The annual White House pagan festival

The White House lawn was abuzz with children and a giant rabbit this morning.

The annual White House Easter Egg Roll, started by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, typically has been a rite of spring in Washington. But on Monday, it was afflicted by winter’s parting bite — cold air and even colder grounds. Undaunted by any of this, the young guests sprang into action under the watchful eyes of their families, hostess Laura Bush and several Bush administration Cabinet secretaries.

Vice President Dick Cheney even made a brief appearance:

Comments

  1. 1

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Roger, you gotta fill me in on one thing. . .how’s the biology of that whole thing worked out?

  2. 2

    proud leftist spews:

    I hear that Mitt Romney likes to shoot rabbits, too. Of course, he’s never purchased a hunting license, even though he’s a “lifelong hunter.” We should have to pay for the entertainment that the Republican presidential candidates will be providing us for the next year and a half.

  3. 3

    Libertarian spews:

    Thanks for pointing out that a lot of Christian holidays are just chock-full fo Pagan influences: Christmas, Candlemas, the Feast of the Assumption, All Souls’ (Saints’) Day – just to mention a few.

    Happy Oestara, everyone!

  4. 4

    spews:

    Proud leftist @ 2,

    “We should have to pay for the entertainment that the Republican presidential candidates will be providing us for the next year and a half.”

    Good point. Perhaps we should all make contributions to Clinton’s and Obama’s campaigns. The resulting dollar and donor numbers will make the Republican front-runners overreact with daffy crap like Mitt and his “lifelong varmint hunting” or McCain’s shopping spree in Baghdad.

  5. 7

    Right Stuff spews:

    April 16, 2007 issue – Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week. A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year’s report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
    In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There’s even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface.
    Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions.
    Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world’s average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its “forcing”—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn’t been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
    Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don’t explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn’t account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.
    Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.
    Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore’s supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn’t warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

    Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
    © 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

  6. 8

    Libertarian spews:

    Didn’t a guy at the UW get fired for challenging the orthodox view of global warming? I think the excuse the head guy of the department used to fire the challenger was that he publiched a paper without approval of the head Mugwomp-In-Chief.

    Or something equally as lame.

    The world’s gettin’ warmer, and it does what it does without our insructions to the contrary. The CO2 and other gasses we produce are contributing to the warming, but they ain’t the single cause.

  7. 9

    GBS spews:

    Right Stuff @ 6:

    So are you giving equal weight to one professors contrary opinion to Global Warming compared to the thousands of other climatologists, biologists, and scientists?

    No wonder you voted for Bush — Twice!

    If I can find one professor who says the world is flat, will you then believe it?

    Moron.

  8. 10

    spews:

    Stuff @ 6

    You must be new to the anthropogenic climate change issue. Professor Lindzen is a well-known and long-time, high-profile critic of the theory (but even more so, a critic of the politicization of the issue). Years ago he genuinely disagreed with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. These days he acknowledges that some of the scientific understanding is correct. He is more of a policy contrarian than a source of alternative scientific hypotheses. Specifically, he believes that humans contribute to global warming (although he believes human inputs are not as important as most scientists believe), but that the costs of mitigating the effects are too high for any benefits that will accrue.

    One contrarian does not undo thousands of peer-reviewed publications testing the ideas behind anthropogenic climate change.

    That reminds me that when I was an undergraduate (1980s) a geology professor told me of going to a recent geology conference and hearing a paper delivered by the 80-some year old “father of modern Russian geology” (I don’t mean Alexander Karpinsky who published a theory of continental drift in the late 1800s–well before Wegener) The old-timer attempted to argue against plate tectonics. Everyone in the audience just lowered their heads, a little embarrassed, and politely pretended not to notice.

    There are, no doubt, still a few plate tectonics “deniers” in the geophysical sciences, but it would be absurd to say that there is no scientific consensus on the theory of plate tectonics.

  9. 11

    spews:

    Libertarian @ 7

    “Didn’t a guy at the UW get fired for challenging the orthodox view of global warming? I think the excuse the head guy of the department used to fire the challenger was that he publiched a paper without approval of the head Mugwomp-In-Chief.”

    No.

  10. 12

    proud leftist spews:

    6 and 7
    My drinking, smoking, and daily consumption of junk food are contributing to my advancing heart disease. Because, however, they are not the only contributors (my genetics playing an important role, for instance), I am not going to curtail those habits which bring me pleasure. The emotional turmoil that such self-regulation would entail simply would not be worth whatever gain I would receive with regard to my heart disease.

  11. 13

    GBS spews:

    Libertarian @ 7:

    I think you’re missing the point about Global Warming. It’s undisputed that the Earth goes through fairly extreme weather cycles. If you have watched Al Gores movie, then you’d know that CO2 and other gasses are not the single cause of Global Warming. There are, in fact, multiple contributing factors to the phenomenon. Some natural, some manmade.

