, but I didn’t buy it, I’m okay? So I guess y’all think it’s waaay cool that REALLY LEFTY Armand Hammer owned Occidental Petroleum and that the Gore family is knee-deep in the stuff. Kind of like John Kerry saying he didn’t own an SUV, the family did.
Uh huh.
I guess Al the Bore actually did learn something despite SPECTACULARLY FLUNKING OUT of divinity school. Like other charlatans before him (L. Ron Hubbard, Rev Moon, benny Hinn, Jim Jones and most other money-grubbing, tent-revival carnies come to mind), he created his OWN religion…
Others say it far better than I …
“ Al Gore has reduced the science of global climate to a religion constructed on the theology of global warming. “
“ There is no way to prove, positively, that acceptance of and commitment to Al Gore’s theology of global warming will insure the utopian ecological future he envisions. It is simply “faith” that compels people to accept Gore’s claims and commit to the laundry list of behavioral guidelines he prescribes – unless, of course, Al Gore’s behavioral guidelines are translated into law. “
“ Science, however, is rarely certain and always welcomes challenge. Al Gore claims that the science of global warming is “settled.” He ignores the growing number of studies that contradict his conclusions, and he demeans scientists who dare to challenge the findings he says are gospel. “
“ Al Gore wants government to impose a laundry list of behavioral guidelines based on his global-warming theology. He wants to convert the U.S. and the world to his religion. In this goal, his aspiration is the same as Osama bin Laden’s: to force everyone to behave as he thinks they should. “
“ Al Gore is winning converts, not because of the validity of his theology, but because his sales pitch promises hellfire and damnation for the infidels and produces profits for the priests of his religion. “
“ Dante’s “Inferno” provided a graphic image of the afterlife for infidels in an earlier era, which brought converts in droves to the altar. Gore rounds up converts by using images of glaciers melting and video clips of hurricane devastation, offered as graphic “proof” of the hell that awaits an unrepentant civilization. He conveniently ignores the truth that in other parts of the world glaciers are actually expanding, and that storms of even greater devastation occurred routinely long before his global-warming theology was invented. “
“ Al Gore and his priesthood demean and impugn the credibility of scientists who dare challenge the global-warming theology, by claiming that dissenters are on the payroll of the oil industry – and worse. He conveniently ignores the truth that the global-warming priesthood is on the payroll of the global-warming industry. The U.S. government, European governments and the United Nations have spent billions of dollars in recent years to “study” global warming. For nearly two decades, however, these funds have gone primarily to researchers and organizations that advance the global-warming theology. Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, says:
“Scientists who dissent from the [global warming] alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
“ Al Gore’s global-warming theology is not science; it is his religion. He is welcome to believe whatever he wishes, but neither he nor his priesthood has the right to expect government to impose his laundry list of behavioral guidelines on the rest of society. “
“ Americans who would rebel at the prospects of a theocratic government {you know who you are, YOU LOONIE GOD/FAITH HATING LEFTYS!} imposing the behavioral guidelines of Islam or Christianity should rebel with equal vigor at the prospects of government imposing individual behavioral requirements based on Al Gore’s global warming religion. “
A great big “Thank You” to Stefan Sharkansky @ http://www.soundpolitics.com/ for the thoughtful provision of the PREVIEW BUTTON on his site, http://www.soundpolitics.com/ and his generously allowing us to use it LIBERALLY to check our work before we post. If only other blog hosts would be as generous and thoughtful…
Misty, I love the way you trolls try to change the subject. At the end of the day, the debate over global warming has nothing to do with the consumption predilections of individual Democrats (whatever they may be).
What matters are the policies adopted by the federal government — which is entirely controlled by Republicans.
What has been the result of one-party rule? A policy agenda that was written from start to finish by the fossil fuel industry. What does it do? Surprise! Nothing of any real substance except avoid, delay, and obfuscate (oh, and more subsidies for the oil industry.)
The U.S. is an international embarrassment on global warming. Even Russia approved the Kyoto Protocol, and China recently adopted auto emissions standards much tougher than ours.
You spend your time attacking Gore because you know you can’t defend the indefensible. Shame on you.
Carbon Dioxide Variations
This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.
Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.
CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time in 650,000 years.
Nice try, Green Thumb. Keep working on the assumption that Misty is an educable infant. A troll, is a troll, is a troll. Larval or not.
Ten of the hottest years in the past 650,000 have occurred since 1991. The warmest year was 2005, followed by 1998, then by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999 and 1991 & 2000 (tied).
Green Dumb 111 – I agree with Rakeface. The sun CAN’T cause global warming. Only my SUV can.
CHI-SQUARED GOES LIMP
SCENE: Mark the Redneck is in bed with a prostitute named Rosebud. Despite much effort he fails to get it up. MTR is embarrassed and dejected.
ROSEBUD: Don’t worry about it, Red. It’s probably because you’ve had a tough week. That even happens to super-studs like you, ya know.
MTR held up his limp noodle and then flicked it away.
REDNECK: Yeah, you’re right. I’ve been working lots of extra hours on the blogs trying to beat back the mojo Al Gore is getting from his new film. For awhile I was knocking em dead, but I think I’m losing the battle now.
ROSEBUD: Oh, Red, why would you say that? I’ve always told you that you’re the smartest person I know!
REDNECK: Well I have done good by my daddy – he never got no AA degree. And I got the third highest test score in my stats class. But I just can’t keep up with these guys with grad degrees. They laugh at me.
Rosebud carefully reached for her bra without trying to look too impatient to leave.
ROSEBUD: You’re being too hard on yourself, Red. Just keep on trying. Pour on that charm of yours – it’s hot enough to melt an ice berg. You sure melt mine!
She finished dressing and slipped out the trailer door. MTR stared at the ceiling for hours. Finally he got up and looked into the bathroom mirror.
REDNECK: I just can’t keep getting my ass kicked like this. Maybe I better go back and get my BA before I turn 40.
This insistence on chi-squared analysis is silly. I can take a sine wave and ramp the mean over time, and a simple technique like chi-square will show no “statistical significance.” Yet I would know analytically that the mean did shift, and if I made a plot, I could see the squiggly line climb up the y-axis with my own eyeballs. A parametric test, on the other hand, would show significance in only a few samples. It’s all in the models and the methods.
Now, my guess is that the chi-square guy wants you to model temperature with a short-term stationary univariate random process, with a step change mean or not — a simple and very wrong model for climate, but what a naive application of chi-square would assume. My other guess is that the chi-square guy does not know this.
Now, I’m pretty sure somebody on this list will say, “You have just proved what I’ve been saying. The only way you can justify your belief in global warming is to invent a model that fits your assumptions.”
This would be a true statement. There is no way to avoid making an assumption, so the assumptions and models I’d pick are those of physics and chemistry — the same ones built into the models that climate scientists use when they look for “statistical significance.”
Why pick science? Because of the abundant evidence that the scientific method works better than anything else for understanding the physical world.
