I read through the Seattle Times op/ed page today, and still no apology to Ron Sims. Maybe they’re saving it for Sunday?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
They owe me an apology too, but I don’t think I will ever see it. Probably more likely to see the Blethens pay estate tax :)
Quote Of The Day: Al Gore Says Its OK To Lie About Global Warming Because Darn It, It’s Important!
“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore
LMAO… at least he’s honest about lying {snicker}
Just thought I’d remind all the ass-sucking republicans that their hero Lush Flimbaugh is peeing in a cup today in front of his probation officer!
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/26/06@ 10:54 pm
He doesn’t mind… it’s on his way as he’s laughing at liberals all the way to the bank.
Tell us again, how IS Air America doing lately?
In New York City, temporary network flagship WLIB-AM showed losses. From an overall 1.4 audience share last month, it fell to a 1.2 this time around.
Meanwhile, Limbaugh affiliate WABC showed gains: from a 3.4 to a 3.7.
In Chicago, Air America’s WCPT-AM hasn’t budged, still turning in a miniscule 0.7 share. Since last summer, the station has been unable to show any growth.
Rush’s WLS-AM gained, moving from a 3.7 to a 4.0.
25 May 2006
Air America Radio’s acting CEO has been ordered to either cut millions from the bloated network’s budget or condemn the left- wing talk radio experiment to the ash heap of history.
Taking marching orders from RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser, who also oversees and often funds Air America parent Piquant LLC, interim head Jim Wiggett is in a surprisingly tough position.
If at least $5 million can’t be sliced away soon, it could finally be curtains for Franken & Co.
What has made the RealNetworks founder finally lay down the law is unclear, but the best theory is simply that he was tired of making trips to the ATM to pay the network’s bills.
a special note of THANKS to Stefan Sharkansky at http://www.soundpolitics.com/ for the generous availability of his PREVIEW button
Isn’t RealNetworks the company Maria Cantdowell ran into the ground??
You know if Al Franken peed in a cup he probably would get more listeners. Liberal talk radio…hehahahaheh.. what a joke. The only way the left can compete is to reinstate the fairness doctirne.
5 – There you go again ASS. Making sh*t up.
Well no, aptly-named-clueless, actually I was ASKING A QUESTION.
There they go again. The wingers will say whatever they can to debunk the overwhelming scientific research on the threat of global warming. It’s best to just ignore the wingers, because invariably their information is coming from propaganda efforts initiated by the fossil fuel industry and its allies.
At any rate, it is to the Republicans’ best interest to proactively attack Gore as much as possible in case he does decide to run for president in 2008. So they will attempt to revive the meme that Gore is a chronic liar.
His presentation on global warming is solid. The facts are very much on his side. To argue otherwise is pure lunacy.
His presentation on global warming is solid. The facts are very much on his side. To argue otherwise is pure lunacy. -Commentby Green Thumb— 5/26/06@ 11:36 pm
Yep. Except for that whole part where he says it’s OK to lie to push his moronic agenda… and then of course, there’s the extremist bullshit about which he then proceeds to lie…
Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America’s population has increased by 42%, the country’s inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.
But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.
When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:
• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.
• The Pacific Research Institute’s Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that “U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000.”
• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they “have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years,” according to the institute.
• Also according to the institute, “bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs.”
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? …
ack! my link is mia…
Questions for Al Gore
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? …
Global Warming is a Con Game supported by fags at the American Geophysical Union, and the Joint Science Academies. What do these “scientists” , with their “Degrees in science” know, bunch of liberal “want the planet to survive for our children” fudge packers.
These homo atheist “Scholars” like to point out the fact that “the recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years” and that the only real change has been the burning of 6000 year old dinosours.
Fuck that! 6000 year old dinosours don’t burn that well!
I just want to see some commie liberal flag burning fag try to prove that the enormous increase in “fossil” fuel burning during the past 120 years has anything to do with the increase in greenhouse gasses!
They will point to the undeniable fact that “fossil” fuel burning releases CO2… and then try to claim it is scientific just because it is!
What commie hogwash!!!
The next time I see an undeniable fact I am going to kill it and the try to baptise it!
Then I will damn it to hell! There is no escape commie undeniable facts! I am on to you! You can run but you cannot hide from my demagoguery!
These fag commie lib DONKS want to protect our children from destruction! What a fucking farce! The invisible hand of Adam Smith will protect them, and the smack them upside the head for having fag commie lib DONK parents!
Right Thinking Conservative children will be protected by the power of wishful thinking and real conservative denial.
The end times are coming! Have you made your peace with George W Bush?
Notice the amount of spew engendered by my above comment. There’s LOTS of money at stake in the global warming debate. That’s why the fossil fuel industry has poured millions of dollars over the last decade into a sophisticated propaganda campaign. What you see here are its greatest hits.
If you’re looking for a good solid source of scientific information about global warming, check out:
http://www.realclimate.org/
The real reason for global warming
Journalist Ross Gelbspan has done extensive investigative reporting on the fossil fuel industry’s global warming propaganda campaign. You can check out his web site at:
http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm
He has two excellent books on the subject:
“The Heat is On” 1997
“Boiling Point” 2004
One of the things that becomes crystal clear in reading these books is that ANY mainstream politician who takes a principled stand on global warming is going to get severely attacked. Indeed, you could argue that a big reason Gore did not assume the presidency in 2000 is because West Virginia went Republican for the first time in ages. Why? Because the Bush campaign did a good job of scaring coal miners about Gore’s global warming views.
What Gore is doing today is the moral equivalent of RFK’s crusade against black poverty and the Vietnam War. I think that many have been electrified by Gore’s film precisely because it is so rare today to see a politician take such a strong moral stand on such a deeply controversial issue.
I don’t think this is a ploy by Gore to run for president in 2008. No sane political strategist would have dared recommend such a risky strategy.
Only 9 years, 247 days and 39 min!
As a former Chevron oil tanker, named after the totally hot former G W Bush NSA advisor and current Secretary of state Condolleeza Rice, I am pissed about all this “global warming” nonsense.
My namesake headed Chevron’s committee on public policy until she resigned on January 15, 2001 to join my
husband’sboyfriend’sPresident’s NSA advisor, and she has since been immortalized by Steve Earl’s song “Condi”.She is a no BS Secretary of state who, beyond having a Chevron Oil Tanker named after her (me :) ), has also done several great things as Secreatry of State.. like… uhm..
Well, she is TOTALLY HOT!
I can see why George W. Bush prefers her to Laura “Peaches” Bush. Laura is a complete Bitch, and never sleeps with Georgie..
God I hope some day, I will no longer be an Oil Tanker and can admire MY President George W. Bush’s codpiece!
But, all that “global warming” egghead science stuff is crap.
Buy more oil! It ain’t gonna be any cheaper!
I challenge Proud to post a comment on http://www.realclimate.org/
This is a highly regarded web site run by working scientists with an expertise in global warming.
Proud, let’s see you go toe to toe with these guys. Of course you won’t because you don’t have any real facts. You don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s all hot air, pulled from the fact sheets of your fossil fuel buddies.
Special web-only bonus, on the occasion of the release of An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore’s Big, Fat Carbon Footprint
Poor dumb Al
a special note of THANKS to Stefan Sharkansky at http://www.soundpolitics.com/ for the generous availability of his PREVIEW button
Proud, you seem quite well linked into the latest efforts of the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda campaign.
Why is that?
I like HA and generally agree with the stuff I read here, but I think HA is wrong on this one. There are some really thoughtful progressive scientists out there that are more than willing to acknowledge that there has been a slight rise in global temperatures in the last 100 years, but feel that the doomsday predictions of 20 foot rises in the shoreline are irresponsible. Many of these environmentally conscious scientists have made it very clear that the dire warnings of politicans like Al Gore will both harm the credibility of the scientific community when the exagerated claims of impending disaster do not pan out to the modeled extremes, and the political credibility of those who are using this as a key issue on which to rally support today.
I’m personally far more willing to believe a sensible, well documented, balanced piece such as this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=276 than the political hysteria of one page articles by journalists and politicians who are trying to convince us that there really is some kind of imminent threat. In considering any threat, time matters. A 10 meter sea level rise over the course of 1 year would be devastating. Over the course of 5 years it would be a problem to resolve with expediency. But over the course of 100 or 500 years, even a large rise in sea level is something that humans would easily adapt to in stride. This happens all the time with erosion of a hillside, the deterioration of paint on a house, etc.
