It's SHOWTIME
Coming Soon:
Republicus spanks the little troll Houstonmod...
...in public!
DON'T MISS IT!!!
(Sic usquequaque ut moonbats)
posted by John | 10:36 PM
Republicus
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)
- Republicus Returns
- HAPPY NEW YEAR!
- lol
- July 6: POTUS Turns 60
- Bombs Bursting In Air
- Rocket's Red Glare
- It Just Ain't Cool To Be A Liberal No More (It Nev...
- Ah.
- Happy Father's Day
- Happy Centennial And A Half
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Coming Soon:
Republicus spanks the little troll Houstonmod...
...in public!
DON'T MISS IT!!!
(Sic usquequaque ut moonbats)
46 Comments:
... ;)
*:[
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nihil est ab omni parte beatum, amicus mei.
"Not everyone can belong to the right party?"
That's right! Someday you will thank me for converting you to the Libertarian Party.
Actually...to be honest...that is an admonishion that "nobody is happy with all parts of everything," as a literal translation. Meaning that when people start arguing about the whole global warming mess, there is not enough science for anyone to draw definite conclusions. Sadly, there are those that do for political gain, and there are those that oppose it for political gain, but there is just not enough real evidence in either case.
That's it, James. I've also never denied that there is a global warming trend per se (and if it's "accelerating" as fast as has been measured, i.e. ONE degree over the Twentieth Century, bring it on), only that the science does not understand it enough to make sweeping, definitive statements about human industries' role in it for the sake of justifyimg draconian, corporate regulation and oversight from the UN on American enterprise.
off topic:
I have another blog that is in the works. Check out A Tangled Web
My better half and I are putting it together.
Great, Kelly! The difference you make is incalculable.
One question: How do you do it all?!?
we're women - we're geared that way!
John, Just as Nanc said it....
Plus, there are huge portions of the day when all the kids (save the youngest) are at school.
It's also great to have teenagers.
If you know anyone who is ever in the situation we are or anything like it...please pass the word. I am just trying to get the word out.
I will also point out that most of the work on that blog was the doing of my other half. (BTW..his name is also John.)
"It's also great to have teenagers."
!!!
Kelly, you must be a saint.
Or, rather, teenagers in a Mormon home are more Marie Osmonds than Britney Spears.
When I said, "It's great to have teenagers." I was referring to their help. Teach them responsibility and they will be more responsible. When they are busy tending younger siblings (so that I can get away) they are too busy to get into trouble :D
As far as being a saint...I really don't think so. I can be rather mean. ...ask any of these kids.
i grew up in a household with six children - you must be crazy! at least that's what my mother used to tell us she was...
Yes, Nanc, that is it...I am CRAZY!! bwahahha!!
BTW...I am the oldest of 8.
So you've had lots of practice looking after little ones and have been accustomed to living with lots of kids around.
ok...I started laughing so hard I nearly spit my coffee out my nose.
If even for a second I thought you had the tools to rationally debate anyone, I wouldn't be laughing as hard.
In this spanking will you be lying, changing articles, plagarizing or simply refusing to understand reality?
Throughout the ages there have been people who claimed the earth was flat and persecuted those who said anything else. People were killed for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Even in the 80's hired scientists tried to claim that smoking was neither harmful nor addictive.
This is the world of John.
I truly look forward to my "spanking".
"Throughout the ages there have been people who claimed the earth was flat and persecuted those who said anything else. People were killed for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Even in the 80's hired scientists tried to claim that smoking was neither harmful nor addictive.
This is the world of John."
He's projecting.
Well, Houstonmod, I guess you have a right to a fair hearing alright.
You and Al Gore have the ability to define reality. That is a good thing. Philosophers and others of learning have tried for millenia to define it, and finally we have the permanent and final arbitrators.
I have my pencil and paper out and am eager to finally get the answers to 'Everything.' If the answer is 42, well, we may have to debate that a bit further. In the 70's, there were many scientists that had firmly concluded that by now we would be living in a glacier infested ice-ball of a planet. Now, however, there are those that are "simply refusing to understand reality?"
