So you're saying that the "consensus" only exists because the dissenting opinions aren't welcome???
Well then that settles it. The discussion is over! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!! Stop looking at algore, i mean that man behind the curtain!
Fair enough, Inhofe's not a scientist, just as Al Gore isnt but I dont see what that has to with anything considering that besides publishing the article on his website, he didnt write it, its not about him and hes not one of the scientists that are arguing against the "consensus" .... so once again I must ask, what does your ad hominem attack have to do with anything?
We illustrate that their is no consensus, that the science is not settled, that there is conflicting evidence against man made global warming and what do and your side do?
Well you... attack the 2nd ranking Senator on the EPW on strictly POLITICAL grounds as you yet again ignore the science.
Your side.... attempt to silence dissenting views.
You and your liberal ilk's pathetic and transparent need to feel all warm and fuzzy inside will result in policies that hurt people -- actually destroy lives and indusrty -- but so long as your conscience is clear I dont suppose that matters all that much to y'all.
Liberalism has failed in every way imaginable, you cant teach children 2+2=4....what makes you now think it can save the planet?
... and make no bones about it, global warming is a "liberal issue" and the "cures" are rooted in socialism.
Inhofe has as much to do with this story as The Aurora does. He just copied and pasted it on his blog.
Anita, when i said pay no attention to the man behind the curtain i was being facetious, i didn't actually think you would listen to me!! ahahahahahahaha
Neither Inhofe or Gore are climate scientists, but then neither are Monckton or Evans. Also Donkey, you still can't seem to accept that a consensus does not have to be unanimous. The global warming consensus is over 90%. Linking to the small minority of dissenters does not mean that there is not a consensus. Perhaps you should look the word up in a dictionary.
rhinoculous, i always listen to you. and then, typically, i say ... pshawwwwwwwwwwww.
will you guys ever acknowledge that IT'S A GOOD IDEA IN GENERAL to 1) work towards the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly foreign fossil fuels; and 2) to set an example to other (SWIFTLY) developing countries such as china and india that they, too, should follow suit; and 3) that innovation is ALWAYS a good thing and if innovation creates new and diversified markets for alternative energies that THAT IS A GOOD THING ?????????????
Funny how this subject brings out the morons but not surprising as this is one subject where facts have absolute no value and herd mentality rules.
Anita you must not pay attention. You cant cite one example of when The Aurora has ever taken positions contrary to those you mention. There is a big fucking difference between being responsible stewards of the planet and hiding behind a cloak of "consensus" care for mother earth as the elites behind it get richer of the chicken littles and write new laws to further their socialist agenda...and oh yeah get richer still.
There is not one fucking iota of proof that man is causing global warming in fact most evidence is to the contrary but like most subjects the truth is not nearly as important as ideology to your kind.
Its just flat out retarded and in 30 yrs when Im debating some hippie I will cite it as indictitive of their jackassery just as I can go back and cite all the scaremongering frauds of the past.
Use your head and think for yourself, deep down you know its a crock but youve been brainwashed into thinking youd be a bad person if you admit it.
I think it IS her fault, and everyone elses fault who doesn't think for themselves. Seriously, with the advent of the internet, and cable tv, and talk radio etc. there's really no excuse anymore to just accept the shit you're being fed if it doesn't taste good.
20 - 30 years ago when you could only get your info from walter cronkite and the ny slimes you had an excuse to believe that the tet offensive was a defeat for the U.S. but today, if you believe the bullshit from katie couric, even though it doesn't really make sense, then you deserve to be called a dumbass.
Global warming is not a liberal issue, it's an elitist issue. Liberals supposedly care about others. Of course, I have only noticed that they care about brutal Black criminals, and themselves, with all their Yoga and self help garbage. For the most part they hate their fellow man. They hate people who drive SUV's, have children, practice Christianity, eat meat, vote Republican, use plastic bags or styrofoam, etc. One thing is for sure, they be luvin on animals they never even see, except in pics.
My relatives in Northern California actually live in the woods. They have lived there all their lives. They are respectful stewards of their land. When the "save the spotted owl" movement started taking jobs away from the lumber workers, my relatives got mad. They said power guys were driving around cutting off the power to lumber workers' homes in the dead of winter. They tied yellow ribbons on their cars in protest.
My relatives have always loved living in the woods, but they supported the lumber workers. Why? because, as my aunt put it, when you have to choose between owls(if it really was an issue) and whether the lumber workers' children eat, you choose the children, hands down.
Environmentalists always choose the owls. Now they are choosing the polar bears. Most of the people who are worried about the polar bears will never see one anyway.
I am damn glad that grizzlies are extinct here in California. I would never go camping, hiking or fishing if they were not. I fucking hate grizzly bears! Now all I have to worry about is getting bit in the ass by a coyote or eaten by a puma.