Far better to continue to keep poltical power and act sensibly given the more critical and immediate needs of our society than to cry wolf over very uncertain future disaster scenarios that will damage progressive credibility and lose votes.
Fossil fuel industry propaganda? Read again:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace.
And be sure to take a good hard look at their global warming expert
Why is it you libs and greenies automatically ASSume that because folks give facts contrary to the ones you choose to believe, they are shills and propagandists?
Global Warming FAQ: What Every Citizen Needs to Know About Global Warming
From Ross Gelbspan’s “Boiling Point”:
“ExxonMobil’s new public relations charade did little to conceal its real intentions. By 2001, ExxonMobil had replaced the coal industry as the major funder of the most prominent and visible ‘greenhouse skeptics.’ by 2003, ExxonMobil was giving mre than $1 million a year to an array of ideological, right-wing organizations opposing action on climate change — including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
“In its efforts to sabatoge the unprecedented scientific concensus on the IPCC (and international body of research sponsored by the UN), ExxonMobil has basically picked up where the coal industry left off. During the 1990s, that effort had been spearheaded by Fred Palmer, who, around the time of the Bush election, was hired as the chief lobbyist for Peabody Energy. Prior to his hiring by Peabody, Palmer headed up the Western Fuels Association, a $400 million coal consortium that had funded a tiny handful of industry-funded ‘greenhouse skeptics’ who had long been dismissed by the mainstream scientific community.”
What happened to Roger Rabbit?
Green Thumb:
What Gore is doing today is the moral equivalent of RFK’s crusade against black poverty and the Vietnam War. I think that many have been electrified by Gore’s film precisely because it is so rare today to see a politician take such a strong moral stand on such a deeply controversial issue.
You illustrate my point quite well. There’s a big difference between RFK being against black poverty and the Vietnam war vs. Al Gore’s crusade of Global Warming. Black poverty was a huge problem at the time, and in some areas still is, and Vietnam was a current event at the time. Global Warming on the other hand hinges on future problems. And those future problems hinge on modeled predictions that are still vigorously debated by many scientists. Read the link I posted from RealClimate. Global Warming simply isn’t the imminent threat that Gore wants us to believe. Americans are not even willing to talk about what’s going to happen with Social Security in the future, so what makes any politican expend political capital on something far more futuristic and ambiguous is the real question.
Ross Gelbspan:
Pulitzer Prize Fraud
The heat is on Ross Gelbspan. And it ain’t global warming.
Gelbspan’s new book The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate was published in April 1997. In the book, Gelbspan claims to “expose the deliberate campaign by oil and coal interests, teamed with conservative politicians, to confuse the public about global warming.” Gelbspan also claims to show “how these fossil fuel proponents have supported the efforts of a small but highly vocal group of ‘scientific skeptics’ whose statements distort the nature of the scientific debate…”
Confusion? Distortion? Gelbspan takes the cake on this one!
On the jacket of The Heat is On is the following language,
In The Heat Is On,
Pulitzer Prize?
This is certainly news to the Pulitzer Prize Board. Based on discussions with staff at the Pulitzer Prize Board, and an Internet search of the past winners of Pulitzer Prizes, it seems that Gelbspan was never awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
In 1984, Gelbspan’s newspaper The Boston Globe and seven staff writers were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for a series of articles. But not Gelbspan. He was simply an editor who had some (non-award-winning) involvement in the series of articles.
And this fraud goes beyond the book jacket. A May 20, 1997 media advisory by Fenton Communications touts “Pulitzer Winner Unveils Industry Efforts to Buy Science ‘Facts.'” A May 5, 1997 Greenpeace news release proclaims “Oil and Coal Industries Mount Misinformation Campaign to top Governments Taking Action on Climate Change Says Pulitzer Journalist.”
More from “Boiling Point”:
“Throughout the 1990s, (Fred) Palmer directed an extensive and extremely successful public relations offensive by the coal industry that used such prominent ‘greenhouse skeptics’ as Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Sherwood Idso, and Robert Balling, among others. One campaign, which sent these ‘skeptics’ around the country to do media interviews, was crafted, according to its strategy papers, ‘to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact’ and, more specifically, was designed to target ‘older, less-educated men . . . and young low-income women’ in districts that get their electricity from coal and preferably have a member on the House Energy Commitee, according to the strategy papers for the campaign.” (pg 51-52)
missed a critica line…
On the jacket of The Heat is On is the following language,
In The Heat Is On, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan…
Pulitzer Prize?
Sorry kiddo, your boy has already proven himself to be a liar and therefore untrustworthy to be believed.
More from “Boiling Point”:
“Their strategy was quite simple — continue to raise doubts about the science in order to preempt any public demand for action. Their funding by the fossil fuel lobby was never disclosed publicly until it was published in The Heat Is On in 1997.
“What is especially telling about industry-funded ‘greenhouse skeptics’ is their lack of standing in the scientific community. In a review of Michaels’s work, Tom M.L. Wigley, a preeminent climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, concluded it was so flawed that no only would it fail to pass the scrutiny of qualified climate scientists, it would not even be accepted for peer review.
“As for Singer, he has been unable to publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature in the last twenty years except for one technical comment.
Singer’s recklessness transcends his deeply flawed scientific pronouncements. It involves at least one public lie about his own funding. In early 2001, Singer was accused of having his work funded by the oil industry. In response, Singer wrote a letter to the Washington Post that he had not received any oil money for at least twenty years — when he had done a consulting job for the industry. In fact, Singer received at least $10,000 and as much as $75,000 from ExxonMobil in 1998 alone, according to information on the oil giant’s own web site.” (pgs 52-53)
More from “Boiling Point”:
“Shortly after the publication of The Heat Is On, the fossil fuel lobby mounted an extensive campaign accusing me of resume fraud. They circulated a message on the Internet and elsewhere that I had falsely claimed to be a co-recipient of a Pulitzer Prize. My reaction was mixed. On the one hand, it was quite hurtful. On the other hand, I was privately pleased. The fact that the lobbyists for big coal and big oil had to resort to a campaign of character assassination meant that there was nothing in the book with which they could find serious fault.” (pg xiii)
Proud, you haven’t answered my question: Why are you so quick to fish out the standard talking points of the fossil fuel industry.
Could it be that you are hacking for them this evening?
Myron Ebell is a great example of the correct response from the left to Global Warming. Cooler Heads should prevail. The current alarmism is completely out of proportion to any proveable and even remotely likely probable threat. Many current Global Warming doomsday models predict an aggressive rise in the global shoreline of 5 or even 10 mm per year. But even if we up that rate to 100 mm per year, it would take 100 years to bring the sea level up by 10 meters, worldwide. By way of comparison, the Hawaiian island chain grows up from the ocean at one end and shrinks at the other at a rate of about 10 mm per year, but there’s been no alarmist rhetoric regarding Global Volcano Growth.
We’ve got bigger fish to fry like regaining control of congress, the presidency, etc.
Seattle Mom, you don’t know what you are talking about. I challenge you to pitch that argument on realclimate. It would be laughed off the site.
I invite readers to take a careful look at the above winger comments. Pay particular attention to their debating style.
Proud’s approach is rather hackneyed, and thus easily dismissed. Seattle Mom offers a more subtle — and thus dangerous — approach. “She” presents herself as progressive, yet puts forth a viewpoint that easily fits one of the fossil fuel industry’s dominant memes.
The difficulty here is that the average person has no way of judging the validity of these arguments. Seattle Mom uses lots of supposed facts and figures, so she must know what she’s talking about, right?
There is no substitute for educating yourself. This is not an issue that is going to go away . . . in any of our lifetimes.
I love how puddybud is more than happy to accept that his hard-on hero, Lush, is a felon and that’s no big deal, but any similar action on the other side is cause to get the pitchforks. Idiot.
Come to think of it, politics itself is idiotic. Look at ASS, spending his/her/its life pounding on a keyboard about stuff no one believes and no one listens to.
Limbaugh’s stations are so lucky to have the loyal, albeit, cash poor, 75 yrs. + demographic. I see no lack of old, stalwart advertisers on AirAmerica and plenty of new ones every day. As for entertainment value, you can’t possibly think Limbaugh and co. are more entertaining than Stephanie Miller and Al Franken. AND, what are the demographics here in Seattle? You know, Right in your own backyard?