I have looked everywhere for my "Reality Booklet." I must have misplaced it during the last move. In all actuality, I do not favor the language of "spanking." What would be interesting would be an admission from both sides of this thing is that we simply do not have enough science to understand what is happening. To this date, we still do not understand what caused the 'little ice age' not do we understand what caused the 'dust bowl.' Even further away, we have absolutely no idea what causes climate change on a planet that has changes over thousands of years when our best scientific data reaches back about 150 years. 180 million years ago, we know that there were no ice caps at all. There were no people then, so what causes that? Dinosaur flatulance would be a great thing to blame it on, but again, there is no evidence.
Perhaps we could agree that taking care of the planet is reasonable, as well as protecting our rights as a nation to exist on the globe as also being a reasonable end.
I look forward to the debate as well, if that is really what it turns out to be.
Oh, and please...do not damamge your nose with coffee. Painful and without any reward.
"42?"
lol Douglas Adams, right?
It won't be debate. More a dissection.
Phelonious, first off we definately know what caused the Dust Bowl. Poor farming practices, over developement coupled with a drought. (which occur constantly in that part of the country) There is no mystery there.
As for the Little Ice Age, there is actually a large scientific community that regards this era as inconsequential in studying world wide changes.
Let's look at some facts. CO2 in the atmosphere and warming go hand in hand. The question is how much CO2 is responsible for how much warming and where does the CO2 come from. There is no debate that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone way up in the last 100 years.
I will try to avoid the actual science particulars since nobody on this blog is a trained scientist on this subject. I'll let the vast amounts of legitimate scientists and actions of oil companies do my talking.
What I find scary is the hide your head in the sand attitude of some people when looking at global warming. IF global warming can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop it. IF global warming goes as some say it will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US. Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe.
John's paranoia about "draconian" industrial limits which he clearly believes will destroy the economy are both baseless and short sighted. In fact, a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US.(and get us out from under our dependency on foreigh oil) Same garbage people cried before the clean air and clean water acts were paassed.
That being said, let's keep in mind that nearly all scientists agree that man is at least partially responsible for global warming. There will always be a very small handful of scientists who claim the opposite. This is exactly what happened with the large tobacco nonsense starting in the 30's. There were always some wack jobs claiming that cigarettes were perfectly safe. Nobody with any sense would make that argument now.
Just to make this even more clear, Exxon spent more than $16 million dollars to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change. I think we all know why they did that. Sounds much like Phillip Morris doesn't it?
The George C. Marshall Institute is a front for Exxon. Like the Washington Times using the UPI to source a story (they are both owned by Rev. Moon), Exxon funnelled money to 43 fronts to create the appearance of a true scientific debate. Unfortunately, it was only an appearance.
Sallie Baliunas is probably the most famous of these sham scientists and after her work was debunked 13 seperate times, you would think the other fronts would stop using it. Nope, they continue to quote it because they can't do anything else.
This is from today:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/25/america/NA-GEN-US-Global-Warming.php
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said U.S. officials are looking forward to the release next week of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a respected group of hundreds of scientists whose work is combined to form an assessment of global warming. The last report appeared in 2001.
Connaughton, in response to questions by reporters at the Foreign Press Center, said the report "doesn't create new science," but "it's very clear that it will further reinforce that the earth is warming" and will likely show that "human activity is a very substantial factor in that equation."
Did you watch the State of the Union last night?
"the serious challenge of global climate change"
or how about this from Bush in Brussels
Our alliance is determined to show good stewardship of the earth -- and that requires addressing the serious, long-term challenge of global climate change. All of us expressed our views on the Kyoto protocol -- and now we must work together on the way forward. Emerging technologies such as hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources, clean coal technology, will encourage economic growth that is environmentally responsible. By researching, by developing, by promoting new technologies across the world, all nations, including the developing countries can advance economically, while slowing the growth in global greenhouse gases and avoid pollutants that undermines public health. All of us can use the power of human ingenuity to improve the environment for generations to come." -- President Bush, Brussels, Belgium, February 21, 2005
There is no real debate anymore. Just some people hiding from the facts. When the EPA, NASA, and every respected scientific organization says global warming is real, and when the White House finally admits it, you don't have much more to stand on. Maybe John is just a Bush hater.
While I have some time, let's look at John's dishonest posting here as well.
John posts this in an attempt to prove his point:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml
A year and a month later, the United Nations finally comes around to agree with Republicus (bold added):
UN Downgrades Man's Impact On The Climate
Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 11/12/2006
"Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year."
Now this is just dishonest. Let's look what the next lines say:
"The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent."