The truth is, the places I go hiking at, I never, ever see Blacks or Mexicans or Asians. My Black friends run around and scream if they see a bug. They think sitting on the floor is a filthy habit. They do not like camping or hiking or animals. Only white liberals or right-wing conservative fishermen and hunters or some few Blacks who grew up in rural areas, spend time in the even semi-wilderness, much less true nature.
Which do you think the minorities would prefer, housing developments or hiking areas?
Oh, au contraire miss c. global warming is not an 'elitist' issue. the fact that there are rich people (as well as not so rich) who are the "faces" of the issue, the fact is that it is poor people and communities, ones that are least responsible for causing climate change, who are bearing the brunt of its impacts — from droughts to floods to diseases.
rich folks will be able to buy clean water, have secure homes, and buy food from any part of the world that can supply it. poor nations will not.
If this was indeed a real an imminent threat then where are all the grand schemes to combat it?
Considering that there is a consensus of the best and the brightest in scientific community that climatic armaggedon is ni then what do they propose to do about it..... what are their scientific solutions to solve this crisis that is making grown men cry?
Ill tell you what they plan to do.... tax the rich. Thats it. Tax the rich.
A consortium of the worlds leaders - political and scientific - recently convened in Bali (New York was too cold) to tackle this life or death question and what did they come up with after a few weeks of fun in the sun?
Tax the rich.
No alternate fule initiatives, no plans to develop a sort of pseudo reverse photosynthesis to break down the evil co2 before it enters the atmosphere, no bold scientific solutions..... just tax the rich, thats it.
(So if youve seen a polar bear (in the flesh) then you are obviously aware that they can swim, because that fact seems to be lost on the awww poor baby look at the little wittle bear all alone in the water save the polar bear types -- not to mention that their numbers are growing)
the "taxes" of which you speak will be imposed on most people, not just the rich.
and, if the "rich" (meaning the heads of car companies, oil companies and the like) had had some foresight and made research and development investments long ago into lower-emissions vehicles and fuel alternatives, they may very well have been on the cutting edge at this point. but no, instead they are fighting for their lives and disseminating mis-information about climate change. THAT is the elitist side. the side that says no change to our current lifestyles, no sacrifice, let's just stay in the 1950's.
Actually by rich I meant the United States of America.
and you, Anita, are not on her side.
Car companies are only fighting for their lives because of the death grip that unions have put on them, and last time I checked the oil companies are doing just fine.
But more importantly... once again I make an excellent point and once again you dodge it in favor of blaming some boogeyman.
I will take man made global warming as serious as the UN, which is not very at all.
i don't think the union has much input into where available research and development dollars and marketing dollars are spent. its not the union's fault that the industry has focused on fuel hogs like suv's and escalades and hummers. as the price of gas goes up, the more average joe american can't afford to put gas in his car, the more obvious it is that american car companies have totally missed the boat because everybody's buying hondas and subarus. and that, as well, o. donkey, is not the fault of the unions.
... but it is no coincidence that the two stellar examples of auto excellence are largely unburdened by union extortion.
Have the big three lagged in innovation? Well anyone that has seen Michael Keatons thespiatic tour de force as Hunt Stevenson in the definitive automobile industry docu-drama... Gung Ho could have told you that, and their market share has suffered accordingly.
The unions are not the only problem but they are a pretty fucking big part of it.
However whats most troubling about your argument is, well the same as it always is -- the weakened liberal no self accountability victimization mentality. It is not the auto industry's fault that people drive evil SUV and Hummers, its the consumers.... PERIOD!
Same goes with the people that bought off more than they can chew on home purchases and are now defaulting.
Nobody forced anybody to drive a gas guzzler or buy homes outside their means and if they cant afford to fill up the tank or pay their mortage well sorry to say but... FUCK THEM!
Heres the thing, your types get a hardon for a particular boogeyman and you focusfire all your vitriol on them which prevents you from seeing outside the box and thinking for yourself.
You look into the future and see thirsty kids in Africa and you blame the oil companies and you blame the auto industry because thats all you know how to do.... but what about the water industry? Just like oil, bottled water is at all time highs as well, why not propose a tax on Poland Springs? I would have still disagreed with you but at least Id give you credit for not being a sheep repeating the same old tired mantras that Bush is evil Big Oil is evil blah blah fucking blah.
One of your redeeming qualities is that I think you care, but Ill tell you what... you keep trying to convince me otherwise with these cookie cutter straight off of moveon.org arguments.
Happy Hannukah.
... and another thing, fuck the thirsty kids in Afirca too. Even the Caribou has the sense to migrate to greener pastures when the water dries up.
17 comments:
So you're saying that the "consensus" only exists because the dissenting opinions aren't welcome???
Well then that settles it. The discussion is over! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!! Stop looking at algore, i mean that man behind the curtain!
i can't take james inhofe seriously. sorry guys. i think he should be like the scarecrow and try to get a brain.