One of the central aspects of the scientific method is peer review. You provide your testable hypotheses and data to other experts, all of whom will get fame and prestige if they prove you wrong. If you have an unconventional hypothesis, say that global warming is fiction, they will get even more fame and prestige if they prove you right. Whatever comes out of that review becomes science’s working hypothesis.
Global warming is today’s working scientific hypothesis. Anybody who wants to scientifically disprove it has to pass through that same gauntlet of harshly critical experts.
Hollering “prove with chi-square” won’t get you far that court.
ATTENTION ALL LIBERALS: Al Bore demands the decrease of carbon dioxide. To this end, PLEASE CEASE RELEASING CARBON DIOXIDE ONTO MOMMY GROUND: STOP BREATHING, IMMEDIATELY.
I hear there has been great concern because readings taken of CO2 concentrations are enormous on Tuesdays at/near the Montlake Tavern…
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy- howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch
Why do you give a fuck about what we think about GLOBAL WARMING!
YOU don’t believe in it so STFU! Go Away.
Besides your dumbfuck Preznit is taking off on YOUR favorite subjct this morning. What a cool Sunday and Monday HATEFEST for howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch and her christianist buddies.
Forget that Global Warming CRAP…or the atrocities in Iraq…or how New Orleans is COMPLETELY unprepared for the next round of hurricanes…or how anti-terror funds were CUT to New York and Washington DC…or how Seattle has INADEQUATE Port security because “Sheriff Dave” and his puppet masters WON’T fund their own fucking anti-terror programs. Oh well, why should I worry; “The Rapture” will take care of all that anyway…like next week, maybe…Friday or Saturday…I forgot…maybe Pee-Dookie can tell us!!!!
So the Chickensit-In-Chief is going after Mary Cheney and her sweetie (and fellow EVILDOER) Heather Poe.
I like this here quote from that there AmericaBlog.com:
“The President used his weekly radio address today not to talk about Iraq or gas prices or global warming or Katrina or even his favorite subject, “September the 11th.” No your President used his radio address to do some gay bashing. This issue is not about “protecting marriage.” It’s about using gay and lesbian Americans as a political weapon:
“Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,” Bush said in his Saturday radio address. “Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society.”
Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush’s re-election.
It’s amazing that the media covers this like it’s an issue with any policy merit. It’s pure, unadulterated hate politics.
If it can happen to the gays, it can happen to anyone.”
http://americablog.blogspot.co.....ather.html
howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch, you and your Jackass, Jackoff pals can kiss my ass.
Hey, Proud, do you agree with the Bush administration’s global warming policies?
Scotto – I just want you guys to admit that there is nothing unusual about current temperatures. That’s the only point I’m making.
Do you agree? yes or no?
Why are you guys attacking Puddy’s religion so harshly? Because you think your own religion is better? I thought you guys hated ALL religions because they cause so much strife.
Geez, you can’t have it both ways.
“Correct Mummified Brain. It’s a little more than 6000 years old! And when judgment day arrives, what will you say to your maker for believing junk science? ”
Does Puddybud make this stuff up to TRY to make himself out to be the most clueless right-winger alive, or does he really believe this backwards Talibangelist voodoo?
It’s really, really, really tough to tell.
Puddy does a better job of discrediting himself than any of us could. All we have to do is just sit back and watch his mental circus play out. Pretty entertaining, I must say.
Scotto proved my point finally… that the so called “climate models” have to be tweaked to make them come up with the predetermined answer. They are 100% bullshit.
Global Warming = Religion.
QED. (look it up dumasses)
Green Thumb, I’m just not buying it from y’all. You cannot simultaneously shriek about BIG OIL and how evil they are, while pretending not to notice that the Gore family is heavily invested in BIG OIL. If Al Gore and his democrat family REALLY thought BIG OIL was evil, and that its refined products such as gasoline burning were contributing to global warming, he would sell it. That’s just common sense. YOU ALL want to have it both ways– “BIG OIL is evil (but only if non-democrats are financing it).” Sorry, doesn’t fly, we don’t buy it.
Likewise, Al Gore was Mr. “Don’t smoke”. (I can agree with that). But wait—his family sort of grew the stuff and he bragged about immersing his beautiful hands into it. Ooops!!! Big disconnect there.
Of course, MTR will never use all his internet diplomas to call Puddy (and his “earth is only 6,000 years old” voodoo) moonbat klownish. In fact, MTR probably believes half that Talibangelist baloney. We know he follows Puddy and JCH’s racist agenda, anyways.
Oh, and btw, I own shares in “Energy” and “Energy servicse” mutual funds and don’t suffer a single pang of gult about it.
“Why are you guys attacking Puddy’s religion so harshly?”
Oh, this is is a good one, MTR. Aren’t you the guy who said we should round up all the world’s Muslims, and kill them all?
Amen, Amennnnnnnn I say to you EVIL CONSUMERS…”OUT OUTTTTTT” of your satan automobiles, “OUT OUTTTTTTTTT” I say to your central heating….”OUT OUTTTTTTTT” I say to your eviiiillllll plastic bottles of water….”OUT OUTTTTTTTTTT” to HUMANS… and pleassssse Ground Brethren send your checks and money orders to Rev. Al Bore, Church of the Atmospheric Reclamation/Preservation and the Al Bore Rolex and Retirement Fund so we can continueeee preeaching the word of mommy ground.
services/guilt
Really, I DO know how to spell. Thanks y’all
Scotto@122 You get to the core of the difficulty in arguing with ignorant trolls like Mark The Retarded Redneck.
“This would be a true statement. There is no way to avoid making an assumption, so the assumptions and models I’d pick are those of physics and chemistry – the same ones built into the models that climate scientists use when they look for “statistical significance.”
Why pick science? Because of the abundant evidence that the scientific method works better than anything else for understanding the physical world.
One of the central aspects of the scientific method is peer review. You provide your testable hypotheses and data to other experts, all of whom will get fame and prestige if they prove you wrong. If you have an unconventional hypothesis, say that global warming is fiction, they will get even more fame and prestige if they prove you right. Whatever comes out of that review becomes science’s working hypothesis.
Global warming is today’s working scientific hypothesis. Anybody who wants to scientifically disprove it has to pass through that same gauntlet of harshly critical experts.”
The talking points used by these trolls are a twisting or perversion of the scientific method. Science is built up, one small brick at a time. . .hypothesis, counter hypothesis, finally consensus. If you bring outrageously untrue, or falsified results to the table, like Blomberg, or the ‘cloning King’ in Korea, you will be found out.
Mark the Retarded Redneck attempts to mimic science by calling in to question observations of climatic change, but he enters the arena of science as soon as he measures temperature. . .he must use a proven scientifc method to do so, otherwise he is just another hillbilly sitting around his trailer court fanning himself and telling his sister/wife ‘gee. it seems hotter today than the other day’. He is a stranger to rigorous peer review or honest debate.
“Global Warming = Religion.”
Wow, MTR. You think science and religion are the same thing. Did that diploma you got from a CrackerJack box help you come up with that one?