Well, I guess that would be “…THE REST OF THE STORY!
Here’s a great article that generally shows us what we all knew….things don’t look good for the Bush cabal and their jackbooted thugs here in Washington state.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....op27m.html
My favorite part is the last paragraph where the republiCON stooooge says voters should restore balance to the state Legislature by electing some rethugs. I wonder, does that idiot think we should restore balance at the national level too? Guess we better elect more Dems to Congress HE HE!
RE 10: ALL THANKS TO LEGISLATION PUSHED THROUGH OVER THE STRIDENT OBJECTIONS OF THE ZANY EXTREME RIGHTISTS THAT POLLUTE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
You guys object , obfuscate and obstruct the legislation that causes the reductions in pollution and THEN ATTEMPT TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE RESULT! Can’t do that , fellas. It’s BS.
Also, some important economic data missing from your rosy picture , is the fact that real wages are stagnant or down under Republican Corporatist Occupation of the US, housing takes a greater part of people’s budget, fuel prices are up, food prices are up, the cost of higher education is out of sight.
Your “evidence” only proves that people are forced to drive around more like chickens with their heads chopped off working two or three jobs to make ends meet.
Asswipe PROUD ASS asks how is Air America doing? Well quite well thank you. Considering that baby raping traitors like you have been predicting their demise from day one, it seems that your desire to stop people from hearing the other side is not being satisfied.
For instance, in many markets, Big Edddy CRUSHES Flimbaugh, Handjob Hannity or that pervert Bill O Really. AA has been steadily adding stations even tho the liars on the rigtht said they were going out of business.
It’s funny to watch the right wingers try to spin the facts on AA. The truth is, they have cut DEEP into the right wing hate radio crowd.
It’s also interesting that PROUD DICKSUCKER ASS thinks Lush laughing all the way to the bank even tho he’s on probation and has to pee in a cup is something to laud. Guess that’s what you want your kids to look up to huh asswipe?
re 10: Savings are non-existent. When our country goes begging now for loans ( another proud Zany extremist wingnut accomplishment ) to stay afloat, the portion of people’s money that goes into savings is a big factor in whether we get the loan, the loan’s terms, and how the dollar is valued in the world at large. This is another Bush failure.
Then you take a record of reduced poluution that is WHOLLY DUE TO PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION and blandly attempt to take credit for it.
You self-hating troll! Go home and spin stories to your wife about how great you are in bed and see where that gets you, you LS of S***!
Looks like Bush is having trouble with the whackjob right wing of the Taliban party…
“Sad day in Crawford, they’re hanging their heads,” said William Bennett, the former education secretary and conservative radio talk show host. Bennett said many of his listeners rang up Friday morning to express dismay at what they considered the president’s groveling.
“One of the attractive things about the president is that he talks Texas,” he continued. “But what broke my heart is when he said, ‘I need to be more sophisticated.’ What is this, Kerry talk? Is he going to use ‘elan’ the next time he speaks?”
re 10: Bald eagles are on the rebound because of strict enforcment of hunting laws ( I doubt that Progressives ever hunted bald eagles. ), the diminution of airborne polutants and other pollutants due to Progressive legislation, and an alarming rise in the prairie dog population due to the fact that Republicans took the black-footed ferret off the endangered species list and now we have an overabundance of disease carrying prairie dogs — the primary sorce of food for the resurgent eagles.
Do you think Bennet is TAKING BETS on whether the president is going to be impeached or , Nixonlike, resigns?
Where are all the righties that used to post here? Hell, they’re too embarrassed to post here let alone declare their Nazi like support of Der Fuhrer Bush!
Zieg heil, Y’all!
Commentby GBS [………………………………………………………..Er, GBS, The Nazis were the National Socialist Party [socialist: “progressives”, liberal Democrats] [hehe] JCH Kennedy
GORDITOS DE LOS ALBERTO, Into the Border Patrol van, asshole! No free welfare, food stamps, and free health care at LA General for you or your 21 kids. Back to Baja, asshole!!!
Re 48: And how many times do you see the word, “Democratic” in Communist writings. How about Communist China? They must be Democratia over there. You IDIOT!!!
You don’t need border patrol vans, you just need a form of ID that is not easily reproduced AND throw some employers asses in the Pokey for a good long while.
But you’d rather spend billions trying to enforce the unenforcible.
And .as long as billions of public dollars are on the line, next you will want to privatize the border patrol and make it another endless bloody stream of public money going to your corporate handlers, whose bloody hands you submissively lick! PUTOS!
Deport GORDITOS DE LOS ALBERTO!! One down, 10,999,999 to go!!!!!!!
Claymore mines and 50 cals every 200 yards will stop the invasion from Mexico. Deport every illegals and their Democrat anchor babies!!!!
From a purely statistical standpoint, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from the recent climate data that scare-mongers like Al Gore use to support their position. There is not enough data to draw any conclusions; we cannot obtain a valid average, median or standard deviation with the limited information that scientists now claim to use for their theory (yes, it’s just a theory).
Read John Stossel’s book and you might actually learn something.
The honest truth is that we really do not know if the current climate changes are a normal “cyclical variation” or not.
ARREST JCH FOR HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS TO BUILD HIS GAZEBO!!!
WHATCHA GONNA WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU, JCH? Illegal hirer of NAFTA REFUGEES!
RE 54: Gravity is “just a theory”.
Do your really care if the current climate changes are normal or not? If it continues, we’ll be just as dead whether or not it’s “made up science”, “scare-mongering”, naturally occuring, or, most likely, caused by our own activity. Doesn’t it just make sense to try to reduce our impact, to try to slow it down? Or would you rather just see the planet wipe us off its face? Well, at least a chosen few will die rich after profiting from destroying our home….
uh, jaybo, you left out the part about John Stossel being an idiot. Yes. Certifiably.
For example, he obviously doesn’t even know what the fuck a “theory” is.
Did anybody read the story on the state GOP convention by Andrew Garber in the Seattle Times today. Here’s what a leading GOP member of the legislature had to say in assessing the performance GOP controlled House and Senate and the President in governing our nation:
“I worry that the backlash for the federal government could trickle into the state government as far as voting goes,” said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee. “I’m hoping the citizens of Washington state look at their local elections and realize that person really has no ties to the federal party.”
Now that’s some stunning commentary on the GOP’s leadership of the federal government.
In the same piece the state Senate GOP leader is almost as grim, admitting he has virtually no chance of picking up a majority this year. The best he could offer is that he’d “maybe pick up one seat.” Why would anyone support any of his candidates? To “maybe” pick up a seat?
He’s just being honest, the state Senate’s GOP has spent the last few years in lock-step with the wacky right wing leadership of some of the state’s most extremely conservative preachers – in other words, promoting a particularly strident theocracy. For most of the state’s voters, this is just payback time.
King County voters to be asked to increase sales tax to 9.4%!
Most of King County currently pays 8.8% — with the exception of rural areas of east King County outside of (un)Sound Transit, that only pay 8.4%.
1.2% of this sales tax — approximately $600 million per year goes to public transportation subsidies — 0.8% to King County Metro Transit and 0.4% to (un)Sound Transit.
King County will probably be asking voters for an increase of 0.1% from 0.8% to 0.9% for Metro Transit. (un)Sound Transit will probably be asking voters for an increase of 0.5% from 0.4% to 0.9%.
This will increase public transit’s take from 1.2% to 1.8% and will increase sales taxes from most of King County from 8.8% to 9.4%. Rural east King County will see an increase of only 0.1% from 8.4% to 8.5%.
The overall annual sales tax take for public transit subsidies will increase from $600 million to $900 million.
$900 million per year could certainly be used for a lot better things than an economically foolish public transit system. You have a lot of nearly empty busses and trains. The cost of these busses and trains equipment is about two to three times fair market value. There are lots of overpaid administrators. Bus drivers are also paid generously — about the same as police officers. And people don’t pay anywhere near a fair market value for their transit fares.
Take the same $900 million and invest it in education and health care. This money would easily cover health care for all the uninsured people in King County — not only children, but also adults. Hell, we might as well cover a few illegal aliens while we are at it too — $900 million is a helluva lot of money!