    Al Gore’s movie is not his opinion on Global Warming. It is the story compiling the facts and findings of the natural sciences community.

    There is no question mankind has had an impact on our environment. An Inconvenient Truth puts forth the argument that our impact on the natural environment is providing the tipping point to radical climate change beyond what would happen naturally.

    It could be that all those scientist have it all wrong and we are not headed for a radical climate change and/or we cannot impact nature to such a degree as they are claiming. However, the hole that was developing in the atmosphere above the South Pole was attributed purely to human produced chemicals. When governments took action and outlawed the chemicals that caused this the damage to the ozone it immediately began to repair itself.

    If the scientists are wrong, then the worse thing we accomplish is cleaning up our environment and creating new industries that move us away from being dependent on energy sources from the Middle East.

    If you’re wrong, then the whole human race becomes extremely impacted, possibly to the point of extinction.

    We can debate all day long the cause & effects of Global Warming.

    What I’d like to understand from your perspective is given the risk to reward ratio for not taking Global Warming seriously what is your rationale for discounting the possibility that we are triggering a catastrophic change in the environment?

  12. 14

    Libertarian spews:

    Darryl,

    Actually I’m pretty sure a guy DID get fired for having a contrary view about global warming a the U-Dub. It was on one of the Seattle local news channels, maybe Channel 4??

    GSB,

    Isn’t water vapor a greehouse gas?

    If we all want to stop greenhouse gasses from forming, let’s stop breathing and farting. No more cars and planes, no more fossil fuels used to make electricity (but no nuclear power either!), no more volcanos spewing SO2, CO2, and other nasty stuff in the air. And tell the Sun to cut the output of energy some!

    Man, if the sun ever goes out, global warming won’t be a problem!! We’re done-for!! It won’t matter what your politics are in that case!

  13. 15

    Milo spews:

    Lib,

    You may be thinking of the OSU meteorology professor who was relieved of his unofficial title of Oregon State Climatologist.

  14. 16

    Libertarian spews:

    I think to have the world many dream of, the earth’s population would need to fall to something like maybe 100 million, tops, worldwide. Since the population is now approaching 7 billion, we’re talking about a 98.57% drop in population.

    Somehow, I just don’t think that’s gonna happen.

  15. 17

    Libertarian spews:

    Milo @ 14,

    Thanks for the correction, pardner! It was Oregon, NOT the U-Dub!!

    My appologies to all.

  16. 19

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    My guess is Karl Rove was having a great time today trying to see which of the little kids he could take home for illegal purposes.

  17. 20

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @1 If you look closely you’ll notice my “invisible paw” is goosing him! That’s why he’s frowning.

  18. 21

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @1 (continued) As for how the biology works, I buy the eggs at Safeway with a credit card.

  19. 22

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @2 I’ve known about that for years, and me and my pals are gonna get even with him for that. Just wait until a Democrat is appointing federal prosecutors.

  20. 23

    GBS spews:

    @ 15:

    The population will fall at least 98.57%, if not 100% if the ocean’s conveyor system shuts off!

    You still neglected to answer my question @ 12: What I’d like to understand from your perspective is given the risk to reward ratio for not taking Global Warming seriously what is your rationale for discounting the possibility that we are triggering a catastrophic change in the environment?

  21. 24

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Fibbertarian gets both the Emily Littela and the Roseanne Rosannadanna awards. These qualify him for participation in the Regional Stupidity Derby. . .a lead-in to The National Dumb-off. . . .

  22. 25

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @7 Low IQ contributes to wingnut ignorance but isn’t the single cause. There are character issues, too.

  23. 26

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @9 Einstein said to get a new scientific theory accepted you have to wait for the proponents of the old one to die off.

  24. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @26 If nothing else works, e-mail Sharansky and ask him to make up such a story and post it on his blog. Then you can use that as a “source.”

  25. 29

    Libertarian spews:

    Froggy,

    Where did I lie? If stating one’s opinion is lying, then everyone here is a liar.

    What is this thing yo have for frogs anyway?

  26. 30

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @15 I agree, Lib! I don’t, for one second, believe that 100 million of you stupid humans will manage to survive.

  27. 31

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    After the stupid humans wipe themselves out, there will be countless cute fluffy little bunny rabbits running around! With help from our chicken friends, every day will be Easter Egg day!!!

  28. 32

    Libertarian spews:

    GSB,

    How much nasty stuff got put into the atmosphere when St. Helens blew back in 1980?

    I BELIEVE, ALONG WITH EVEY ONE OF YOU “PROGRESSIVES” THAT THE WORLD IS GETTING WARMER. I DON’T NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT IS THE FAULT OF PEOPLE THAT THE WORLD IS GETTING WARMER, BUT WE MAY BE SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS WITH OUR ACTIVITIES.