Notice how not a single troll is defending the Bush-DeLay policies on global warming? NOT ONE.
Why is that? Gore isn’t even an elected official. Kerry has virtually no power as a minority member of the U.S. Senate.
Why are the trolls frothing with such intensity about people with NO POWER yet they carefully side step ANY discussion about whose who have been steering U.S. policies on global warming?
Answer: Their polling shows that the Republican have little credibility on this issue, so they are attempting to drive up the negatives on Democrats.
Trolls like Misty have nothing positive to add to this discussion. They are merely here to lie, distract and obfuscate. They can’t tell the truth, because if they did the Republicans would lose control of Congress in 2006.
Wow rugrat, you’re a victim just waiting for an insult to happen. I don’t see one single use of the word ‘gay’.
Could the homosexuals found a more ironic word to describe themselves than ‘gay’?
Both Mark the Retarded Redneck and RancidButtPutty want to inject their theology into a scientific discussion. Their teleology is as rude and untutored as their understanding of the scientific method.
Proud, you still haven’t answered the question: Do you support the global warmig policies of Bush and DeLay?
Oh, Misty, you have answered the question either. Do you support the global warming policies of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress? Yes or no?
Naaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh…
…nothin’ to see here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....Bhutan.jpg
“This image shows the termini of the glaciers in the Bhutan-Himalaya. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surface of the debris-covered glaciers in this region during the last few decades. USGS researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacial retreat in this region.
According to a joint press release issued by NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey, the great majority of the world’s glaciers appear to be declining at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends. This image from the ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) instrument aboard NASA’s Terra satellite shows the termini of the glaciers in the Bhutan-Himalaya. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surface of the debris-covered glaciers in this region during the last few decades.
According to Jeffrey Kargel, a USGS scientist, glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces. According to a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists estimate that surface temperatures could rise by 1.4°C to 5.8°C by the end of the century. The researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacier retreat.”
—————————————————————
Nothing here either:
http://www.svalbard-images.com.....ming-e.php
—————————————————————
(Coutesy of the fine folks at http://www.dailykos.com/ !!!
Green Thumb, I didn’t know I was lying when I said Al Gore’s family grew tobacco and owns BIG OIL stock. I didn’t know I was lying when I said Al Gore bragged about running his hands all over the tobacco. You all seem not to want to confront Al Gore’s connection to BIG OIL and hence your notion of global warming. Truth can be hard, sometimes. Is it really a sin to ask why the Gore family can seem to profit off of BIG OIL while complaining about BIG OIL? I think you are reasonable enough to answer that with a simple “No, it isn’t.”
The subject ISN’T Bush, Delay (who you may have noticed is no longer in government)… it’s The Rev Al Bore and his revival… er, campaign fundraiser.. er, movie.
That being said, I absolutely support the refusal to sign Kyoto, I absolutely support exploring ANWR, I absolutely support PRIVATE research into energy technology.
Oh Green Thumb: I really couldn’t care less about global warming. Is that clear enough?
WTF is howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch
talking about this time…anybody have a clue?
Thank you for your honesty, Misty. So then why do you so aggressively attack Al Gore on an issue you don’t care about? What in this for you?
It appears that rugrat is a totally self sufficient homosexual.
So, Proud, you still haven’t shared with us: Do you agree with the global warming policies of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress?
Thank you for your honesty, Misty. So then why do you so aggressively attack Al Gore on an issue you don’t care about? What in this for you? -Commentby Green Thumb— 6/3/06@ 11:56 am
I 100% agree with Misty and I can tell you that “what’s in it” for me is truth and the fact that he manipulates it for his own purposes.
“What’s in it” for me are the onerous and expensive regulations that are eating and wasting my consumer and tax dollars.
“What’s in it” for me is the indoctrination attempted on my kids.
“What’s in it” for me are the loss of freedoms associated with unproven theories.
“What’s in it” for me is MY COUNTRY once again being painted as the evil ones while third world dictatorships with worse violations get off scott free.
re 151: actually, I did.
Okay, I didn’t catch 146, Proud. So what I’m hearing you say that that you think that the U.S. approach to global warming is superior to that of Russia, China and all the other industrial nations of the world? Did I get that right?
Did I get that right? -Commentby Green Thumb— 6/3/06@ 12:06 pm
Um, no, you didn’t.
Looking at the responses of the retarded right here on this forum I am only sad that it will take some time for nature to do it’s job and wipe mankind off the face of the planet. If we can turn into something as slimey and horrible as the inbred republicans who troll this forum, we don’t deserve the planet to begin with. Nature wiped out the TRex, we won’t be much trouble. Or do you righties think that’s a myth too?
Left – I’m not the least fucking bit worried about being “wiped off the planet”. Not in the least.
It would however be a better place if idiots like you weren’t around.
Mark, there is nothing unusual about today’s temperatures: They are a good fit with climate models showing that human-created greenhouse gasses are heating the planet. These models fit much better than competing models that don’t include human-created greenhouse gases.
Models matter because the ones that fit the data predict that if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions today, future generations will suffer bad consequences. The best evidence suggests that if we don’t change our behavior now, we will hurt our children.
Here is where the debate turns religious: I think doing nothing is wrong.
Proud, at 154:
Why do you play so coy?
Come on, Proud — say it with feeling: “I’m a HUGE supporter of the global warming policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. I’m spending so much time on these blogs to ensure that the Republicans retain control of Congress in 2006.”
These are your people, Proud. Can’t you stand up for them in their time of need?
Mark the Redneck, how many “liberal” blogs do you regularly participate in?
Commentby Green Thumb— 6/3/06@ 12:18 pm
Sorry sweetcheeks… I spend time here because morons like rugrat are the best free entertainment around; I spend time her because the vicims are so easy to bait; I spend time here because I believe in the adage “Know thine enemy”.
And yes, I am a huge supporter of the President, I have no doubt the party with which I align myself will retain control… do you know why?
Because MAINSTREAM MIDDLE AMERICA believes terrorism is a worse threat than declining butterflies in Bogeta,; they believe illegal immigration is more important than mutant frogs in France, they believe having a job is more important than owls in Auckland and they believe the freedom to make their own decisions are more important than GoreGas in Greenwich.
Why don’t you finally admit that the ONLY reason you beleive this warming bullshit is because it comes from the mouth of your liberal idols. If ANY conservative came out tomorrow and spewed the same nonsense as Bore, admit that you’d be decrying him so fast your headspinning would rival Linda Blairs. Admit, that trhe only reason you hate freedom, that you promote abortion and this junk science is that you hate humans far more than you care for the “enviromnent” in which they live.
“#
Correct Mummified Brain. It’s a little more than 6000 years old! And when judgment day arrives, what will you say to your maker for believing junk science?
Comment by Puddybud Robert Kennedy Jr. — 6/3/06 @ 8:15 am”
Honestly, I have nothing to do with idiocy such as this. I promise that before Puddybud goes to Hell, I will have a talk with him. I will explain the nature of human responsibility, and the folly of ignoring the intelligence I gave him.