In addition, every 3 year old, 4 year old, and 5 year old child could be provided with a full-day Montesorri kindergarten program — as opposed to a half-day of normal kindergarten being currently provided at public expense only for 5 year olds. Day care centers could also be set up in all elementary schools, with additional subsidies for lower income families who make too much for a DSHS day care subsidy.
Providing more generous programs for younger children would also re-introduce wealthy liberals to the public school system. The share of children attending public school in Seattle might increase a good bit from its current 68%, and allow the Seattle school system to reopen a number of its closed schools — especially elementary schools.
Actually, I understated the tax increase request.
There will also be an additional 0.1% sales tax increase requested for local highway projects through King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. So the total increase for most of King County will be 0.7%, from 8.8% now to 9.5% next year. In rural east King County, the increase will only be 0.2% from 8.4% now to 8.6% next year.
The same highway measure will also request a local MVET of 0.6% per year. For most of King County, with a 0.3% per year MVET already in place for (un)Sound Transit, this will mean a 0.9% per year MVET — or approximately half the 1.7% rate that Seattle suffered for several years with 1.4% MVET for Conorail.
Still no one standing up for GWB.
I guess the righties are on to greener pastures.
We live a few blocks from University Preparatory Academy. The recent developments with respect to Seattle Public Schools certainly serves as a reminder of why U. Prep seems to keep getting bigger and bigger…
“Just thought I’d remind all the ass-sucking republicans that their hero Lush Flimbaugh is peeing in a cup today in front of his probation officer!”
Eeeeeew….now THERE’S a thought that makes my Saturday morning! As long as we don’t have to watch…
Ref- RR
Rumor is that during the hot nights, Mr RR exploded into pieces under pressure of a large and torrid doe, who made it on top, and with boundless energy made him com six times in 33 minutes….no water, no breaks, not night….. BANG.
Wish there was a video.
Senor Goldy, Maybe Stefan the Pescadero is correct!
THE TRUTH HAS BEEN HELD HOSTAGE111111111111
The “R” beside a candidates name now stands for “Retard”. What do you think of that , Mark the Phyliss Schlafley?
in reference to:
His presentation on global warming is solid. The facts are very much on his side. To argue otherwise is pure lunacy. -Commentby Green Thumb— 5/26/06@ 11:36 pm
howcanyoubeproudtobeanass says:
Yep. Except for that whole part where he says it’s OK to lie to push his moronic agenda… and then of course, there’s the extremist bullshit about which he then proceeds to lie…
LMAO @ how…
first of all. Over stating a case is not exactly the same as lying. To you, it seems that it’s okay for shrub and his merry band of idiots to lie about the threat of WMD’s in iraq, and send us to war – the only trace of WMD’s we would have ever found if any, are the ones that were sold to Iraq by reagan. THERE WERE NO WMDS. NOT A ONE. If we would have found even one partially functioning WMD of any sort, then it could have been said that the administration OVER-REPRESENTED the problem. That may even have been misleading, but not an outright lie. Also, it could have been argued that if Iraq had some secret agenda and the means to develop or aquire more WMDs, then misleading the public may have been justified. After all, we are often a nation of isolationists – so some level of cojoling the masses in to war *MIGHT* be justified (ex: WWII)…However, this was not the case.
I bring this up, in case like much of the company you keep, you have lost your moral compass.
Al Gore says he thinks it’s appropriate to OVER-REPRESENT the issue in order to get people behind it. If he’s right about the threat of global warming (which he makes a solid case for) then he MAY be justified. Clearly, if he’s right then ignoring it can create disasters with global consequences.
We should not be so arrogant to think we can know how this is going to play out – only time will tell if the ends will justify his means. Also, only time will tell what his true intentions are in this regard, if one was not to take what he says at face value.
Time did tell with bush’s iraq fiasco, and he’s on the ass end of paying for it. The ends clearly did not justify the means. Not to mention that the WMD issue was an OUTRIGHT LIE, not an OVER-REPRESENTATION
I hope that clears things up for you.
Regards.
See, that was
To richard pope @61,
Good. We need the money for roads, and earthquake proofing.
I’ll pay the sales tax happily.
Keep in mind that king county and seattle will probably have to pick up a significant amount of the tab for the major transportation projects on seattles plate. The money has to come from somewhere,
and the folks in the rural (esp eastern) parts of washington will object to spending a bunch of money on seattle and the I-5 corridor in general. Regardless of the fact that we need to do this roadwork, it doesn’t affect them.
It’d be more fair to everyone concerned if eastern washington were made a part of idaho. (Yes, I’m being somewhat facetious)
Regards.
Newsflash: Al Gore’s courageous words twisted out of context! When will the crazies on the right think of something new?
Q.: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
A. [Gore]: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
He’s talking about the mix between pointing out the problem and point out the solution. When Ass and his friends pass on this cheap garbage, they lose all credibility.
thanks lyndon… some of the folks on this board can’t see past the end of their spin. Most of us here can understand what gore was driving at, even if that quote was out of context. Most of us are used to seeing the shills pull stunts like this, and we have our BS detectors armed and at the ready.
howcanyou and pope have never had any credibility to begin with. They just repeat whatever they read on soundpolitics or hear on limbaugh and faux news.
It’s fun though to take their bait sometimes, just to expose them on it and turn it back on them. Even if their kool-aid doesn’t come in appealing flavors anymore.
Regards.
72
It’s not a surprise that opponents attempt to twist Gore’s words, it is a cottage industry for the right and their media lackeys.
What’s amazing to me is that what they attempted to use as an example of a lie, isn’t a lie.
To say that there has to be a blanketing of a verified fact in the face of an outrageous, well financed propaganda campaign that lies about the scientific proof is merely saying give truth a chance.
The tobacco industry wrote the book on this approach. In the face of the American Heart Association and other groups they kept spreading the lie that cigarettes were harmless for decades.
Just amazing.
Pope,
Do you want to guess how much money I save by taking the bus and using my veggie oil mercedes 300SD (when I *have* to drive) even after the tax hike?
You’re a trader right? You know you can turn a profit even on a market downturn by selling short, but it requires you to be smart?
This is a similar issue, as applied to real-life. You can make money off of this, or at least SAVE money if you play your cards right. Stop bitching about fractional increases in tax and figure out a way to profit (or even save) from it. Light a fire under your ass to USE the public transportation that you pay for, so you get some value out of it.. Sell your stupid, ugly f#@$ing SUV and go get a real car. The money you save might be your own =P Use flex-car. Be urban, or get the hell out of the metro area.
That would make too much sense for you though, I’ll bet. You’d rather whine about tax-hikes and vote against your conscience since you don’t have the common-sense most of us were born with. Most of us here learned at an early age that you don’t get into a stranger’s car on the promise of candy. Voting the way you do on the promise of tax-cuts is the same kind of thing.
Regards.
71
Actually, changing state borders isn’t that bad an idea. The political movers and shakers never let it happen, but that doesn’t mean it would be wrong.
I have a lot of admiration for the people of Northern California who wanted to create the state of Jefferson. In that case, the anti-tax rural citizens were trying to succeed. Maybe pushing them out would be easier.
I’m starting to think that Lincoln was wrong. We should have let them go.
76.
Those N. Cal citizens were undoubtedly trying to succeed, but more importantly, they were trying to succeed to secede.
Sorry ’bout that.
Lol, harry in regards to Lincoln. I’ve thought the same thing…
As far as idaho, if it were to happen, I’d be afraid of giving Idaho more representative power than it has already. We don’t need skinheads in office. (Apologies to the non-bigotted Idahoans out there)
Regards.
78
It’s never gonna happen D. John, but the realignment needn’t stop with off-loading EW. We should join with BC, parts of W Oregon and NW Cal to SF to create a coastal state.
Power could be maintained.
yeah I know, but it’s fun to speculate sometimes.
heh
Goldie,
I have avoided responding to your often stated demand that the Seattle Times apologize to KC Executive Sims for its 1988 editorial concerning Sims and his proposal for the creation of an Executive Office of Global Warming as well as for an acknowledgment that he is a long-time local visionary on global warming. As I write this, I am so pleased that we are finally seeing the top political leadership in this state begin to take this issue very seriously. What is not to like? Well, for one thing, setting the record straight.
As the articles, and letters-to-the-editors listed below demonstrate, I have been working practically full time on this issue since 1989. (I worked with others including the good folks at Climate Solutions based in Olympia, to name a few.) Two important time frames deserve special attention because they were moments when meaningful changes were possible, yet political leadership at that time failed to seize the moments. The two occasions were: the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol held in Kyoto, Japan.