It goes on to say "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."
Well that surely doesn't support your argument. In fact, it goes against it. I will give John credit this time. Instead of simply changing an article in order to fit his unbased dogma, he simply left out the article and what it actually said.
hahah so between his two proofs, (the one he changed and the one he didn't print), this didn't prove his point. IT DEBUNKED IT!! That's brilliant John. Rarely do you see someobody do that as often as you do.
I'll get to the rest of your articles later.
Just in case you didn't figure it out. That post above was from me but for some reason came up as anonymous.
In the referenced post, Clinton said that human activity "caused" environmental warming.
That's false (and you can usually tell by the way such a statement is never made in any sweeping declaration, but is always garbled by some grammatical ambiguity).
Only the far left environmentalist would subscribe to such scientifically unbased dogma.
Just as mincing is the charge that human industry (particularly the CO2 emissions from the usage of fossil fuels) is practically the sole contributor to warming.
But that's false, too.
As far as the data can objectively tell us today, human industry has less of an impact on warming than does volcanic activity, solar flares, and yes, bovine flatulence (though "scientists" actually differ whether it's the flatulence or the burps. Seriously).
The UN study--the REAL "bottom line," not Gray's opinionated harumphing, which was not included because it was a petty, axe-grinding, "but-but!" post-script of sorts that Republicus set aside to address separately-- is that human activity has less of an impact on overall warming than previously insisted.
And that was Republicus' bottom line in the "Former-President Clinton Is A LIAR!" post.
Nowhere--NOWHERE--has Republicus ever denied any warming trend.
So what is causing Houstonmod's non sequiters, heckling laughter, evolving hysteria, and belligerent, unprovoked harrassment?
Ego issues. He really is emotionally childish (not to mention intellectually sophomoric) and needs to be spanked.
Hey John,
Do you plan on putting up any kind of proof? The two articles you put up before completely bit you in the ass (as to be expected) and now you simply come back and say "it's a lie". I guess after your "I know you are but what am I?" comeback (you actually said "he's projecting", but it's the same thing) I shouldn't have expected much.
I have to love your (paraphrase) "the reason I didn't put in the rest of the article is because I didn't like it" defense.
That's rich.
Gosh, this spanking stuff is humiliating. I'm really sad you weren't around during the midterms.
Houstonmod said:
"Do you plan on putting up any kind of proof?"
To what?
"The two articles you put up before completely bit you in the ass (as to be expected)..."
They did not. The latest UN study itself clearly supported what I had said quite some time before.
"...and now you simply come back and say "it's a lie".
To say--as Clinton said-- that global warming is "caused by human activity" cannot be supported by the evidence.
It is a false statement.
I also said--over a year before--that solar flares, volcanic activity, and yes, bovine flatulence (if not burps)--and you can thank El Nino for '06's record warmth--contribute more to global warming than the Ford Motor Co. or aerosol sprays--the latter of which, it has been flip-flopped, are determined--in the same UN study-- to fight global warming (doh!).
"I guess after your "I know you are but what am I?" comeback (you actually said "he's projecting", but it's the same thing)..."
Houston, as a thoroughly indoctrinated leftist, you invert and see things backward. To say that you are projecting is NOT "the same thing" as your host saying "I know you are, but what am I?" but YOU thinking "I know you are, but what am I?" without my even having to say anything is.
I said you were projecting in response to this:
"Throughout the ages there have been people who claimed the earth was flat and persecuted those who said anything else. People were killed for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Even in the 80's hired scientists tried to claim that smoking was neither harmful nor addictive.
This is the world of John."
Tha's a lie. The world of John is a sphere which orbits around the sun. The world of John knows that cigarettes are both harmful and addictive (although much more so for some than for others, and certainly undeserving of the heavy regulation and attempts to banish it from society).
I never said otherwise. What Houstonmod is doing is arguing with a typical leftist/modern-day "liberal" tactic (I am quickly running out of patience with the indulgement of the left's word theft, like "liberal," "choice," etc.).
Lee Harvey resorted to it often, to an absurd degree. What they do is mischaracterize and then hyperbolically exagerate to a ridiculous degree what was said.
In this case, Houstonmod likened my position that the environmentalists are exaggerating human industry's role in the yet-to-be-well-understood field of long and short-term temperature variations to Medieval flat-earthers and those oblivious to obvious health detriments caused by smoking heavily for decades.