I am really sorry for people like Puddybud. When I try an experiment like this in the future, I will not allow man made religion, or false dogma cloud my creations use of the brains I gave them.
Proud, given what you are saying, I gather that you would agree with me that you see the 2006 elections as a referendum on whether the electorate wants to stay the course with one-party government.
A vote for Republicans (such as Reichert) is a vote for the continuation of the Bush approach toward global warming.
If that is the case, why can’t you proudly state that? Why do you have to engage in all manner of distracting arguments? Why can’t you stand up for Bush loudly and proudly instead of focusing almost all of your attention on the likes of Al Gore, a guy who isn’t even running for election in 2006 (if ever).
Admit it: You know your position is weakening. You know that the tide is turning. Your hope is that by throwing enough mud, you can hold back the changes for another election cycle. You’re scared, so you’re getting desperate.
Puddybud at 107:
“And Green Dumb if you looked at the Internet you would easily determine I took most of my arguing points from Green & Lefty Sites. You are true to your nature DUMB.”
This is just priceless double-speak. Lefty sites? Like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the leading sources of corporate disinformation on global warming?
Come on Puddybud, if you’re going to engage in the Big Lie you could at least make it plausible.
Commentby Green Thumb— 6/3/06@ 9:49 am
Dingleberry Dumb:
planetsave.com
rppi.com
globalwarming.org
europa.org
seen.org
To start. You figure out the rest. Yeah conservative web sites. You are soooooo DUMB!
And for the rest of you DUM(B)Mies: If I am wrong about the Earth being 6000+ years old fine. But if I am RIGHT (Bible says so), then how do you approach God and say “Forgive me for believing a lie God. I am just a stupid loony moonbat librul Jesus. Help me in my unbelief”. Will God say come on it when for your whole life you rejected Him?
160.
Because MAINSTREAM MIDDLE AMERICA believes terrorism is a worse threat than declining butterflies in Bogeta,; they believe illegal immigration is more important than mutant frogs in France
Maybe last year, right now in a survey of hunters and fishermen about the effects of global warming testing 1,031 people (212 fishers, 148 hunters and 671 people who did both that picture has changed.
When asked “Global warming is defined as the rise in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree or disagree that global warming is currently occurring?” 76 percent either stronglyly or moderately agreed. Asked whether global warming presented a “serious threat” to humans, 69% strongly or moderately agreed (45 percent strongly 24 percent moderately), 23 percent who either strongly or moderately disagreed .
When read descriptions of two generic candidates, one who “believes we must take action now to reduce pollution contributing to global warming and supports strong laws” and another who “believes more study is needed on global warming and believes there should only be voluntary responses rather than government regulation.” The action oriented candidate won out by a 64 percent to 28 percent margin.
75% of the sample agreed with the idea that “Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines because industry has already had enough time to clean up voluntarily.”
Half of those tested identified themselves as evangelical Christians. Thirty-six percent said they were politically conservative while 37 percent described themselves as moderates. Only 11 percent called themselves liberals. Thirty-one percent of the sample were self-identifying Democrats, 29 percent were independents and 27 percent Republicans.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com.....rming.html
LeftTurd: You meant the responses of the Loony Left!
160
If ANY conservative came out tomorrow and spewed the same nonsense as Bore, admit that you’d be decrying him so fast your headspinning would rival Linda Blairs.
Interesting, a few days ago I said I was in favor of moving to more bio-mass fuels like ethanol from switch grass, a postion GWB took a month or so ago. Even though the idiot-in-chief was the first person I ever heard mention switch grass, I did the research and found that such an approach is very promising.
I was attacked by the righties.
Scotto @ 157 – OK. Good. So you agree that there’s nothing terribly alarming about today’s temperatures. Nothing out of historical norms. That’s the only point I’ve been making here for the past few days. Too bad the moonbats here don’t have the same intellectual honesty and clarity as you and I. So if current temps are normal, why do you think human activities need to be changed?
I’m also confused by your next statement however… you pick a model that matches today’s situation, and then extrapolate it. On what basis can you do the extrapolation? You have one data point; today. How do you know the model will still be correct with under different atmospheric conditions? We’ve been at this a long time and are only now getting models so they can get one “right” answer. It’s a huge leap to say that the models will work under a wide range of conditions.
I’m with Harry. I vote for the candidate, not the party. For example, I’ve been voting for Sam Reed for many years because I believe he is an honest, competent, hard-working public servant.
In this upcoming election I will vote for candidates who present sensible approaches to issues such as global warming. I’d actually like to see more Republicans come on board, because the only way we’re going to solve this problem is through bipartisanship.
Mark, your arrogance is just amazing. After days and days of discussion you’ve yet to engage the core of the issue: The largest display of scientific prowess in human history has concluded that global warming is a clear and present problem primarily caused by humans.
Here you are, a guy who doesn’t even have a doctoral degree in a hard science, and you are arguing with a straight face that you know more than hundreds upon hundreds of the world’s leading scientists from dozens of disciplines from all over the world.
Man, if you’re going to lie, I guess you might as well tell a real whopper. The trouble with such a technique is that you can start believing your own lies. Life has a way of going sour when you can’t see basic reality.
Actually, the source of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined my the isotopes of carbon in the molecules. CO2 from burning fossil fuels is different than that from natural sources.
http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....s-updated/
Green Dumb: How ’bout those righty web sites? Care to retract that ASSinine statement?
Naah, yous be a librul. Lying is an art!
Puddybud, you’ve been an eager beaver today pumping out all kinds of right-wing memes. For example, in 62 you reference a study done by a right-wing think tank: http://www.rppi.org/ebrief105.htmlto
Are you really going to argue that this is a “lefty” view? Of course you aren’t. You don’t have a substantive argument to make so you are once again engaging in the politics of distraction.
Yeah, right, all the lefty sites we’re quoting, like:
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences
Press release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
dtd 2 May 2006
“The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases. This should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”
It isn’t necessary to measure temperature trends to know the consequences of greenhouse gases. The rapid increase in concentration of GHG’s happened before at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary 55 million years ago. There were newspaper reports this last week on research showing that daytime temperatures got up to 74 degrees in the Arctic (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ate01.html).
Also, the GHG event at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary caused the largest loss of sealife in the history of the planet (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249).
Unless we seriously cut GHG emissions, the GHG event at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary shows that there will at least be severe loss of sealife — basically all carbonate sealife and all sealife that depends on carbonate sealife, and very warm temperatures — at least enough that brings summer daytime temperatures at the Arctic to 74 degrees. And this will certainly mean dramatically increased ocean levels from melted ice.
We do not need any climatology research or temperature trend data to conclude that this will happen. It is going to happen as the result of the rapid increase in GHG’s. And it is not the absolute amount of GHG’s, because as some have pointed out, there have been times in the history of the planet with far more. What causes it is the rapid increase in GHG’s, and that is the situation we are in.
Thumb – Too much “science” in the world is hopelessly polluted by politics, and global warming is the poster child for junk science. All of it has to be looked at very carefully to separate the real facts from the political agendas.