During both times, Councilman Sims (as he was back then) maintained a low profile. So it was a great surprise to read in your column the role Sims played going back to 1988. I had been unaware of his role until reading about it on your blog. In fact, during a downtown Seattle luncheon held in the Convention Center in 1997, as keynote speaker, Sims had an excellent opportunity to speak to the large crowd concerning the issue of global warming. While the councilman talked mostly about other environmental concerns, not a word was spoken about global warming. After his presentation was over, I waited in line to speak to Councilman Sims about his lapse, only to be met with a hostile reaction. He accused me of calling him a hypocrite. Just as he never muttered the word “global warming” I never muttered the word hypocrite. Give me a break!
In closing, I want to reiterate that I am so glad that local leadership is finally taking this issue seriously. For the benefit of King County, I root for Sims’ success. And while you are waiting for the Seattle Times to apologize to Sims, I have been waiting for Sims to apologize to me for his unfounded words back in 1997.
(1)–Thinking Big: Issaquah, Olympia Warm To Global Task
Katherine Long
Seattle Times
March 25, 1992
You can’t say they think small in Issaquah.
While other suburban communities struggle with mundane things like new roads, schools and houses, there’s a group of people here trying to come up with local solutions to a cosmic problem: the effect of global warming.
They’re doing it for a local reason, too: Issaquah, with its back against the wall of the Cascades, gets some of the worst air pollution in the Puget Sound area.
And there’s a similar motivation for another group of future-thinkers in Olympia. Living in a city built on fill atop an estuary, they’re so concerned about melting ice sheets and rising sea levels that they’ve convinced the city to buy nonpolluting electric cars and to enforce a strict tree-protection ordinance.
It’s the spirit of “think globally, act locally” – very locally.
Both city councils have created their own global-warming task forces to talk about how they can take steps locally to reduce the atmospheric pollution many scientists believe will lead to an increase in the planet’s temperature. Last week, they gathered in Bellevue with regional experts and local politicians to talk about such heady subjects as atmospheric change, ozone control, decreasing and rising sea levels.
“People are taking this very seriously,” said Issaquah organizer John Seebeth.
http://archives.seattletimes.n.....ry=seebeth
************************
(2)–Earth Day — Scientific Community Warning US Of Trouble Ahead For Our Planet
Seattle Times
Editor, The Times:
April 22, 1992
Global warming is getting a lot of press nationally. It’s also an issue with regional consequences. The media report that an exceptionally mild winter and spring have resulted in a diminished snow pack.
A Seattle Water Department spokesperson is quoted: “. . . conditions at Seattle’s Cedar River watershed are the worst in 90 years.” While uncertainty exists as to whether these conditions are the result of the greenhouse effect, such conditions are to a large degree consistent with it.
The National Weather Service has reported that this past winter was the nation’s warmest on record.
According to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the eight warmest years since 1880 all occurred in the last 11 years.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report assessing the issue of global warming. Comprised of several hundred scientists from 44 countries, the panel confirmed that humanity faces the prospect of an unprecedented warming trend. The Environment 2010 report, issued by the state of Washington and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, states, “The average annual temperature in the Pacific Northwest is projected to rise by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius over the next century.”
To put into perspective what these temperature increases mean, the National Academy of Sciences report, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, states that: “The larger of these temperature increases would mean a climate warmer than any in human history.”
Robert Fleagle, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, writes in his policy paper, Policy Implications of Global Warming for the Northwest: “Warming of 3 degrees C would imply upward displacement of the snow line in the mountains . . . with consequent reduction of the area of winter snow pack.”
Water availability for hydroelectric generation, crop irrigation and human consumption could be seriously impacted. The scientific community is vigorously waving a red flag warning us to start paying attention and begin taking action.
Carbon dioxide (CO) accounts for the majority of “greenhouse” emissions in Washington state. In the Puget Sound region, our fossil-fuel-dependent transportation system is responsible for much of the CO emissions. Committing resources to significantly reduce these emissions could also provide immediate regional benefits.
Although the prospects of atmospheric change should give us plenty to worry about, there is still hope that we can find a truly sustainable balance between regional economic development and the protection of the environment. – John N. Seebeth, Issaquah, co-chair, City of Issaquah Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Task Force
http://archives.seattletimes.n.....ry=seebeth
************************************
Polluted Winter Air Sparks Forum — Panel Takes Up Global Warming
Katherine Long
Seattle Times
November 11, 1992
Bellevue’s bad winter air is sparking interest in a much bigger issue: the causes and the impacts of global warming on the Pacific Northwest.
A panel of experts and high school students will be among the speakers at a city forum tomorrow to discuss global warming and its implications.
City Councilwoman Georgia Zumdieck said she helped organize the forum because Bellevue air always worsens in the winter because of air currents that tend to blow Seattle’s sometimes polluted air eastward. Addressing the broader problem of global warming is one way to get at the local problem of polluted air.
Katie Choquette, a 10th-grade student at Newport High School, is one of two teens who will discuss global warming. She said teens want to alert the Bellevue City Council of their concerns.
“It’s really scary what’s going to happen – the earth’s temperature could rise by three to eight degrees by the middle of the next century,” she said.
Choquette said cities can fight global warming by encouraging car-pooling, promoting recycling and using recycled paper.
The forum stems from a similar effort in Olympia and Issaquah. Both cities have set up global-warming task forces, and Olympia officials have bought several electric cars, increased recycling efforts and done energy audits of city-owned buildings to help tackle the problem.
In Issaquah, where the city formed a global-warming task force almost a year ago, the group is preparing recommendations to give to the City Council in January.
Last year, the King County Council’s growth-management committee also held a forum on global warming.
Zumdieck isn’t expecting the forum to change minds overnight. But she does hope it will help educate people about the causes of global warming.
John Seebeth, a member of Issaquah’s global-warming task force, said he hoped that Vice President-elect Al Gore would help refocus the nation on global warming. Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, discusses global warming and how it could cause a worldwide environmental crisis.
http://archives.seattletimes.n.....ry=seebeth
********************
Water a precious resource and must be well-protected
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, June 19, 2001
With the newly released National Academy of Science Report on global warming, the Republicans finally understand the severity and scale of our atmospheric pollution problem. Now it’s time to do something meaningful about it. As Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, we need “a serious solution to a serious problem.” We begin by taking responsibility for our own pollution.
Policy makers in the Puget Sound region must look through new lenses in regards to water management, land-use and transportation choices. Water must be protected like the precious resource it is. Great past civilizations like the Mayan and Anasazi disappeared because of population growth and drought. Are we destined to follow the same path?
We need to get serious about a sustainable approach to land use. Sprawl is too destructive to the natural environment and is a major source of atmospheric pollution. Transportation choices are critical. Walking, bicycling and using mass transit will soon be looked upon as patriotic duties because global warming, if not contained, will be as destructive as any war imaginable.
The solution for global warming is also the solution for our so-called energy crisis. Alternative energy technologies, such as solar, micro-turbines and fuel cells, are now being commercially produced. When government policies and tax credits — which now subsidize the fossil fuel and automotive industries — begin to support clean alternatives, we will not only have a healthier environment, the new energy future will provide jobs and economic growth. It’s time to take responsibility for our pollution. It’s a dirty habit, it’s uneconomical, and a better way exists.
John Seebeth
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....rs19.shtml
*********************
GLOBAL WARMING: We must face this reality
2001-08-09
Letter to Editor
King County Journal
A recent letter suggested that global warming is based on flimsy science and that only liberals believe in such dogma.
On Aug. 1, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — which includes conservative Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., one of the Senate’s severest critics of the Kyoto Protocol — voted 19 to 0 on a resolution calling on President Bush to return to the bargaining table with specific proposals for either revising the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty or negotiating a new binding agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, legislation working its way through Congress, sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., supports a formal federal response to climate change by creating an office in the White House, like that of the drug czar, to tackle emission cuts.
Support to implement greenhouse gas regulations also comes from oil producers themselves. The Royal Dutch/Shell Group and British Petroleum, as well as power-generating companies like Cinergy, AEP and Entergy, all have moved to reduce their own emissions.
Climate change, whether caused by man-made emissions or natural processes (or a combination of both) is a reality that we all must face. As we move away from the burning of fossil fuels, we have the opportunity to adopt the alternative energies of the 21st century.