Fair enough, Inhofe's not a scientist, just as Al Gore isnt but I dont see what that has to with anything considering that besides publishing the article on his website, he didnt write it, its not about him and hes not one of the scientists that are arguing against the "consensus" .... so once again I must ask, what does your ad hominem attack have to do with anything?
We illustrate that their is no consensus, that the science is not settled, that there is conflicting evidence against man made global warming and what do and your side do?
Well you... attack the 2nd ranking Senator on the EPW on strictly POLITICAL grounds as you yet again ignore the science.
Your side.... attempt to silence dissenting views.
You and your liberal ilk's pathetic and transparent need to feel all warm and fuzzy inside will result in policies that hurt people -- actually destroy lives and indusrty -- but so long as your conscience is clear I dont suppose that matters all that much to y'all.
Liberalism has failed in every way imaginable, you cant teach children 2+2=4....what makes you now think it can save the planet?
... and make no bones about it, global warming is a "liberal issue" and the "cures" are rooted in socialism.
End of fucking story.
Yeah that's kind of funny.
Inhofe has as much to do with this story as The Aurora does. He just copied and pasted it on his blog.
Anita, when i said pay no attention to the man behind the curtain i was being facetious, i didn't actually think you would listen to me!! ahahahahahahaha
Neither Inhofe or Gore are climate scientists, but then neither are Monckton or Evans. Also Donkey, you still can't seem to accept that a consensus does not have to be unanimous. The global warming consensus is over 90%. Linking to the small minority of dissenters does not mean that there is not a consensus. Perhaps you should look the word up in a dictionary.
rhinoculous, i always listen to you. and then, typically, i say ... pshawwwwwwwwwwww.
will you guys ever acknowledge that IT'S A GOOD IDEA IN GENERAL to 1) work towards the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly foreign fossil fuels; and 2) to set an example to other (SWIFTLY) developing countries such as china and india that they, too, should follow suit; and 3) that innovation is ALWAYS a good thing and if innovation creates new and diversified markets for alternative energies that THAT IS A GOOD THING ?????????????
Funny how this subject brings out the morons but not surprising as this is one subject where facts have absolute no value and herd mentality rules.
Anita you must not pay attention. You cant cite one example of when The Aurora has ever taken positions contrary to those you mention. There is a big fucking difference between being responsible stewards of the planet and hiding behind a cloak of "consensus" care for mother earth as the elites behind it get richer of the chicken littles and write new laws to further their socialist agenda...and oh yeah get richer still.
There is not one fucking iota of proof that man is causing global warming in fact most evidence is to the contrary but like most subjects the truth is not nearly as important as ideology to your kind.
Its just flat out retarded and in 30 yrs when Im debating some hippie I will cite it as indictitive of their jackassery just as I can go back and cite all the scaremongering frauds of the past.
Use your head and think for yourself, deep down you know its a crock but youve been brainwashed into thinking youd be a bad person if you admit it.
Its not your fault, seriously its not your fault.
I think it IS her fault, and everyone elses fault who doesn't think for themselves. Seriously, with the advent of the internet, and cable tv, and talk radio etc. there's really no excuse anymore to just accept the shit you're being fed if it doesn't taste good.
20 - 30 years ago when you could only get your info from walter cronkite and the ny slimes you had an excuse to believe that the tet offensive was a defeat for the U.S. but today, if you believe the bullshit from katie couric, even though it doesn't really make sense, then you deserve to be called a dumbass.
Dumbass!
I stand corrected. It is your fault.
Global warming is not a liberal issue, it's an elitist issue. Liberals supposedly care about others. Of course, I have only noticed that they care about brutal Black criminals, and themselves, with all their Yoga and self help garbage. For the most part they hate their fellow man. They hate people who drive SUV's, have children, practice Christianity, eat meat, vote Republican, use plastic bags or styrofoam, etc. One thing is for sure, they be luvin on animals they never even see, except in pics.
My relatives in Northern California actually live in the woods. They have lived there all their lives. They are respectful stewards of their land. When the "save the spotted owl" movement started taking jobs away from the lumber workers, my relatives got mad. They said power guys were driving around cutting off the power to lumber workers' homes in the dead of winter. They tied yellow ribbons on their cars in protest.
My relatives have always loved living in the woods, but they supported the lumber workers. Why? because, as my aunt put it, when you have to choose between owls(if it really was an issue) and whether the lumber workers' children eat, you choose the children, hands down.
Environmentalists always choose the owls. Now they are choosing the polar bears. Most of the people who are worried about the polar bears will never see one anyway.
I am damn glad that grizzlies are extinct here in California. I would never go camping, hiking or fishing if they were not. I fucking hate grizzly bears! Now all I have to worry about is getting bit in the ass by a coyote or eaten by a puma.