I am unwilling to blindly accept the assertions of politicans like Algore and their accomplices in the pseudo-science community. All of us should challenge the underlying data and analysis and apply established standards of credibility. That’s all I’m doing here. And so far, I’m not convinced when even the simplest of questions can’t be answered.
Mark the Thieving Redneck
“And no dj… chi squared is NOT goodness of fit… it’s statistical significance. Better hit the books a little harder next time.”
Oh, Gawd!!!! More moronic statements from the thief.
Ummm…chi^2 is not “statistical significance”…it is a distribution, you fucking moron. Some statistical estimators result in statistics that, under repeated sampling, are approximately distributed as a chi^2 distribution. (Gawd…you scarcely seem to understand undergraduate statistics!)
Even so, it appears that the “Chi^2 analysis” you are suggesting is commonly refered to as a Chi^2 Goodness of Fit Test (otherwise, the expression “do a chi^2 analysis” is largely meaningless). The underlying assumptions of this test are not met by the types of data that would be used to evaluate the hypothesis of no global warming (or, alternatively, the hypothesis that there is global warming).
Why hasn’t anyone here talked about this Inconvenient truth! Howard Dean lying about your party platform? You know, when he said, “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.”
I can only find one dem in this state calling him on it, Howard Dean – Open mouth and insert big shoe
I guess the gay vote isn’t as important as it used to be to your party.
So much for being faithful stewards of the gifts the Creator gave us, howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch.
Here is the best approach to Global Warming I’ve read thus far:
Reduce Global Warming? Let’s Start With KLOWNS
Dennis Avery
Virtually all of the Kyoto Protocol’s member countries have increased their CO2 emissions since signing the treaty. The political and economic costs of reducing CO2 from cars and factories have proven very high. So they just haven’t happened.
Why don’t eco-activists support a major cut in methane emissions from THEMSELVES instead? Each molecule of methane has 21 times as much global warming potential as a molecule of CO2, and we already have cost-effective ways that KLOWNS can cut their methane emissions.
The KLOWNS won’t care.
A new study in Canada found about 20 different ways to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from KLOWNS—each of them capable of cutting these emissions by one-third. North America has more than 1 million hard-core KLOWNS, millions of NEO-KLOWNS, and more than 20 million JUNIOR KLOWNS, together emitting billions of tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses every year.
The Canadian authors, Karin Wittinberg and Dinah Boadi of the University of Manitoba, say that such methane reduction strategies should be a top priority in any greenhouse gas reduction effort.
Simply grinding and pelleting the SPROUTS for confined KLOWNS reduced methane by 20 to 40 percent, because it makes the feed more fully digestible.
ALFA KLOWNS grazing on high-quality alfalfa-grass pastures emit 50 percent less methane than ALFA KLOWNS grazing on mature SPROUT-only pastures. Rotational grazing—changing where the KLOWNS graze every few days—also cuts methane emissions. It would cost only a few dollars per acre to encourage KLOWN PIED PIPERS LIKE ALGORE to rotatationally graze, replant their SPROUT PASTURES more often.
Methane emissions in NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE KLOWNS were reduced by one-third when 4 percent canola oil was added to their free-range TOFU rations. The canola oil costs only slightly more than comparable grain calories.
Genetically engineered KLOWN growth hormone reduces methane emissions by 10 percent in GAY KLOWNS. The growth hormone hasn’t even been legalized in Canada, thanks largely to opposition from activist groups such as Greenpeace and NAMBLA!
Keeping young KLOWN and KLOWNETTES separated by age groups, and phasing their feeds by growth stages can cut greenhouse emissions by 50 percent and sharply reduce bad smells too. Again, KLOWN farmers would need only modest encouragement to use the system because it also increases feed efficiency.
The activists who warn of an overheated planet say we should focus on “no-regrets” energy strategies, and make the easiest, most cost-effective changes first. They ignore, however, such major sources of cost-effective greenhouse gas reductions as nuclear power—and encouraging KLOWNS to cut their OWN GODDAMN greenhouse emissions FIRST!
Instead, the Greens demanded ridiculous battery-powered electric cars. They demand we spend billions to clutter the landscape with tens of thousands of huge, unsightly wind turbines that kill birds and bats. They say we can’t approve nuclear plants until we demonstrate safe storage of spent fuel—for 10,000 years! They’re even suing to stop geothermal power plants that have no emissions, no radioactive waste and virtually no footprint on the land.
Let’s make a deal with the global warming crowd. We’ll reconsider CO2 emissions from cars and factories—after they shepherd through Congress a reasonable and effective cost-sharing plan to reduce a billion CO2 tons worth of methane and nitrous oxide from livestock. That will show they’re serious about global warming.
Until now, they’ve seemed more interested in reducing American lifestyles to poverty levels than in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
MTR @ 176:
“All of us should challenge the underlying data and analysis and apply established standards of credibility. That’s all I’m doing here. And so far, I’m not convinced when even the simplest of questions can’t be answered.”
If you had ever — ever — shown the slightest bit of humility on these threads I would take your words more seriously. But the simple fact of the matter is that you have a completely closed mind on this (and pretty much every other issue) you discuss.
Let’s be honest: You do not have the credentials to be denouncing the global warming science in such stark terms. Zip. None. Yet every single time something with more background in this area makes a reasonable argument, you dismiss it with all the certitude of Moses.
You’ve missed the boat, dude. Even most of the oil industry no longer takes your knee-jerk, categorical denial stance.
Why are you so intent upon painting yourself into a corner?
Thumb – So do you have the “credentials” to accept global warming? What are they? Why do you believe it?
Look, let’s be honest… you don’t understand the science behind this any better than any of the other gullible moonbats here. You’re just worshipping your hero Algore and blindly following along.
If you want to be a dumass, that’s OK with me. But I will draw the line when you and your ilk attempt to dictate policy. That needs to be left to us grown ups.
Ohhhhhhh…Kayyyyyyyy…
howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch:
“And yes, I am a huge supporter of the President”
NOW we’re gettin’ somewhere.
The President…President Bush…the Bushmaster…the mastermasterbater…the most INCURIOUS leader on the planet. Incurios George. The AWOL National Guardsman…the FAILED businessman.
“I support the President and his party” as he:
Guts the separation of powers guaranteed in the Constitution.
Weakens worker safety regulation.
Panders to the worst elements of the religious right with vicious hate-filled rhetoric and legislation.
Willingly assists in the near ruin of the Western States energy markets causing grave economic HARM to those States and their citizens.
Willingly assists and even PROMOTES the destruction of pension systems by corporations…AND the destruction of the Social Security system.
Lies to the American People about the reasons for invading a soveriegn nation, a FAILING, CRIMINALLY MISMANAGED undertaking costing 80 Anerican lives and TEN BILLOIN DOLLARS per MONTH (or is that like global warming, bitch, you just don’t believe it.
Boy Oh Boy.
Hitch Your Wagon To THAT Star!!!!!