John Seebeth
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....html/62506
**********************
Support renewable source
King County Journal
2002-02-14
Our nation’s involvement in Afghanistan and Central Asia extends far beyond the tragedies of 9/11. Many Americans are unaware that our foreign policy in the Caspian Sea Basin is dictated by oil, just as the Persian Gulf War was waged over United States access to oil supplies in that region.
As we pursue this military aggression, the American Federation of Scientists and 100 Nobel Laureates warn of the dangers to humanity from the continued burning of fossil fuels.
Rather than ignore science and risk worldwide political upheaval, the United States should aggressively support the existing renewable alternative energy industries. Apart from being beneficial to the environment, it will create numerous jobs, that will help the economy.
A true tribute to the victims of 9/11 would be a declaration of energy independence. When the Senate addresses a National Energy Policy in the next few weeks, Senator Majority Leader, Tom Daschle will introduce a bill which strongly supports renewable/alternative energy technologies.
John Seebeth
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....html/82805
*****************
GLOBAL WARMING: Greater impact than 9/11
2002-06-13
King County Journal
We now learn that the Bush Administration had prior warning of 9/11 but did nothing to alert the nation or foil the attacks. The cost of this devastating event was high. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives and the civil liberties of all citizens are threatened in the name of fighting the “evil doers.”
On another policy front, the Bush Administration has finally acknowledged that global warming is a fact and human activity (the burning of fossil fuel) contributes to the problem. At least the administration is warning the nation about this crisis, but like 9/11, no action is being taken to prevent a potential disaster. We are told to “adapt” to the oncoming changes while the administration ignores behaviors which exacerbate the problem.
Recently, the 15 nations comprising the European Union and Japan ratified the Kyoto Protocol, binding themselves to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite United States rejection of the treaty. It is irresponsible to acknowledge the dangers of global warming without taking meaningful efforts to slow its progress. Compared to what happened on a single day in September, without administrative action, the costs of global warming will be incomprehensible.
John Seebeth
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....html/95571
******************
GLOBAL WARMING: Favors fossil fuel more
King County Journal
2002-07-11
Despite campaign promises to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the Bush administration has recently announced the most massive rollback of the Clean Air Act in history. Under the new rules, the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants and refineries are allowed to expand — and increase emissions — without having to add anti-pollution equipment now required by law to control smog, acid rain and soot.
This follows the president’s denigration of his own administration’s climate action report which echoed the National Academy of Sciences’ warning that global warming poses a significant threat.
While the planet warms at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, it’s business as usual at the White House. In June, President Bush reaffirmed Washington’s support to build a pipeline in war-torn countries.
Since the Bush Administration holds a higher regard for fossil fuel corporations than the research of American scientists, cities and states are beginning to take their own action against global warming, like California’s innovative legislation requiring a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in vehicles by 2009.
John Seebeth
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....html/98346
*******************
GLOBAL WARMING: Time to pay attention to this
2004-02-16
King County Journal
Letter to editor
Above all else, the duty of government is to protect the security of its people.
For years, world-respected scientists have warned policymakers of pollution-driven changes in weather patterns. Because their forecasts involve tremendous economic impacts to corporate America, climate change research has become a political football, and public misconceptions abound.
Most people do not understand that global warming means global chilling, too. Ferocious storms, hotter, dryer summers, and longer, colder winters are part of the extreme weather patterns associated with global warming.
Variation in ocean currents is a fingerprint of global warming, and new research from Britain, Canada and the United States has uncovered the largest and most dramatic oceanic change ever measured. The circulation of the North Atlantic/Gulf Stream is breaking down because of a warming-generated change in water salinity.
Samples of polar ice cores indicate that such breakdowns of the Gulf Stream occurred in the past, and when they did, abrupt climate change followed. Within decades, parts of Europe and North America turned into the climate of Labrador with farmland turning to tundra and winter temperatures dropping below -20 Celsius.
Sudden loss of farmland and water supplies have historically caused mass migrations in search of resources. Given the option of starving or raiding, humans will raid.
There is no doubt among the credible scientific community that human-created pollution is exacerbating climate change. It is high time for the Bush administration to give this critically important issue the attention it rightly deserves.
John Seebeth
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....tml/156342
Note all of Green Thumb’s assumptions and then judge for yourself:
Green Thumb assumes that all progressives must be progressive to the same degree and that I’m automatically a right wing nut, just because I don’t agree with every single point of his agenda.
Nevermind that I cite the same RealClimate Site as a place to go for informed climate debate, but where many scientists debate the need for alarmism.
Also note the Green Thumb automatically assumes that anyone who disagrees with the absolute conclusion that Global Warming poses an immediate threat necessitating an alarmist response is automatically considered a stooge for big oil, regardless of the degree to which they are credentialed or the rational significance of their arguments.
Green Thumb also assumes that all big oil is evil and with a hidden conspiratorial agenda. Nevermind that 100 years of reliance on oil have created an oil demand, and that many legitimate products that are quite important, even in the life of an ardant Global Warmng believer are made from oil and delivered by oil. Is lessening our dependence on oil a good thing? Absolutely. Is burning less fossill fuel a good thing, absolutely. But must all oil be vilified and all contrarian debate in the degree of any real danger that Global Warming poses be systematically shut out? No. In the real world there are a limited set of financial and political resources. My argument is simply that we’d be better off using those limited resources on more immediate and tangible issues. And yes, progressive issues.
Green Thumb knows nothing about me. Knows nothing of my views on other issues, but Green Thumb is content that dismissal is a legitimate form of argument.
So who’s the real danger both to informed debate, and to progressives?
There’s a good article on Al Gore in the May 29 edition of “New York” magazine. In it, Gore talks about going to a meeting of venture capitalists to look at business ideas than can be invested in. Some are called mature, some maturing, some past their prime, as well as a category called predawn. Relating his story to global warming ‘Gore laughs, “I thought, Oh, that’s where I went wrong”‘.
Expecting a politician to keep with a predawn idea in the midst of criticism from his major city’s largest newspaper throughout the same extended time period that saw Al Gore turned into a cartoon character is a bit much to expect. Gore was also accused of abandoning his envionmental credentials.
But, criticism is due the media, who basically ignored Al Gore’s campaign speeches on the environment in 2000.
One Gore aide recalled him giving a speech in Philadelphia “the most comprehnsive anti-fossil-fuel program ever” $150 billion over ten years. The New York Times covered the speech on page A24.
But, good for you, John, for helping get the idea out of the predawn.
82.
Give it up, Seattle Mom, we know where your spew comes from (even if you don’t,) and we ain’t buyin’ it.
[Stone] Phillips: How long before you believe this country could be energy independent if it switched to homegrown bushels instead of imported barrels?
[Vinod] Khosla: I think you’ll be surprised by my answer. In less than five years, we can irreversibly start a path that can get us independent of petroleum.
A simple solution to pain at the pump?
Fine, dismiss. But you are ignoring reality if you think the average voter is really all that concerned with Global Warming. At minimum, even the most extreme doomsday scenarios are 10 to 20 years out. Don’t believe me. Go read it at realclimate. Many of the scientists who are fully convinced that there is Global Warming, and the subset of those who are convinced that it’s overwhelmingly caused by man, still don’t advocate alarmist politics. You can’t dismiss that fact. There is no general consesus amongst any scientists that there is an immediate threat. It’s an uphill political battle.
Tuttle, so you are convinced of Global Warming, but your solution is Ethanol? A substituion for Gaolsine won’t do a thing to reduce the production of CO2. Burning Ethanol creates CO2 and Water. And actually, water absorbs more heat than CO2 in the atmosphere. Read about it at RealClimate. So if you believe that CO2 is the root cause of Global Warming, assuming that consumption for gasoline engines remains roughly the same, Ethanol is not going to stop Global Warming. Are you intrested in an informed debate, or are you like Green Thumb, willing to dismiss anything you don’t like to hear?
Be realistic people!!! Pull your heads out of your asses and realize that not everyone is some ex-hippie post-modernist with delusions of living in communes or villages and recycling our birkenstocks. We live in a 21st Century, commericial and industrial nation. We CREATED cars, and trains, and airplanes, and cell phones, and laptops, and radio towers, and freeways, AND THE VIADUCT so that our society could advance – so that we could do things faster, better, stronger, with more productivity, with less effort, with more efficiency. Instead, you morons want to go backwards! You want to DEVOLVE modern society! What the hell is wrong with you!?
Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Do you NOT see how absolutely insane and idiotic you sound? I’m not saying that to be hurtful, I’m saying it because I sincerely believe that you are either wholly ignorant about the world around you, or you are out of your mind. WAKE UP people! See the reality of the world around you!
If you WANT to go live in a cave – please do. The rest of us want to live normal lives enjoying the fruits of a productive and society.
And the real kick in the head are sanctimonious assholes like Kerry, Kennedy who KNOW a windfarm would do some good – but oh no not in their precious backyard. Or Hypocrite Al with his private planes zipping him cross country and limo’s driving him 4 damned blocks from his hotel to his screech fest. Or Babs the bitch telling all the peon the hang thjeir laundry to dry. Well I’ll tell ya BitchBabs, this family does that year round and has been doing that year round for close to 27 damned years. The ‘knowbetter’ pricks, aka liberals, of all stripes sure are good about telling the underlings beneath them (how to live) while they ignore their own sanctimony. Well when Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, BabsBitch et al start taking the train, bus and moped then they can lecture the rest of us, when they give up their multiple houses the size of stadiums and their fleets of gas guzzlers, then they can lecture the rest of us.
Al want to make an impact: lead by example, jerk.
PierPaolo Cazzola, an energy analyst at the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
Cazzola said sugarcane ethanol has “large potential to reduce C02 emissions,” up to 80 or 90 percent.
re 88: …and the Kool-Aid drunk Bushistas who are not as smart as a rat on a sinking ship are left to do battle with straw men of their own creation. We do not wear Birkenstocks and tie-die, we sell them to the socially inept young Republicans of yesteryear who pathetically try to attach themselves to the tail of a comet that long ago left for the future. After all, the Stones song 2000 Man was released in the late 60’s and I will et my remaining pair of Kalso shoes that you have not heard it.
Turtle, you are an idiot.
What produces CO2? YOU you fool. Eevery living being that BREATHES produces CO2 as it is the byproduct OF BREATHING!
And golly gosh gee whiz, guess what… every damned bit of vegetation surrounding you USES THAT CO2 to thrive, to purify the OXYGEN that you then GET TO BREAthe again.
Seattle mom: That’s excellent “branding.” Warm, caring — the kind of person you can trust to take care of the kids and tell the truth about global warming science.
You are right — I know nothing about you except what I read here. I haven’t seen you often on this blog. Maybe you are what you imply you are — a concerned mom with no axe to grind. Or maybe you’re just another professional troll who uses a variety of names at the blogs you are assigned to monitor and spin.
What ARE your credentials on this issue? Do you participate here as part of your job that does lobbying directly or indirectly for a go-slow approach to global warming?
Your rhetorical approach continues to suggest that you are not as independent minded as you suggest. For example, you present the canard that I demand some type of uniformity regarding global warming policy. Horse shit. There is much to debate. All I ask is that it be done honestly rather than polluted by industry-originated disinformation.
As a case in point, I do not think you are offering an accurate assessment of the scientific majority regarding how quickly global warming may occur.
I also noticed that you also are silent on the role of the fossil fuel industry in funding an expensive disinformation campaign. Do you consider such efforts acceptable, particularly when it taints scientific research?
Only For the Common People
Streisand had urged her fans to save energy by using less gas, setting air conditioners at 78 degrees, handing laundry outside and so on, Yet she uses SUV’s, limos and private jets, air conditions an unoccupied 16 room apartment and of course does not hang her laundry. When questioned about this, her spokesperson said:
QUOTE
“She never meant that it necessarily applied to her.”
No damned kidding, another liberal poster child for ‘do as I say, not as I do.’
A cellulosic ethanol industry based on warm season grasses, unlike the grain ethanol industry, offers significant potential for C02 reduction. Energy crop production from C4 perennial grasses will increase carbon storage compared to current land use by increasing above and below ground biomass and soil organic matter levels. C02 emissions will be reduced substantially compared to a fossil fuel based industry because switchgrass is a renewable feedstock with a high energy output/input ratio and because lignin (the byproduct of the cellulosic conversion) is used as an internal energy source for the conversion process.
SWITCHGRASS: A POTENTIAL BIOMASS ENERGY CROP
FOR ETHANOL PRODUCTION
Roger A. SamsonI and Joseph A. Omielan2
‘Executive Director and 2 Research Scientist, Resource Efficient Agricultural
Production (REAP)-Canada,
Box 125, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 3V9
Yeah evilfuckingchristionistbitch-
“She never meant that it necessarily applied to her.”
et tu?
Proud, why don’t you save us all time and do a once-and-for all download of your industry talking points?
Better yet, why even bother? Your arguments have no credibility here.
You’ve already amply proven you’re a moron rugrat, go away.
I see you don’t defend ‘ol’ do as I say not as I do Al’ there greennie. Let him live it then I’ll think about his .. campaign gimmick… er, bandwagon.
@92, you really are a whining ass. Everybody knows that “fact”. The point is are we creating an imbalance or “too much” CO2 which will have an impact on the climate, and what shape that impact will take.
You repeatedly say you desire a debate, and then you do all the usual wingnut things to derail a real discussion.
Typical wingnttery tactic…..not suprising, really.
Proud, the problem with discussing this subject with you is you present the arguments of a 13 year old. They are really lame.
For example, your arguments are primarily grounded in the the smear. You seem to think that if you can point out a contradiction in the behavior of one or two Democratic leaders that this destroys the entire argument that major policy action is needed on global warming.
That’s hopelessly bad logic. Of course, you don’t seem to care about that. Your goal isn’t dialogue, it is disinformation. Do you get paid well for you work?
…..and limo’s driving him 4 damned blocks from his hotel to his screech fest.
Said assertion is a damnned fucking lie, and you know it. Your hypocricy is truly pathetic. Truly.
“You’ve already amply proven you’re a moron rugrat, go away.”
More cogent analysis from the evilfuckingchristionistbitch.
Woo Fucking Hoo.
9 years, 246 days 7 hours and 33 min till Big Al’s World Destruction!
What we’re seeing on this thread is a snapshot of what will be the propaganda campaign against Gore over the next year or so. The basic challenge for advocates of climate-friendly policies is to aggressively respond to smears and disinformation without getting side tracked.
I frankly don’t know how that can be done gracefully. Perhaps we’ll get some practice on this blog.
Actually P’Ass, read about his limo trip in Cannes just last week… 4 blocks to the festival venue in a limo, but oh the concerned one DID deign to walk across the street for another lecture. Denial seems to be your only strong point, sweetcheeks.
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that “liberals” will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists.
Proud, how much money do you make spinning blogs? Who do you work for? Where do you get your talking points?
The problem with the whole global warming movement is that it isn’t science – it’s ideology. The doctrine that global warming is being caused by man is a given for this movement, and evidence to the contrary is being systematically ignored or brushed aside. Recently a group of Canadian scientists have put together a documentary dissenting from the global warming line, but Canadian broadcasters won’t touch it.
Science isn’t about condemning and brushing aside dissenting opinions. Yet the scientific community’s political ideologies routinely cause them to dismiss contrary evidence on the issue of global warming. That isn’t science, it’s religion, and the cult of global warming seems to have found many disciples among those who normally pride themselves for their rationality.
And tell us oh wise greenie, how is it in 30 short years we went from the “threat” of an oncoming ice age (I must have missed that one!) to completely opposite “threat” of global warming… all by the very same guys that can’t tell us whether we need rain shoes or sunblock for a wedding the week after next.
Proud, answer the question: How much do you get paid spinning blogs? Who do you work for? Where do you get your talking points?
Until you answer these questions your credibility is nil.
Not since the days of Schiavo has ASS raged this hard on a topic.
The denial and swallowing whole of right-wing propaganda is so sad.
You tell em Clueless. We dems have been warning everyone since the 60’s that the world was going to end. Now that the world population had double does anybody listen to us, nooo. The repubs just continue to spew their BS. Keep on message clueless. Courage Clueless, courage.
Mr. Cynical keeps wondering: Where is Roger Rabbit? Here are two possibilities.
1) He hopped out into a roadway and was crushed by a redneck driving a jacked-up truck.
2) He has resurfaced as “Green Thumb”
I was hoping for the former, but alas, there is no Karma.