    What is the risk and what is the reward, GSB? Do we stop all activities that produce CO2? Will the reward for that be a cooler earth?

    I don’t think anything we do, at this point, will matter.

  29. 33

    spews:

    Libertarian @ 13

    “Actually I’m pretty sure a guy DID get fired for having a contrary view about global warming a the U-Dub. “

    Nope…the only thing you have right is that there was a dispute. None of the details you have given are correct. Specifically:

    1. The dispute was not about global warming–it was about measurement and proper statistical estimation of Cascade snowpack (or, technically snow-water equivallent (SWE) of the Cascade range).
    2. SWE is affected by both temperature and precipitation, so the isssue was not a dispute over global warming issue. In fact, none of the parties involved dispute that humans have caused global warming and that it will worsen in the future.
    3. The dispute didn’t involve a paper. It involved scientists disputing each other’s number and a number cited by Greg Nickles.
    4. University faculty don’t get “permission” from “head Mugwomps” to publish (unless said Mugwomp is a collaborator in the research, of course).
    5. Nobody got fired from the UW
    6. One of the researchers was asked to step down from a volunteer position as a state climatologist. This was a dispute over proper use of the state Dept. Climatology email. The researcher’s use of his University email, and his use of UW facilities was not affected.
  30. 35

    Libertarian spews:

    OK, my fine “progressive” friends, under the surrent state of the earth, whenare we all going to die-off?, given the warming events that are occurring?

  31. 36

    Libertarian spews:

    Hey Roger,

    It could be that you’re nocturnal becasue you have a good reason to be up during darkness. Like taing care of someone with problems.

  32. 37

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Fibbertarian, I wouldn’t be so hard on you if you didn’t come down on the Republican side nearly 100 percent of the time. When you claimed political bias in most of the mainstream media is “liberal” I knew I had a ‘mark’, if not a ‘ringer.’
    I would ask you, do you ever read the english version of either al-Haryat? or visit al-Jazeera?.
    But more to the point, do you know what their bias is?
    Do you think it even possible they may have a great deal of factual knowledge of what goes on on the ground in the Middle East? Or perhaps that they have some understanding of the dynamic between Sunni,Shia, and Kurds, that seems to elude our current administration.
    You seem so intent on hearing what you want to hear. . .like ‘The UW professor’. I would hope Libertarianism does not equal ignorance. . .

  33. 38

    ArtFart spews:

    15 “I think to have the world many dream of, the earth’s population would need to fall to something like maybe 100 million, tops, worldwide. Since the population is now approaching 7 billion, we’re talking about a 98.57% drop in population.”

    Our current administration appears to be hard at work on that.

  34. 39

    Libertarian spews:

    Good one, Art!

    Hey Roger, are you going to hang out with Karl Rove when he comes to Seattle? I think he’s coming for some Republican wing-ding soon.

  35. 40

    spews:

    Libertarian @ 31

    “I DON’T NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT IS THE FAULT OF PEOPLE THAT THE WORLD IS GETTING WARMER, BUT WE MAY BE SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS WITH OUR ACTIVITIES.”

    And where is your PhD from? You know, the one that that qualifies you to make this (somewhat self-contradictory) statement? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

    “I don’t think anything we do, at this point, will matter.”

    Sorry Libertarian, most of the world doesn’t rely on arguments like “I don’t think…” or “I feel that…” for addressing scientific questions.

    Whatever you do…don’t start designing commercial aircraft with that philosophy of science.

  36. 41

    ArtFart spews:

    Heard Jimmy Carter speaking the other day. He made the point, as others have, that growing grain to make biofuel ain’t gonna work. In addition to the present methods of growing such crops actually consuming more petroleum than the ethanol would replace, the prospect of cutting down more forests to plant more fields really works against us, since trees are the principal converter of carbon monoxide back into oxygen. (Jeepers, didn’t we all learn that in grammar school?)

    What might actually make more sense, would be growing more acreage of those fast-growing cottonwoods–“toilet paper trees” and processing the pulp into alcohol.

  37. 42

    spews:

    Libertarian @ 34

    “OK, my fine “progressive” friends, under the surrent state of the earth, whenare we all going to die-off?, given the warming events that are occurring?”

    For most of us, it will happen before age 110—regardless of warming “events”.

  38. 43

    headless lucy spews:

    I heard that Right Stuff’s child is nearsighted. The kid would not stop poking himself in the eye with a pencil. He’s blind now.

    The eye-poking ,however, was only a contributing factor to his blindness, as the nearsightedness was genetic and was not affected by the lead pencil. The lead pencil did not cause the blindness. It only made it happen faster.

  39. 44

    proud leftist spews:

    HL @ 42
    Similarly, Bush’s sending troops to Iraq did not cause 3200+ American troops to die. They, of course, were going to die anyway. All Bush did was hasten their demise. Lord, I love wingnut thinking. They claim to be all for accountability, but, down deep, they hate the whole concept.