The truth is, the places I go hiking at, I never, ever see Blacks or Mexicans or Asians. My Black friends run around and scream if they see a bug. They think sitting on the floor is a filthy habit. They do not like camping or hiking or animals. Only white liberals or right-wing conservative fishermen and hunters or some few Blacks who grew up in rural areas, spend time in the even semi-wilderness, much less true nature.
Which do you think the minorities would prefer, housing developments or hiking areas?
i've seen a polar bear. yup. in the flesh.
Oh, au contraire miss c. global warming is not an 'elitist' issue. the fact that there are rich people (as well as not so rich) who are the "faces" of the issue, the fact is that it is poor people and communities, ones that are least responsible for causing climate change, who are bearing the brunt of its impacts — from droughts to floods to diseases.
rich folks will be able to buy clean water, have secure homes, and buy food from any part of the world that can supply it. poor nations will not.
If this was indeed a real an imminent threat then where are all the grand schemes to combat it?
Considering that there is a consensus of the best and the brightest in scientific community that climatic armaggedon is ni then what do they propose to do about it..... what are their scientific solutions to solve this crisis that is making grown men cry?
Ill tell you what they plan to do.... tax the rich. Thats it. Tax the rich.
A consortium of the worlds leaders - political and scientific - recently convened in Bali (New York was too cold) to tackle this life or death question and what did they come up with after a few weeks of fun in the sun?
Tax the rich.
No alternate fule initiatives, no plans to develop a sort of pseudo reverse photosynthesis to break down the evil co2 before it enters the atmosphere, no bold scientific solutions..... just tax the rich, thats it.
(So if youve seen a polar bear (in the flesh) then you are obviously aware that they can swim, because that fact seems to be lost on the awww poor baby look at the little wittle bear all alone in the water save the polar bear types -- not to mention that their numbers are growing)
the "taxes" of which you speak will be imposed on most people, not just the rich.
and, if the "rich" (meaning the heads of car companies, oil companies and the like) had had some foresight and made research and development investments long ago into lower-emissions vehicles and fuel alternatives, they may very well have been on the cutting edge at this point. but no, instead they are fighting for their lives and disseminating mis-information about climate change. THAT is the elitist side. the side that says no change to our current lifestyles, no sacrifice, let's just stay in the 1950's.
and you, o.donkey, are on their side.
sad. very sad.
Actually by rich I meant the United States of America.
and you, Anita, are not on her side.
Car companies are only fighting for their lives because of the death grip that unions have put on them, and last time I checked the oil companies are doing just fine.
But more importantly... once again I make an excellent point and once again you dodge it in favor of blaming some boogeyman.
I will take man made global warming as serious as the UN, which is not very at all.
i don't think the union has much input into where available research and development dollars and marketing dollars are spent. its not the union's fault that the industry has focused on fuel hogs like suv's and escalades and hummers. as the price of gas goes up, the more average joe american can't afford to put gas in his car, the more obvious it is that american car companies have totally missed the boat because everybody's buying hondas and subarus. and that, as well, o. donkey, is not the fault of the unions.
Who said anything about input?
... but it is no coincidence that the two stellar examples of auto excellence are largely unburdened by union extortion.
Have the big three lagged in innovation? Well anyone that has seen Michael Keatons thespiatic tour de force as Hunt Stevenson in the definitive automobile industry docu-drama... Gung Ho could have told you that, and their market share has suffered accordingly.
The unions are not the only problem but they are a pretty fucking big part of it.
However whats most troubling about your argument is, well the same as it always is -- the weakened liberal no self accountability victimization mentality. It is not the auto industry's fault that people drive evil SUV and Hummers, its the consumers.... PERIOD!
Same goes with the people that bought off more than they can chew on home purchases and are now defaulting.
Nobody forced anybody to drive a gas guzzler or buy homes outside their means and if they cant afford to fill up the tank or pay their mortage well sorry to say but... FUCK THEM!
Heres the thing, your types get a hardon for a particular boogeyman and you focusfire all your vitriol on them which prevents you from seeing outside the box and thinking for yourself.
You look into the future and see thirsty kids in Africa and you blame the oil companies and you blame the auto industry because thats all you know how to do.... but what about the water industry? Just like oil, bottled water is at all time highs as well, why not propose a tax on Poland Springs? I would have still disagreed with you but at least Id give you credit for not being a sheep repeating the same old tired mantras that Bush is evil Big Oil is evil blah blah fucking blah.
One of your redeeming qualities is that I think you care, but Ill tell you what... you keep trying to convince me otherwise with these cookie cutter straight off of moveon.org arguments.
Happy Hannukah.
... and another thing, fuck the thirsty kids in Afirca too. Even the Caribou has the sense to migrate to greener pastures when the water dries up.
Post a Comment