Proud, answer the question: How much do you get paid spinning blogs? Who do you work for? Where do you get your talking points?
Until you answer these questions your credibility is nil. -Commentby Green Thumb— 5/27/06@ 5:39 pm
You know greenie, you were bordering on plausibility, you had me this ‘ close to giving your words a bit of credence…
…but then you pulled the above a rugrat boner statement and showed your true hand.
Nice try.
Ol’ howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS the evilfuckingchristionistbitch has got her knickers in a knot over Global
Warming Aaaaand Gay Marriage.
What a maroon.
Hey rug-idiot… I’m kinda wondering… what exactly IS a christionist?
LMAO Rugrat you never fail to impress with your utter inanity and natural stupidity! Really, sweetcheeks, get your vocab book out and STUDY.
So how’s that blog going rugrat – get a 2nd hit yet… since 2004? {snicker}
So Proud, how come you can’t answer a simple question? I take it that is because you ARE a professional troll.
A word to the wise: If you’re going to be more effective you need to do a better job of distancing yourself from your affiliations, e.g., that was silly to link to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Do you honestly think we’re going to take such an link seriously? Really?
You might learn a trick or two from Seattle Mom. She actually did a pretty sophisticated job of mixing industry spin with “progressive” memes.
You, on the other hand, seem to be on auto-pilot. If I were your supervisor I’d be on your case to show more creativity in coopting the group norms.
So greenie, how predictible that you fell right into #1 and #9 of the liberal rules for arguing…
1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother — or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument — everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he’s doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Dittohead (meaning he’s a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell “Republican” and “America” with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK — but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.
#9: Play the Hate
How do you know your opponent hates you? Why, by his attacks on you, of course! Yes, even when he pretends to frame his attacks as questions, like “do you know a better way to stop terrorism other than by going after countries that support them?” what he’s REALLY saying is ” You’re stupid! I hate you!” When he says “Don’t you think Saddam was a bad person?” or “What’s your plan for fighting terrorism, then?” it’s easy to see that what he’s really saying is “YOU’RE a bad person! I hope you die!”
Okay, Proud, so you’ve got double speak down. Notice, however, that you’ve continued to completely dodge all of my points. Every single one of them. By dodging them, you allow the questions surrounding your credibility to fester and grow. Do you really want to do that?
Now, once more with feeling, are you paid to monitor and spin blogs? If so, who do you work for? How much do you get paid? Who gives you your talking points?
If you aren’t a paid troll all you have to do is say it.
(Then start acting the part ot avoid suspicion.)
GreenDumb: Framing an argument where there is no flip-side answer doesn’t make you look any better. I wouldn’t answer your tirade either. Therefor, her decision to IGNORE your rant doesn’t make HowCanProudASS look any worse than you each and every time you write on ASSes!
I believe there will be global warming because God says so. The first of the last plagues of Revelation will be heat. Now that’s the God written truth from John.
Rabbit Pellet is that Alberto Goridiot guy who claims he’s Portuguese. Hey Alberto Goridiot; maybe that’s Al Gore’s new Portuguese name.
Alberto Goridiot: WTF is Susan Kennedy? A lover of yours? Susan Kennedy of Gray-out Davis fame?
Puddybud, do you have a logical point in there at all? If so, what is it? When you say “her,” who are you talking about? What is the flip-side answer you are referring to?
If you want a real conversation then you need to be clear about what you are talking about. Unless you don’t, in which case, maybe you and Proud should go out for a drink.
Damn Green Thumb you are really STUPID.
Her – HowcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS
You – Dumb as they come! Maybe as dumb as rudejacks and donnastuckgedstupiddon!
Argument – The one shot down by Seattle Mom using your own web site!
Flip-side answer – The converse to your “argument”! Oops… you don’t have an “argument” anymore. Seattle Mom used your “web site” to dismiss your “argument” You lose!!!
GreenDumb: Maybe a good nights rest will do you some good. Visit Rosy Palm. She will put your mind at ease!!!!!
Puddy, you are really quite the asshole, aren’t you. What’s funny about your rejoinder is that there’s no “there” to your argument. It’s all unadultered bullying.
For all of the frothing of you, Proud and your friend “Seattle Mom,” you haven’t addressed any of the substantive questions yet. What that suggests is that you’ve got nothing but spin.
Maybe you best call it a night.
Undeniable Global Warming
By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07
Washington Post
Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It’s time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords “global climate change.” Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
To be sure, a handful of scientists have raised questions about the details of climate models, about the accuracy of methods for evaluating past global temperatures and about the wisdom of even attempting to predict the future. But this is quibbling about the details. The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment — a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States — now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models. This information was conveyed to the U.S. Senate last month not by a radical environmentalist, as was recently alleged on the Web, but by Robert Corell, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation.
So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics — most of whom are not even scientists — have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as “religious belief.” To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a “belief” to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.
The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.
The writer is an associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California.
“Don’t believe me. Go read it at realclimate. Many of the scientists who are fully convinced that there is Global Warming, and the subset of those who are convinced that it’s overwhelmingly caused by man, still don’t advocate alarmist politics. You can’t dismiss that fact. There is no general consesus amongst any scientists that there is an immediate threat. It’s an uphill political battle.”
Commentby Seattle Mom— 5/27/06@ 3:57 pm
FYI, “Seattle Mom”: Realclimate doesn’t “advocate” ANYTHING on the policy side. That website focuses exclusively on science. You would know that if you actually spent time reading the site. Furthermore, if you spent any time in the scientific literature you would also know that there IS a “consensus” on the science. Pretty much the only folks who challenge that concensus have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. If you disagree with that last point, I challenge you to prove me wrong. (Please dig a little deeper than you’ve previously done.)
I do agree with you on one thing: The public has not considered global warming a top-tier issue. It will take great effort, and perhaps a few more major disasters, for that to change. It is also true that any great change in a polity’s consciousness does take time — look how long it took for civil rights to become an accepted norm in the south.
That said, I would strongly argue that you are misconstruing the science on the seriousness of global warming. If you want to make a purely political argument, fine. But you’re on thin ice when you move too far into the scientific realm.
Rufus: Sorry cuz; I was in the cloakroom answering GreenDumb. Uncle Teddy told me to blog from here so the enviros could not find me for comment regarding his latest amendment stopping the Mass wind farm project!
GreenDumb: Thanks for calling me your family nick. Now I feel much better your argument is so strong you refer to name calling. Is there anything else you want to vent today? Do you have more to write? Do you feel better now?
Greendumb: On the Internet there are plenty of studies and reports being supressed from publication by the Warming goons (your good friends) that flip-side every source you provide. The truth is many of the computer predictions are faulty. People are guessing at their reasons. Alberto Goridiot stretches some points to make people agitated!
Why is there a growing concensus that air pollution reductions over the last few decades is responsible for the global warming? HowcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS discussed this. They cannot predict today’s conditions from historical projections. How ironic. How sad. How funny. How stupid. As I said before God will implement global warming as His first plague before Jesus returns! Read Revelation GreenDumb!
Check some of these out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....world.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=183
http://www.opendemocracy.net/d.....9-2490.jsp
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/
LOL
Sure, there are lots of nuts who can’t get published, or fear being published in peer-reviewed journals.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
What a maroon.
GIMMEE A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sims was born in Spokane, Washington. He graduated from Lewis and Clark High School and attended Central Washington University in Ellensburg, where he earned a B.A. in “psychology”.
SIMS has an undergraduate degree from CENTRAL WASHINGTON IN friggin’ PSYCHOLOGY!!!!!!!!
Show me where in his vast resume, Sims has become an expert in GLOBAL WARMING???
How much HARD SCIENCE did Ron take to get his CWU PSYCHOLOGY degree??!!!
You KLOWNS remind me of what Andy Griffith used to say to Barney Fife………”you beat everything, you know that!!”
The writer is an associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California. -Commentby Green Thumb— 5/27/06@ 11:57 pm
Right.
History… even associate professor is pretty self explainatory…even for someone like rugat.
But let’s explore “Program of Science Studies”, shall we…. “AN INTERDISCIPLINARY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN HISTORY. PHILOSOPHY, SOCIOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE“… so basically, they are experts about the FIELD of science, NOT SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS.
And that sterling resume qualifies him/her/it to pontificate on supposed global warming… how exactly?
Give me a damned break and try again, greeenie