  40. 45

    spews:

    Libertarian @ 33

    “Darryl, See 15 & 16.”

    Once again, you are incorrect. There was nobody at OSU fired for any of the reasons you describe. There was a dispute about the title “state climatologist,” however. The Oregon legislature eliminated the title in 1989, but OSU uses the title for one of its positions. The Governor has asked the University to not use that title (Reference). This is an argument about a job title.

    Again…nobody fired. No paper involved. No failure to get permission to publish a paper.

    You just don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, do you?

  41. 46

    spews:

    Artfart @ 40

    “In addition to the present methods of growing such crops actually consuming more petroleum than the ethanol would replace”

    This is not an insurmountable problem. It is more of an issue of strategy and bootstrapping….

    “the prospect of cutting down more forests to plant more fields really works against us, since trees are the principal converter of carbon monoxide back into oxygen. (Jeepers, didn’t we all learn that in grammar school?)”

    No…not really. The plants that grow where the trees used to stand also convert C02 into 02. The real issue is to stop digging up solid and liquid forms of carbon that were created millions of year ago (or 6000 years ago, if you believe humans walked in peace in the Garden of Eden with the dinosaurs) and converting them to C02.

  42. 47

    GBS spews:

    Libertarian @ 32 wrote:

    What is the risk and what is the reward, GSB? Do we stop all activities that produce CO2? Will the reward for that be a cooler earth?

    I don’t think anything we do, at this point, will matter.

    I guess this is what separates the Progressive/Liberal mindset from the “can’t do/won’t do” conservative mindset.

    No one, including Al Gore is advocating a sudden stoppage of modern life. The thrust of the whole Global Warming issue is to change our habits that are accelerating the process beyond a tipping point.

    It may be that we can’t stop it, but that never stopped the American spirit from trying to accomplish the impossible; like winning World War II, sending a man to the moon, or wiping out the federal deficit and reducing the national debt.

    All of which were ventures led by, and envionsioned by Democratic leaders.

    The inability or the unwillingness to properly take on the difficult tasks are the hallmark of conservatives. When was the last time you heard a conservative leader say something like this:
    We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
    John F. Kennedy ~ Sept. 1962.

  43. 48

    Mark The Redneck KENNEDY spews:

    Bad news for your religion. Another heretic in the group. Better crucify him.

    Notice that he agrees with ol’ MTR… that there’s nothing unusual about current temperatures.

    A meteorology professor at the Massachusetts institute of Technology says there is no compelling evidence that global warming will lead to a catastrophe — and in fact might be beneficial.

    Richard Lindzen writes in Newsweek: “Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal weather and climate. There is no evidence that extreme weather events are increasing…Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.”

    Lindzen says most of the current alarm over climate change is based on what he calls “inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264969,00.html

  44. 49

    spews:

    Mark the Redneck,

    You must be new to the anthropogenic climate change issue. Professor Lindzen is a well-known and long-time, high-profile critic of the theory (but even more so, a critic of the politicization of the issue). Years ago he genuinely disagreed with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. These days he acknowledges that some of the scientific understanding is correct. He is more of a policy contrarian than a source of alternative scientific hypotheses. Specifically, he believes that humans contribute to global warming (although he believes human inputs are not as important as most scientists believe), but that the costs of mitigating the effects are too high for any benefits that will accrue.

    One contrarian does not undo thousands of peer-reviewed publications testing the ideas behind anthropogenic climate change.

    That reminds me that when I was an undergraduate (1980s) a geology professor told me of going to a recent geology conference and hearing a paper delivered by the 80-some year old “father of modern Russian geology” (I don’t mean Alexander Karpinsky who published a theory of continental drift in the late 1800s–well before Wegener) The old-timer attempted to argue against plate tectonics. Everyone in the audience just lowered their heads, a little embarrassed, and politely pretended not to notice.

    There are, no doubt, still a few plate tectonics “deniers” in the geophysical sciences, but it would be absurd to say that there is no scientific consensus on the theory of plate tectonics.

    Mark the Redneck, are you a plate tectonics denier, too?

    (Hey…if wingnut dipshits like Mark the Redneck can repeatedly post the same ol’ tired talking point, I can repeatedly post the same response.)

  45. 50

    ArtFart spews:

    45 “The real issue is to stop digging up solid and liquid forms of carbon that were created millions of year ago (or 6000 years ago, if you believe humans walked in peace in the Garden of Eden with the dinosaurs) and converting them to C02.”

    Maybe a little more than that…

    In some areas (Brazil comes to mind, for sure) where large areas of rainforest are being razed to grow crops, we’re really giving the environment a double whammy. Not only are the trees being eliminated as carbon “reconvertors”, but the carbon sequestered in the peaty soil, nurse logs, etc. gets released if crops are grown for fuel that consume the nutrients. You’re essentially “burning” the organic component of the dirt.