You can fool some of the people some of the time…
…but Georgie Porgie ain’t foolin’ ANYBODY now.
(BTW…Where Izzzzzz that LauraBush anyhow?)
Mark, if all I knew was today’s temperature, I would not be alarmed. But instead, we have direct temperature measurements going back to the mid 1800’s, and they show a clear increase in global mean.
A decade or more ago, it was reasonable to ask if this increase was due to normal climate cycles, changes in solar output, and so on. Chi-square analysis will not answer that question. Instead, you have to build a climate model that accurately predicts temperature. Models that incorporate only natural factors are good at predicting temperatures up to the time when the effect of human-caused greenhouse gases shows up. After that, they fit poorly.
Models that incorporate known human greenhouse contributions work much better — from today’s temperatures back to the earliest time where we have records.
So, current temperatures are not unusual; they fit with the best climate models. Those models predict that, if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we will heat the planet.
That extrapolation isn’t made from a single data point, but from an understanding of physics and chemistry developed over centuries with thousands of experiments.
You heat plate of steel with a torch; tested physical laws let you extrapolate to the time when that plate will be too hot to touch.
Same thing with climate.
MTR @ 182:
You don’t have the background to say that I am a dumbass on global warming. Heck, you haven’t even done enough research to know what are the leading criticisms of the IPCC findings.
Like a good redneck, you’re shooting from the hip and hoping that bravado will carry your argument.
That dog don’t hunt no more.
Scotto – You mention “direct temperature measurements going back to mid 1800s”. In my mind, that data is highly suspect. For example, ocean temperatures were measured by sailor throwing a bucket overboard and then measuring the temperature of the collected sample. Was the bucket warm? Did it sit on deck for a while before the temp was measured? We don’t know…. there was no control of the process and no standards. ALso, they didn’t have today’s cal-cert standards back then, so how accurate are the measurements? We’re talking about temperature changes of a couple of degrees as being significant and good practice would say that the temperature measurements should be about 1/10th of that. Do you think that the measurements taken back then were within 0.2 degrees? There is no way that level of accuracy was attained. The data therefore disappears into the “noise” and can’t be used to indicate whether there’s a “signal” now or not.
Thumb and other moonbats… track the conversation Scotto and I are having. Reasonable intelligent discourse from opposite sides of the issue.
Scotto – How were the climate models tested against a range of CO2 levels? Historical records of CO2 are even more unreliable than temperature measurements.
When you combine all the uncertainties of inputs to the model in the form of atmospheric conditions and the climate models themselves, it’s all noise. At some point, blind faith came into play, and that’s where we are today.
First, as the Academy of Sciences for all G8 countries,
we would like to make it clear that Mark The Redneck is
a complete bumbling moron.
That said,
Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system
as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now
strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth’s climate.
The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is
vital to life on Earth – in their absence average
temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower
than they are today. But human activities are now causing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –
including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,
and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.
Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in
1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000
years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by
approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth
century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) projected that the average global surface
temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4
centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990
levels, by 2100.
Reduce the causes of climate change
The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the
magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty
about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for
delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable
cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system.
As nations and economies develop over the next 25 years,
world primary energy demand is estimated to increase by
almost 60%. Fossil fuels, which are responsible for the
majority of carbon dioxide emissions produced by human
activities, provide valuable resources for many nations and are
projected to provide 85% of this demand (IEA 2004)3.
Minimising the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the
atmosphere presents a huge challenge. There are many
potentially cost-effective technological options that could
contribute to stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations.
These are at various stages of research and development.
However barriers to their broad deployment still need to be
overcome.
Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many
decades. Even with possible lowered emission rates we will
be experiencing the impacts of climate change throughout
the 21st century and beyond. Failure to implement
significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions
now, will make the job much harder in the future.
Prepare for the consequences of
climate change
Major parts of the climate system respond slowly to
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Even if
greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly at
today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as
it adapts to the increased emission of recent decades.
Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable.
Nations must prepare for them.
The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial
and adverse effects at the regional level, for example on
water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and
human health. The larger and faster the changes in
climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects will
dominate. Increasing temperatures are likely to increase the
frequency and severity of weather events such as heat
waves and heavy rainfall. Increasing temperatures could
lead to large-scale effects such as melting of large ice
sheets (with major impacts on low-lying regions
throughout the world). The IPCC estimates that the
combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion
from ocean warming are projected to cause the global
mean sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 metres
between 1990 and 2100. In Bangladesh alone, a 0.5 metre
sea-level rise would place about 6 million people at risk
from flooding.
Developing nations that lack the infrastructure or resources
to respond to the impacts of climate change will be
particularly affected. It is clear that many of the world’s
poorest people are likely to suffer the most from climate
change. Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy,
prosperous and sustainable world may be severely hindered
by changes in the climate.
The task of devising and implementing strategies to adapt
to the consequences of climate change will require
worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of
experts, including physical and natural scientists, engineers,
social scientists, medical scientists, those in the humanities,
business leaders and economists.
Conclusion
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC
principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of
climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the
issue is included in all relevant national and international
strategies. As national science academies, we commit to
working with governments to help develop and implement
the national and international response to the challenge of
climate change.
G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past
greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8
nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing
climate change and assisting developing nations to meet
the challenges of adaptation and mitigation.
We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the
Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:
· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear
and increasing.
· Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed
targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their
associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid
impacts deemed unacceptable.
· Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to
contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net
global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed
action will increase the risk of adverse environmental
effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
· Work with developing nations to build a scientific and
technological capacity best suited to their circumstances,
enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate
and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while
explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
· Show leadership in developing and deploying clean
energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency,
and share this knowledge with all other nations.
· Mobilise the science and technology community to
enhance research and development efforts, which can
better inform climate change decisions.
The Academy of Sciences of:
Canada
The United States
France
Brazil
Germany
Italy
India
United Kingdom
Japan
Russia
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/disp.....p?id=13618
And BTW, Mark The Redneck would not qualify academically to clean out toilets.
Mark the Thieving Redneck @ 188
“How were the climate models tested against a range of CO2 levels? Historical records of CO2 are even more unreliable than temperature measurements.”
As I though. You not only don’t understand how statistics are applied to real scientific problems (you know, beyond problems in undergraduate statistics textbooks), but you don’t even understand the basic tools that climatologists use. The atmospheric C02 record is even better established than the temperature record.
“When you combine all the uncertainties of inputs to the model in the form of atmospheric conditions and the climate models themselves, it’s all noise.”
No…you are factually incorrect. There are hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict your statement. I doubt you are even capable of reading them, though, considering your misunderstanding of what Chi^2 refers to, and your ignorance that you have repeatedly demonstrated of how science works.
MTR @ 187:
You remind me of a guy who was on trial for drunken driving. He decided to defend himself. He was so convinced that he was the next Perry Mason, but he made so many beginner’s mistakes that sitting through the trial (I was on the jury) was quite painful.