That is a mischaracterization (i.e. the belief that the nature of global warming and its causes are not what the environmentalists have authoritatively insisted they were is supposedly in the same club as believing that the earth is flat and that cigarettes are perfectly harmles) and an exagerration (i.e. the belief that the nature and causes of global warming are not what the environmentalists have authoritatively insisted is as ridiculous as believing that the earth is flat).
That's all he did. That is how he attempted to discredit your host.
Any reasonable discussion he then embarks on (e.g. "CO2 levels have inarguably increased in the 20th Century..." etc.) is superfluous, and is only meant to show off and play the serious "authority" (e.g. "I went to law school! I went to a better school than Ann Coulter! I'm a trained scientist!" etc.).
Note his conclusive words on the matter (i.e. global warming):
"What I find scary is the hide your head in the sand attitude of some people when looking at global warming."
There he is discrediting all who disagree by exaggerated ridicule.
So Republicus is "hiding his head in the sand" because he came out and prempted the UN's latest (but certainly not last) study by over a year?
That's what triggered Houston's latest mania.
But how did he get from that to Republicus being a flat-earther who flatly denies that anything out of the ordinary is occuring in Earth's environment?
Beats me.
After going well out of his way to discredit your humble but well-ahead-of-the-curve host, the "trained scientist" and "inconvenient truth-teller" concludes thusly:
"IF global warming can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop it. IF global warming goes as some say it will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US. Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe."
Those are some pretty big "IFs" you yourself high-cased, Houston.
Such a plea is NOT in the language of science. He is a liberal and appealing to the emotions, particularly fear (e.g. "catastrophe").
He state "IF global warming can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop it."
How? Do you know how to stop it? You don't even know what causes it. You are hysterical.
"IF global warming goes as some say it will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US."
That's Al Gore-style fear-mongering sensationalism. Again, not the language of an objective scientist.
"Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe."
What a fool. He's completely bereft of self-awareness. He's arguing for pre-emption in precisely the same way as President Bush argued for the invasion of Iraq (and on much better evidence for WMD than there is--especially now--for man's impact on warming)--and was ridiculed for it BY BUSH-HATING LIBERALS LIKE HOUSTON.
Projection. Liberals embody and engage in precisely the same flaws and errors in reasoning that they accuse conservatives of embodying and engaging in, which brings us back to the paragraph I identified as projection and which Houston then tried to invert on your host, which was:
"Throughout the ages there have been people who claimed the earth was flat and persecuted those who said anything else. People were killed for claiming that the earth orbited the sun. Even in the 80's hired scientists tried to claim that smoking was neither harmful nor addictive.
This is the world of John."
Now tell me, fair-minded reader, where would your host fit in those scenarios, and where would Houston?
Let us rephrase what Houston said, with appropriate substitutions but without the mischaracterizing and exaggeration:
"Throughout the ages there have been people (like Houston) who claimed that CO2 emissions created by fossil fuels--especially in the United States-- were the most responsible agents for the 1 degree increase in earth temperature from 1900 to 2000 and persecuted those who said anything else. People (like your host) were attacked (by Houston) for objectively stating that Islam was fundamentally undergirded by cultural militancy and inspires devotees to commit violence against infidels to a far greater degree than the Western Bible inspires Judeo-Christians to commit violence against heathens. Even in the 21st Century hired scientists tried to claim that the gap between smoking and second hand tobacco smoke had closed in regards to health risks and that both were were societal banes that had to be heavily regulated and graually removed from society.
This is the world of Houstonmod."
Indeed, and voila: Projection.
Houstonmod then ridicules:
"I have to love your (paraphrase) 'the reason I didn't put in the rest of the article is because I didn't like it' defense.
That's rich."
He's attacking the integrity of your host and calling him a liar. The lie is his. Republicus did not say that he did not reproduce the full text of Gray's article because he "did not like it," but because it strayed from the validating, bottom line of the objective study--i.e. "Man's Impact On Warming Less Than Previously Supposed" (or somesuch).
I then said I put it away and will deal with Gray's peeved "explanation" later (and yes, you can commence twiddling your thumbs, Kelly, but really, it's in the drafts section, with a whole bunch of others).
"Gosh, this spanking stuff is humiliating. I'm really sad you weren't around during the midterms."