    It doesn’t matter whether we’re releasing carbon that’s been locked up for ten million years or only a few hundred–we don’t want it to get into the atmosphere.

  46. 51

    headless lucy spews:

    re 47: The current “debate” about climate change since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the result of the New Luddites of the fossil fuel industry fiercely hanging on to their profitable business at the expense of the earth and its inhabitants — including themselves.

    Reagan was placed in the White House to blunt and slow down the development of alternative fuel technologies so they could continue to have humanity over a barrel — a barrel of oil.

  47. 52

    headless lucy spews:

    re 48: “(Hey…if wingnut dipshits like Mark the Redneck can repeatedly post the same ol’ tired talking point, I can repeatedly post the same response.)”

    It’s a duty and a responsibility to constatly refute their talking points. Their strategy is to keep repeating them until people tire of refuting them.

    So, thank you for doing it.

  48. 53

    Mark The Redneck KENNEDY spews:

    You just hate it when I show how weak and stoopid your religion is don’t you.

    Debate the facts.

    Didn’t think so…

    Gullible fucking dumasses…

  49. 54

    Mark The Redneck KENNEDY spews:

    Headlice – you forgot a hate point…. RR also caused AIDS…

  50. 55

    proud leftist spews:

    “Debate the facts.” MTR @ 52
    The “facts” could be fucking you in the ass without a drop of lubrication and you would be unaware of what was happening to you. Your religion is that of “my opinion is my opinion and don’t trouble me with the truth.” Keep it coming, laddy, your nonsense is most amusing.

  51. 56

    spews:

    ArtFart @ 49,

    You are correct that there is more to the story. There are a number of carbon sinks that trap carbon on the order of 100s of years (like peat bogs in cool-climate areas). But peat in tropical regions are not good carbon sinks, because the regions are warm enough to result in aerobic decomposition (which releases the C02).

    Even so, there are numerous excellent reasons to preserve tropical rainforests (e.g. preservation of biodiversity), but the carbon sequestered in rainforest soil is a relatively minor consideration. Tropical soils are characteristically very thin, and most of the carbon in tropical systems cycle quite rapidly (years, not hundreds of years).

  52. 57

    headless lucy spews:

    re 52: The facts are the one thing you don’t debate. That’s the problem with wingnuts. They change the facts to suit themselves.

  53. 58

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    The WingNut mantra is” Why settle for the truth when a Lie is so much more Convenient”. . .perhaps this is the core of their fury with Al Gore’s mmovie. . . .

  54. 59

    headless lucy spews:

    re 53: Thanks for the info. I was not aware of that. He was barely capable of ingesting a jelly bean. I had no idea he could do germ warfare.

    I guess RR was an idiot savant! (“Nancy says I’m an excellent driver!”)

  55. 60

    headless lucy spews:

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it’s morally treasonable to the American public.”
    – Theodore Roosevelt
    Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, MTR.

  56. 62

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    It’s hard for me to imagine travelling further from RoniRaygun along the spectrum of Republicans than calling to mind and quoting Theodore Roosevelt. One created the Civil Service to eliminate Patronage, and the other sought to destroy Civil Service, and has only recently been surpassed by the Chimptster in his efforts to destroy a cadre of professional Civil Servants.

  57. 63

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Did I mention RR was a worthless Racist, who announced for the Presidentcy from the Courthouse steps of Philadelphia, Mississippi.

  58. 64

    Right Stuff spews:

    Guess the lib talking point ” we went to war in Iraq for oil” is shot to pieces.

    If we went there to put up a “puppet regime” and take their oil then how is this possible?

    I mean, how could the Cheney-Rummy, Haliburton, Bechtel, no bid contracts, war of choice let this happen?
    Oh, maybe we went there to protect the national security of the USA…
    Oh well.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.....869478.cms

  59. 65

    spews:

    Stuff @ 63

    “I mean, how could the Cheney-Rummy, Haliburton, Bechtel, no bid contracts, war of choice let this happen?”

    It happened through sheer, unadulterated, massive incompetence.

    Or, as Shrub himself would put it, “through misunderestimation.”

    Remember Rummy’s famous line: ”It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.“ And then they proceeded to fuck up in almost every conceivable way!

  60. 66

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    I suppose I should fill in the information for our moronic wingnut trolls that Philadelphi,Mississippi was the setting for, and inspiration of Mississippi Burning.

  61. 67

    Right Stuff spews:

    ” Reid said yesterday in a talk-radio interview with liberal host Ed Schultz. “The American people, I repeat, have to understand what is happening. It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.”