It really doesn’t matter how your conversation with “scotto” concludes. Unlike a credible scientist, you don’t make narrow and precise statements with appropriate caveats. You do the opposite — extraodinarily broad-brush judgments that sweep away the findings of hundreds and hundreds of leading scientists in a variety of hard sciences.
That’s not science. That’s intellectual fraud.
Hey Dj – Go back and figure out what grown ups mean by “statistically significant”. When you get that down, you can join the intelligent discussion. Until then, shut the fuck up.
I’m asking basic questions. The fact that I’m poking at the whole house of cards really unnerves you gullible moonbats doesn’t it?
MTR @ 193:
Yes, you are asking basic questions. The same kind of questions a 3rd grader might as in a college math class.
You don’t have the credentials to debunk the IPCC findings. Period. To pretend otherwise is intellectual fraud.
Mark the Thieving Redneck @ 192
“Hey Dj – Go back and figure out what grown ups mean by “statistically significant”. When you get that down, you can join the intelligent discussion. Until then, shut the fuck up.”
Ummm…Thief, I don’t think we would disagree about the definition statistically significant (although I suspect you have a very elementary understanding of the concept). The issues are (1) you don’t understand the models or the data used by climatologists and (2) you, apparently, don’t understand the underlying assumptions of the specific statistical test you were inappropriately proposing to use, and (3) you apparently don’t understand the process of science.
(But, hey, what do I know, I’m only a tenured professor at a tier 1 research university who teaches both scientific modeling and advanced applied statistics at the graduate level).
“I’m asking basic questions.”
Actually, you are largely making unfounded claims about things you don’t understand the technical details of.
“The fact that I’m poking at the whole house of cards really unnerves you gullible moonbats doesn’t it?”
I’m having fun laughing at you making an ass of yourself.
So c’mon mr tenured professor at Bong U. Show me where current temps are a cause for alarm. Tell me why we should be “very afraid” (to quote Time magazine). Show me the statistical evidence. Show my the historical range. Show me the current range. Pick a confidence interval. Find the critical value. Prove or refute the hypothesis. C’mon… show everybody how fucking smart you are.
You can’t can you? You don’t have the data because it doesn’t exist.
Just admit that global warming is a religion. Then we can move on. But don’t attempt to pass it off as proven scientific fact.
Mr. Bong U prof… also in your analysis of temperatures, prove that historical values are reliable. Explain to me the cal-cert procedures used by sailors 150 years ago and the standard data measurement processes to ensure data reliability.
C’mon… we’re all waiting.
Show us all how fucking smart you are. Or are you just a gullible fucking idiot?
Mark, you have a great deal of talent. I would recommend that you applied for a job in the White House press office. You have a remarkable ability to stay on message. You also have a truly exceptional aptitude for maintaining a line of utter bullshit for extended periods of time.
I can’t tell if you really believe what you say or if you are laughing your ass off as you type your fraudulent screeds. Either way, the Republicans desperately needs you to maintain control of Congress in 2006.
Go forth and conquer, Christian soldier!
Mark the Thieving Redneck,
“prove that historical values are reliable.”
Prove? Oh good God, Redneck, even a 8th grader knows that you never prove anything in science.
I’ll tell ya what. Make good on your $100 bet with Goldy (in a verifiable way–verifiable with Goldy, not me), and I’ll be happy to engage you a genuine discussion of the evidence for and against global warming.
The fact remains that the people who are actually qualified to do the research find many, many lines of evidence that support the hypothesis of global warming. Over the last couple of years, even most of the hold-outs have found the collective evidence overwhelming.
The evidence is not going to change because an anonymous blog commenter named “Mark the Redneck” who has a track record of dishonesty (i.e. making a bet and then not making good on it), no apparent formal training in climatology, and minimal training in statistical methods “feels” that the evidence is wrong.
Great. This has been a good day on HA. DJ admits that he’s full of shit and is just another gullible useful idiot of the left.
Enjoy your religion. Thanks…
dj, thanks for sharing your background in scholarship. That adds a great deal of authenticity to your comments. However, if I may make one friendly amendment to what you just said (199).
I think the MTR does have the ability to change the evidence. It’s all a matter of “truthiness.” If it sounds true, it is true. Particularly if it is presented with manly decisiveness. None of that effete ambivalence of the scientific set (who, of course, all all lefty Democrats).
Here’s the thing: MTR is a practitioner of double speak. He is blaming the lefties for embracing global warming as a religion, when in fact he rejects it based upon a blind faith in his own knowledge (re: ignorance).
In MTR’s world, science is religion, and ignorance is knowledge. And if you don’t agree, you’re not merely an idiot, you are a gullible fucking idiot. Did you get that?
Welcome to techno-scientific fascism, where anything can be truthy!
Mark the thieving Redneck @ 200
“Enjoy your religion. Thanks…”
You’re welcome…and enjoy your Chi^2 pie.
Have ya ever noticed… sure is inneresing… whenever I aks substantive questions that the moonbats can’t answer…that their reaction is always always always name calling?
I guess if ya can’t win the intellectual argument, the next best thing is to attempt to discredit the guy who makes you look like a gullible fucking idiot…
My work here is done. As a Kennedy, I guess it’s time to go get shitfaced, drive around drunk, fuck some young poon, and kill some innocent people…
Has ANYONE seen any liberal Democrat bitch about the Mexicans and Cubans drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico?? Not a word from these commie lovers.
Green Thumb @ 201
“In MTR’s world, science is religion, and ignorance is knowledge. And if you don’t agree, you’re not merely an idiot, you are a gullible fucking idiot. Did you get that?”
Indeed. Mark the Thief’s tactics are:
1. Throw out some technical terms he barely understands (“chi^2 analysis”) to insinuate he has skills that he does not have (i.e. he is an amateur when it come to climatological science and statistical methods).
2. Challenge a very large body of scientific research and analysis conducted by people formally trained in climatology and whose research findings are vetted through the peer review process prior to publication.
3. Challenge other non-specialists to disprove his unfounded assertions.
4. When the other non-specialists do not respond, he claims “victory” over the scientific evidence.
The falacy, of course, is that the body of scientific evidence doesn’t stand or fall based on what a non-specialist believes, and it doesn’t stand or fall based on whether other non-specialists can evaluate and/or defend the scientific evidence.
What is most amusing, however, is MTtR’s claim that the folks who accept the scientific understanding without being able to personally evaluate the evidence are practicing religion.
Compare that to MTtR’s rejection–without any significant knowledge of the scientific literature on the topic–of the scientific consensus. This rejection is based on….umm…ahhh…his gut instinct or something. I cannot decide if that is religion or simple stupidity.
Isn’t it interesting .. the econutburgers spent their time locked up in front of their computer screens this whole gorgeous day, while the true conservators of the land were out APPRECIATING IT and tending it.
Mark, you are making stuff up about ocean temperature measurements — they used real instruments back then. But maybe you are getting at the fact that, for a variety of reasons, ocean measurements are not considered accurate until the 50’s.