I'll tell you the same thing I've told Lee Harvey: The mid-term results were NOT a rejecting of conservatism and an embracing of liberalism, fool.
You're way of thinking and arguing is unacceptable to the country at large (give it a few more years, after the Left has thoroughly destroyed the classical liberalism of our educational system and Judeo-Christian values of our culture and with them the mind and soul of an entire generation of future voters).
--but not if this man can help it.
sp.^^ "Your"
And you know, John, that in twiddling thumbs I am just joking.
Quite frankly, I am looking forward to Houston getting what he deserves.
I know, Kelly, so was I, but you have a point...
> Phelonious, first off we definately know what caused the Dust Bowl. Poor farming practices, over developement coupled with a drought. (which occur constantly in that part of the country) There is no mystery there.
Well, actually there is a mystery. What causes a drouth at the same time that an increase in temperatures is comfirmed? Poor management was a contributor, but nobody know what the cause was.
> As for the Little Ice Age, there is actually a large scientific community that regards this era as inconsequential in studying world wide changes.
That is an interesting observation. The people that were starving as a result of the little ice age really did not think it was inconsequential. In fact, it had a major impact on things as trivial as the european exploration of the new world, and the worldwide inability to feed itself. To write it off as ananomoly invites the vrey serious question of whether or not the current environmental changes will be written off as an anomoly later.
In fact, there is still a lot of debate as to what can or cannot change the global environment. No one has come forward and explained why the earth had no ice fields 180 million years ago. No one has ever had a satisfactory explanation of the ice ages and why they appear and then disappear. The Sun science is just now proposing that the temerature fluctuations may in fact have more to do with the appearance and disappearance of sun spot activity than just about anything else. That being said, let us now politicise the argument.
Let's suppose that the US were to unilaterally suspend using any type of CO2 producing energy sources tomorrow. There is no way to force the Red Chinese to obey any sort of energy consumption. We know that in a few years, they and India will have as many cars on the road as the US by a shot. Will the US, being enlightened, have to invade China, for example, to end their use of oil burning automobiles?
The reason that I bring this up is that it is well documented that the US is already one of the cleanest contries on the planet. We have reduced our emissions while many other countries have increased theirs. Our nuclear facilities are much cleaner than even the French, and pretty much everybody knows that the Russians have a HUGE environmental mess to clean up in this regard.
The Libertarian Party beleives that people, given a choice, will choose a cleaner basis of running industry when they can afford it. The reason that they will do so is simple: nobody likes a messy back yard, and nobody likes being beholding to the middle east for our energy needs. We fear, though, that draconian energy controls will not serve our best interests if they are not wisely thought out. Just as you fear that the energy companies are in some kind of giant conspiracy to ruin the environment and destroy the world for profit, there are those that rightly fear that entities like the Red Chinese and the Middle Eastern countries will ignore anything that we do and will only support our global competitors in minimizing our economy.
This can be likened to the destruction of the rain forests. The blame is usually placed on the US because of our demands for wood. However, when we quit buying the wood through international agreements, (like the ivory trade), other countries quickly filled the gap and the cutting of primordial forests continues at an even faster rate.
Please admit, for the purposes of true debate, that while it is true that there are fronts for the oil companies that minimize the human contribution to global warming, that there are also fronts that over-emphasize said contribution because it is politically convenient for *them* to do similarly.
Which leads me back to my initial idea. The science we have is partial at best. Being a bad steward of our resources is not forgivable, but neither is sacrificing our ability to be a world competitor. Our Venesuelan friends WANT us to buy more of their oil. Our middle-eastern friends WANT us to buy more of their oil. Our friends in Indochiona want the same thing, along with Mexico, Canada and Russia. The reason that I would like us to use less oil has everything to do with us 'divorcing' our bad wives, if you will, and becoming truly independent of their troubles and desires. In the long run, it would reduce emissions and it would reduce our dependence.
Is there a place for these thoughts here?
Kelly and Nanc, please forgive my anaogy, my wife is frequently wiser than I am, but it was convenient at the time.
James, no offense.
Here is something interesting: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19325884.500-suns-fickle-heart-may-leave-us-cold.html
Here is something interesting: http://environment.newscientist.com/
article/mg19325884.500-suns-fickle
-heart-may-leave-us-cold.html
I hear you, James. Thank you.