    Hey Libs, what’s it gonna be? If you believe what Harry Reid says then defund the war right now and force the troops home. He doesn’t believe it, or he would be working every way possible to bring them home immedietly.
    Democrats is congress playing politics with the troops in harms way……

    America is watching and will remember in 2008……

    Democrats = retreat and defeat.
    You own it.

  62. 68

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Prick Cheney was not met with candy and rose petals, nor are we confronted with the “last throws of a dying insurgency”.

  63. 70

    spews:

    Stuff @ 66,

    “Hey Libs, what’s it gonna be? If you believe what Harry Reid says then defund the war right now and force the troops home.”

    The corollary is this: why have BushCo and his merry band of Neocons allowed our soldiers to continue to be slaughtered and maimed.

    The Democrats didn’t start the war, and the Democrats did not mishandle and misjudge everything in every way until Iraq ended up being a quagmire. And a Democrat is not the commander in chief. So, why do you Neocon assholes hate the troops so much to keep them there?

  64. 71

    headless lucy spews:

    re 63: “But the real prize are the contracts that award long-term rights. I think the (Western oil companies) are biding their time,” he added.”

    Try reading the whole article — or plant some cherry trees and do what you do best!

  65. 72

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    Support our troops, take their place.

    By the way, my faaaar right wing brother in law has a 22 year old son. So I asked him if he supported Bush’s war – my brother in law said yes. I asked him if he thought America would be in danger if we weren’t fighting in Iraq. He said yes. I asked him if he thought this was truly the most important war of our lifetime (as Bush has said many times) and my brother in law said yes. So when I asked him if his 22 year old son would be signing up to defend America he said no – then he stuck his tail between his legs, looked at the ground and shut the fuck up like you’d expect a right wing hypocrite to do.

    PS: When my right wing brother in law had a chance to go to Nam, he passed. No surprise there.

  66. 73

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @13 “Isn’t water vapor a greehouse gas?”

    No. If this represents the thinking of the party in the White House, the planet is be doomed.

  67. 74

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @23 “Fibbertarian gets both the Emily Littela and the Roseanne Rosannadanna awards.”

    He won’t settle for that. He’s shooting for a Darwin Award.

  68. 76

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @33 Nope, Lib, it wasn’t Oregon, it was U-Dub. See 32. For chrissakes quit this topic before you make yourself look like a total freaking ignorant idiot!

  69. 78

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    A couple years ago, National Geographic quoted a scientist as saying the world will run out of atmosphere before it runs out of oil. I’m not a scientist, so I can’t explain the mechanics, but I do know it’s a misconception that the world has only a modest amount of fossil fuels left.

    In the last 150 years, we’ve gone through roughly 900 billion barrels of petroleum, and there’s about that much left in known reserves. Of course, the burn rate is much greater now, so the remaining 900 million barrels of conventional oil will only last another 30 years at current consumption. But we’ve gone through much of the readily accessible cheap oil, and we have to increasingly rely on expensive hard-to-get oil.

    But even when that oil is gone, there will still be barely-tapped vast deposits of unconventional oil. About 2/3 to 3/4 of the world’s original oil supply was (and still is) in oil sands, tar sands, and oil shale. Developing these reserves is economically feasible at today’s prices and even with robust growth in demand we won’t go through it all within the lifetime of anyone now living. And if you add coal reserves (which can be converted to oil or natural gas — for a price) there are still several trillion barrels of oil-equivalent in the ground that are economically and technically recoverable at today’s market price for crude.

    So, take the damage that’s been done to the biosphere by burning fossil fuels so far, and multiply it by a factor of four or six, and you get an idea of what that scientist was talking about. Basically what some scientists are saying is that, given the quantity of fossil fuels that remains to be exploited, continued reliance on fossil fuels by human civilization might make this planet uninhabitable and extinguish all life on earth.

  70. 79

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    What we’re facing is not the end of oil, but the end of cheap oil. Americans instinctively — and correctly — realize that, going forward, $3 gas is cheap. Our future will be one of expensive fuels … expensive enough to dictate significant lifestyle changes for most people. You are not going to see $1.49 gas again. Ever.

  71. 80

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @35 Richard Pope’s mother pays me to keep an eye on him between midnight and 6 a.m.

  72. 81

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @36 I get a strong feeling that Bush didn’t even know there are three tribal groups in Iraq that historically have been adversaries — Sunnis, Shiites, and kurds. I’ll bet that when he invaded Iraq, he had no idea that Saddam’s brutal rule kept the lid on, and if he was removed those rivalries would explode into civil strife. Certainly, there is no evidence that he expected it, or planned for it. His knowledge of the Middle East seems to have been either sophomoric or non-existent.

  73. 82

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    It’s probably just as well, both for Bush and our military, that he didn’t fly jets in combat. His grasp of strategy and tactics is limited to point-and-shoot.

  74. 83

    Dan Rather spews:

    It starting to look a lot like global warming…. every where you go. heehehhehehehe

    I wonder if they are singing that in Cleveland. Donks are so hilarious.