Anyway, there are about 7,000 historical air temperature measurement stations, 1,000 of which go back to the 19th century. They have variable accuracies and sample rates, but scientists who know a lot about measurement consider this data to be good enough for this kind of work (average a 1,000 thermometers, each of which produce up to hundreds of measurements a day, over an entire year, and the variance of the average drops rapidly. There are also corrections for bias).
There are also temperature proxies going back much further: somebody posted a long list a while ago, and if you want to satisfy your curiosity, it is probably worth your while to look them up. You will probably say that these are even more inaccurate than the air temperature measurements and you would be right. But with many independent proxies and many centuries… Actually, I don’t know enough about these and would be very interested in your critique, but only if you have first read the relevant literature.
The same goes for Co2.
At some point, we will both be in over our heads. Niether of us will know enough from our own personal knowledge to tell whether or not all of those thousands of experiments have been done correctly. And, even if we are geniuses, we don’t have enough lifetimes to track everything down.
In that case, I will go with the scientific consensus. Because disputes are settled on the basis of testable hypotheses, and because there are huge rewards for scientists who successfully buck the crowd, the scientific method drives scientists toward conclusions that, across history, have proven accurate. When scientists are split, you can get away with throwing up your hands and saying, “nobody knows”. But when there is the kind of agreement that there is right now behind global warming, science has a long track record of being right.
Mark the thieving Redneck @ 203
“Whenever I aks substantive questions that the moonbats can’t answer…that their reaction is always always always name calling?”
Ohh…you mean like @ 197 “Mr. Bong U prof…” (*snicker*)
Seriously, MTR, how could you be asking substantive questions when you (1) don’t understand the topic in sufficient depth to even be able to evaluate an informed answer, and (2) specify an inappropriate statistical method you wanted someone to use.
Furthermore, you still have not addressed in any substantive way the methods, data, and analysis that lead you to an understanding that differs from the scientific consensus.
It makes it very difficult to take you seriously. (That, and the fact that you steal money from Goldy).
I am real sorry about my son. He missed the little bus for school yesterday, and forgot his meds. He just starts spouting the most ludricous nonsense when he hasn’t taken his meds. The Docs say he has an overactive imagination. I say he is just a lying no account little turd.
I thank you all for paying attention to him today. Normally he would just sit around all day stuffing jello up his nose and claiming to be the King of Spain.
I will be so pleased when he gets past the third grade and and starts acting his 17 years.
Yeah, instead he was wanking at the computer all day so I couldn’t. Jerk.
Scotto @ 208- you made a fundamental error, you assumed MTR had any curiosity. He does not. When challenged he simply returns to the same meaningless chant. When others refuse to engage, he declares he “won”.
Good for him.
Hey Green Dumb: I was enjoying the day as HowCan said she was doing.
I noticed you selected the one site that took the UN data and thoroughly dissected it and you call that right wing? Just because they took the UN assumptions and they demonstrated how moonbat-like they are? Well how about the other four sites? Truly lefty? Huh? DUMBASS!
Come on Puddy, I’ve tried this three times before with no response. Science Magazine examined PEER REVIEWED studies of climate change. Here are their findings:
“The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5702/1686
Come on, what’s your response?
Oh I know, you guys don’t believe in science. The discpline and the magazine.
Puddy and his ilk no doubt don’t believe peer reviews matter any more than deficits.
Puddy and his ilk no doubt don’t believe peer reviews matter any more than deficits.
Commentby ArtFart— 6/3/06@ 10:52 pm
Er… um….And the dems do care about the deficits?
Green Thumb: What’s in it for me to come and comment about Al Gore is that it’s very entertaining for me to watch you guys be confronted with what can only be called Gore’s hypocrisy. In fact, you just overlook all those ‘inconvenient facts’ about Gore that I mentioned. It’s your right to do so, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Heck, I’d just be happy if King county stopped spraying herbicides all over the county every year! We don’t need the poison!
Democrats care enough to reduce the deficits that the Republicans make. This one’s a loser for you, Rufus. Republicans are the biggest deficit spenders. But then you’re a loser too.
..and for that matter, when you complain about Kyoto Protocol and George W, what you’re also selectively ignoring is that almost all Democrats in the senate gave Kyoto Prot. a big thumbs down when they addressed that issue a few years back. Where is your outrage for your fellow dems? You want to blame the President, who was wise to diss Kyoto, but you say absolutely nothing about the fact that practically ALL senate democrats didn’t want it either! What gives, Green Thumb?
219
Democrats will always be know as the “tax and spender” party no matter how much you point to republicans. The answer to reduce deficits is not democrats but rather different and more republicans.
Btw, I’ve noticed a very curious lessening of profanity in this thread. Quite a departure from the usual slop you find here. I’d like to congratulate the commenters for this and encourage continued lessening of same. then we all don’t feel like we have to take a shower when we leave here.
I love it when the rethugs start protesting about name calling and profanity. Perhaps they forgot how they conducted themselves the entire time Bill Clinton was in office? Go eat yourself out Misty you fucking train-pulling, AIDS-infested cunt!
When I stand before Puddybutt’s maker I am going to say the following…
1) What the FUCK were you thinking?
2) Did Puddybutt’s parents have any kids that lived?
3) Was this something you did while drunk or on a bet?
4) Oh yea, and FUCK you!
LeftTurd–
It appears you need either a brain enema.
But hey, this is the day that the Lord has made.
Let LeftTurd rejoice and be glad in it!
Misty, taking a shower sounds like a great idea. Your place or mine? Mr. Cynical is a clean-talking kinda guy — maybe we can get him to join us!
Just a warning, tho. When my bud blooms I scream “Jesus!”
#8: Comment by REP Pat Kennedy
If you’re going to paste from a right-wing hate site, be sure to get the first letter.
Hey, I just found government data (could it have been stolen from HUD?) that shows Mark TRK is actually on welfare.
i think I like Penn and Tellers take on the environment better.
At least they made you laugh while they tried to teach you something. But, then again why do any of you need to be taught anything…you already know it all……
If it is so warm now, how could Leif Erickson have survived in Newfoundland, and his father in Greenland 1000 years ago? It was warm enough then to grow enough grain and grass to overwinter cattle, sheep, and their ponies. But not now, its too cold for grain crops in those places!
All true historical weather men know that it was hotter a thousand years ago.
Aw shucks. Now I have to take back my comments about how relatively clean this thread is. Left turn, not even during the Clinton adminstration did I use the kind of blue, foul language you spout.
Bob at seatac, everything you said @232 is complete bullshit!
Now that you have been called out for your bullshit, perhaps you will attempt to back it up with sceintific based references.
Good luck, dipshit wingnut!
As with the “Little Ice Age”, the posited “Medieval Warm Period” appears to have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures.
Misty: That’s why he’s called LeftTurd. Maybe his new name shoudl be LeftBEHIND! Double Entendre included!
Kiss My Left Behind
THis website sucks balls!
Hey Goldie;
Clean up the comments portion, or put a filter on the site to block ads for poker and casino sites.
kit:largeness proneness Gwen shill graduated roundup