John, I figured that you did. My appeal was also for Houstonmod to consider.
Phelonius, I'll simply direct my respone to you. Unfortunately John isn't showing any rational, but taking everything personal and continually discussing himself in the third person which is a bit odd for an adult. If he can't understand that using only one line in an article and disregarding the entire point of the article is simply dishonest, I can't see how he can be helped.(let's keep in mind the UN Article that was referenced says exactly what the article says. John is making up excuses) If actually changing the wording and therefore the full meaning of an article to twist it into your dogma isn't dishonest, what is? (deforestation and farts aren't the same even in Virginia)there little I can do.The personal attacks get old and juvenile. If he still is obsessed with a President who has been out of office for over 6 years, how do you move forward with anything resembling a intellectual discussion?
As you finished your post Phelonius you pointed out that the US should not sacrifice its economy to drastically cut down emissions.
You may want to look at the following:
http://www.us-cap.org/
"United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change"
Here is a list of these liberal companies:
Alcoa
BP America
Caterpillar Inc.
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense
FPL Group
General Electric
Lehman Brothers
Natural Resources Defense Council
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
World Resources Institute
The idea here is that the change will be great for the US economy, not a disadvantage.
You also asked me to agree that although many (I would argue nearly all) of the "associations" that are falsely arguing against global warming suing oil money, there are plenty of "associations" arguing for it for financial gain.
The argument is here is again false. Below is a small list of the associations and acreditted scientific organizations that have come to the scientific conclusion that man made global warming is most likely a fact. (in science, even gravity is a theory so please don't pull a AJ and jump all over the words "most likely" )
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Global Change Science
Tata Energy Research Institute of India (which really throws a wrench in your argument. Tata is the largest manufacturer of cars and trucks in the second largest developing nation in the world. There is no reason for them to come to this conclusion)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN)
National Academy of Science. (which interestingly enough, was asked by the Bush Administration to find fault with the IPCC's report, but intstead found the report to be overall accurate)
The NSA's of every G-8 Country and Brazil, China, and India.
(Acknowledged that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, but apparently Clinton is lying)
President Bush at the G-8 summit said ""that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases is contributing to the problem" (but Clinton is lying)
NASA (if you want an interesting read, look at this link. It actually explains the stealing and changing of one scientists graphs to try and argue against global warming. sound familiar on this blog? http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)
Phelonious, another misnomer being spread by the ill informed is the idea that science ever "proves" anything. Like I mentioned before, gravity and evolution have both been "proven" beyond any sensible argument against them, but they are both still theories. Same with global warming.
1,000's of accreditted and peer reviewed studies have been made and have reluctantly dragged many scientists to believe in global warming. I have yet to see a single accreditted or peer reviewed study that doesn't. Do you happen to have one?
Houstonmod.
Phelonious,
You also mention that the US is the cleanest country. Here is list of countries and their CO2 emmissions by both total and per capita.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
The US is by far the largest CO2 polluter and by far the largest per capita. 5% of the world's population, over 20% of the emmissions.
Also, please tell me that article about droughts in Africa wasn't a global warming argument.
So amount of CO2 emissions are the standard measurememt of what makes a country "clean" or not?
Oboy, we got a live one here...
No Aj, clearly it's cow farts, right? Please, if you would like to step into the ring, bring something with you. Otherwise, keep arguing that the moon landing was taped in a sound studio in Arizona.
Also, I'm waiting for the peer reviewed articles I asked for. Interestingly enough they haven't surfaced. In case you need more inspiration to make stuff up, this might help.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
(I would like to point out I always post my sources just so people know I'm not changing the wording and meaning or just cutting out the parts I like)
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Phelonious, doesn't that seem really odd? In response to your previous quesions, now it would take a conspiracy of 2,600 scientists from 113 countries and their government editors to come up with this global warming "hoax". In the meantime, Exxon mobile simply offers 10 grand to anyone who will right anything to defend their current practices.
Phelonious, I though you might want to see this quote from the Administration today after reading the UN Report on global warming:
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the United States embraces the findings of the IPCC report. "We agree with it, and the science behind it is something that our country has played a very important role in," he told journalists today in Washington.
Why does John hate American and President Bush?
I'm asking you for third time:
How old are you?
Are you even in college?
Post a Comment
<< Home