  75. 84

    Another TJ spews:

    Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

    Interesting phrasing. “He receives no funding from any energy companies.” At this exact moment. Sounds like he’s contesting the definition of “is.”

    And he needs to. For instance, from a 1996 Harper’s article:

    Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.

    http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/5579.html

  76. 85

    headless lucy spews:

    re 84: How can you expect wingnuts to take you seriously unless you say (hehehe) after making your point? (hehehe)

    See! It works. Unforgettable.(hehehe)

    Please help me….(hehehe)

  77. 86

    headless lucy spews:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....ial-debate

    Obama, Clinton join Edwards in skipping Fox-sponsored debate

    “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not participate in a Democratic debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel this fall, campaign aides indicated Monday.
    The decision by the two Democratic presidential candidates follows an announcement last week by John Edwards, another White House contender, that he would forgo the Fox event.”

    No point in giving Fox the illusion of being a news organization. They are the propaganda arm of the RNC.

  78. 88

    headless lucy spews:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....laims.html

    Waxman Still Wants Rice To Answer Question On Niger Uranium Claims
    “In his most recent letter to Rice, Waxman lays out the four questions he would like Rice to answer:
    1) Whether she knew if Bush “cited forged evidence about Iraq’s efforts to procure uranium from Niger in the State of the Union Address”;
    2) Whether she was aware of doubts raised by CIA and State Department officials questioning the veracity of those claims before Bush delivered his speech;
    3) Whether there was any factual basis for Rice’s reference in a 2003 op-ed to “Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad”;
    4) Whether Rice “took appropriate steps to investigate how the Niger claim ended up in the State of the Union address after it was revealed to be fraudulent.”
    (hehehe)

  79. 90

    JDB spews:

    You know Bush was saying to himself “Boy, these cocaine induced flashbacks are getting more and more real.”

  80. 92

    Right Stuff spews:

    @70
    “The Democrats didn’t start the war”

    296-133 in the house and 77-23 in the senate
    Including Edwards and Clinton. Bipartisan support.

    “Democrats did not mishandle and misjudge everything in every way until Iraq ended up being a quagmire”

    I don’t disagree that the post Saddam strategy was not well planned or executed

    “A Democrat is not the commander in chief”

    Thank god!

    “So, why do you Neocon assholes hate the troops so much to keep them there?”

    I for one want them home as soon as possible. As Iraqi troops and security forces take over control in Iraq, our troops will come home.

    Unlike the the previous President Clinton, Bush doesn’t lead by polling numbers. The war is unpopular, what war is isn’t. The MSM has been all to happy to help with that. What’s so disturbing here is that the Democrat talking points have merged with Al Qaeda propoganda. The extremists are cheering for the Democrat party. Bye the way, the current candidate Clinton doesn’t brush her teeth without taking a poll.

  81. 93

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    the Democrat talking points have merged with Al Qaeda propoganda

    Fuck bin Laden (who the chimp can’t find) and fuck the wingnuts who spew this kind of bullcrap.

    This from the numbnuts who confused Roger Rabbit and Goldy.

  82. 98

    Right Stuff spews:

    @93
    Fuck bin Laden (who the chimp can’t find) and fuck the wingnuts who spew this kind of bullcrap.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6137082.stm
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....0851.shtml
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/.....index.html

    “Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated,” bin Laden said.”

    Sucks to be on the side of our enemies. The extreme left in this country and on this blog sound very similar to old UBL…

    Way to go!

  83. 99

    ArtFart spews:

    92 (HA! As if anybody’s reading this far down this thread.)

    “As Iraqi troops and security forces take over control in Iraq, our troops will come home.”

    Uh…is that like their kids were supposed to be trowing flowers at the American soldiers’ feet?

    Or that Saddam had all those great, fearsome weapons of mass something-or-other?

    Or that Bin Laden and Al Queda (remember them?) were getting all their support from Saddam?

    Or that it’d be all over after we blew Fallujah and everyone in it to smithereens?

    After listening to all those fantasies, why should we believe the crap you and your boy Bushie are trying to foist off on us now?

  84. 100

    spews:

    As for George Bush, it is simply unfair of this man to have an Easter egg role! How can he have the arrogance to stage a festival of peace in a time of war? Does Bush even know why we celebrate Easter? He probably thinks there is coke in the eggs!

  85. 101

    Right Stuff spews:

    Saw a very funny bumper sticker today.

    “yee-haw is not a foreign policy”

    made me laugh

  86. 102

    Richard Pope spews:

    Headless Lucy @ 88

    I guess it is safer to have Rice answer the Question On Niger Uranium Claims, than it would be for Imus to do it.

  87. 103

    spews:

    OK, I admit it I am not Roger Rabbit. I am also gtateful that Mitt Romney lied about being a life long hunter. Lots of rabbits in Utah, Michigan, Massachusetts, and California owe their lives to that man’s brave staeme4nt of half truths!

  88. 104

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    Sucks to be on the side of our enemies

    Sucks to be a right-wing suck up who bathes himself in talking points and unreality.

  89. 105

    Richard Pope spews:

    Roger Rabbit @ 78

    I guess it is possible to run out of oxygen. The Earth’s atmosphere used to contain a lot of carbon dioxide and methane, but no oxygen. Plants created the oxygen from CO2, H20 and sunshine.

    But it would take a helluva lot of effort. The atmosphere is right at 21% O2 and 0.04% CO2 — roughly 500 times as much O2 as CO2. Less than 1/3 of the present CO2 is attributable to man-made burning of fossil fuels.

  90. 106

    spews:

    not Roger Rabbit is also not Imus. not Imus thinks Imus is boring anyway! Who wants to listen to someone in a cowboy hat act as if he is important enough to play a bad boy without having strippers expose their breasts like an honest shock jock does!

    Have any of the religous folks here noted that I’mus is suspiciously close to “I am that I am>’ Wasn;t that Popeye’s version of the cogito ergo sum?

  91. 107

    spews:

    Richard Pope @ 105

    I do not understand your point. If only 1/3 of the CO2 is man amde and there is 500 times as much O2 as CO2, does that mean we can have 500 times more people on earth without using up all the oxygen? \\

    Are you not the Pope?

  92. 108

    spews:

    Richard @ 105

    “I guess it is possible to run out of oxygen. … But it would take a helluva lot of effort. The atmosphere is right at 21% O2 and 0.04% CO2 — roughly 500 times as much O2 as CO2. Less than 1/3 of the present CO2 is attributable to man-made burning of fossil fuels.”

    Where the hell does the “running out of oxygen” thing come from? The problem isn’t running out of oxygen. The problem is that C02 absorbs infrared energy. O2 and N2 don’t. Thus, when you increase the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere, it changes the distribution of heat from surface to stratosphere (i.e. hotter at the surface and colder near the stratosphere).

  93. 109

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Strategic Vision polled six hundred likely caucus goers in Iowa. 52 percent Republicans favored withdrawal from Iraq.

  94. 112

    Not Roger Rabbit spews:

    My wife left me last year. She thought I was a bore. I have grudgingly come to admit that she was right.

  95. 113

    Not Roger Rabbit spews:

    I participate in this blog on the suggestion of my therapist. He thinks I should get out more.

  96. 114

    Not Roger Rabbit spews:

    I really appreciate the fellowship I’ve found here. You liberals are much nicer than I thought you’d be.

    In all honesty, my conservative “friends” can be rather shallow, narrow-minded, and mean-spirited people. I didn’t realize that until I started hanging out here.

  97. 115

    spews:

    When is a Not Roger Rabbit not not Roger Rabbit? Or is Roger Rabbit Not Roger Rabbit?

    I do hope that Waxman’s Committee asks Mr. Gonzales what the AG knows about Roger Rabbit and when hte Justice DCepartment first found out about this issue.

  98. 117

    spews:

    Imus Rutgers’ Hos and the Seattle Connection

    There is a tid bit of relationship between the Imus scandal and the UW. Rutgers hired its current over paid Prexy, McCormick away from his overpaid job at the UW. Amongst this man’s least charming assets as Husky Presidenht were an appalling only claim to a commitment to multiculturalism. Under Richard’s rule, the term UW African American became a synonym for athletic scholarship. His administration responded to the murder suicide of a white faculty member by a Chinese student instituing a policy that ended up trying to to frame another Chinese person for a non existent crime. (In that case the uW was reprimansed by King County Authorities for its abuse of the student).

    It si no thta Dr. McCormick is a racist and I would be astonished if he ever called an African American a “nappy headed ho” or used an other politically incorrect term. However, i wold be equally astonished to learn that McCormick had undertaken any sincere efforts to do more than make a show of addressing racism at Rutgers.

    Personally, I find ethnic humor veryt unfunny, Dave Chapelle, Seinfeld oR Imus, all fit into the same small, tippy boat fueled by the cheap humor of foul language and ethnic deprecation. But this witch hunting over foolish words makes the racism of people like Sharpton too easily ignored.

    Where did I put my fucking, piece of shit, schwanztgrager? Anyone here know what the Japs mean when they say “Chickshaw?” Anyhow, I think you are a Kafir, Chevy-loiong, Hubhcap stealing, Nigger, Kike, Yid, Canuck, Polack, Wop, Ho, Bitch, Freechie, Fag, Slut, Slantete, Hebe, Spearchucker, Yellow, Injun, Chief, Sioux, Honkey, Kraut, Limey, and Cur if you do not agree with this post.