Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Seriously, somebody send these headlines out


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

......... kosar do i really need to drudge up that last thread and all of the source information about antartica?

 

Is there political as well as economic posturing on BOTH sides? YES.... ok now that we can agree on that lets move on.

 

Dont any of you remember how the tobacco industry fought the rest of the world on the "theory on the link of cancer from smoking" for DECADES?

 

Its the same playbook......

 

EVERY major university in the WORLD along with EVERY space agency...EVERY major Government in the WORLD, EVERY major Scientific Organization in the WORLD......... Our own NSA accepts it............ they are dumb people in the NSA......

 

Are their Detractors and Critics that exist in the Scientific field? YES THAT IS THE NATURE OF SCIENCE...... There were major Scientific Detractors/skeptics on if the earth was round not flat....... There Were major scientific detractors/skeptics on the theory of gravity, light etc.... Their were major scientific detractors and skeptics on genetics...... on Astronomy..... on what the Sun is or even if we revolved around the sun ......They existed when they said it was Impossible to travel into space or the moon or land on Mars............ CERN for god sake has its detractors........ how is that working out?

 

The Hubble findings had/has its detractors and skeptics...........

 

For you people who keep blathering and yes it is blathering about the lack of credible evidence supporting the worlds majority of scientists in virtually EVERY discipline are totally flat earthers at this point. You are part of the same crowd who backed and was skeptical if the earth was in fact round.... gathering around minority scientific opinions and holding on for dear life......

 

I have blown up literally most of the junk that was posted and posted facts and supporting information from credible sources yet it means nothing. This is fighting an ideology with you people when it should be about listening and making a sound conservative decision based on facts NOT opinions and PR around what is responsible.

 

I hated the ethanol movement because the facts never supported the proposition of conservation... I hate green job lobbyists because it is about Money regardless if it really a smart economic and sustainable growth. Some of the conservationist movements are so radical that they dont live in reality.... Do I think the IPCC is too political? YES they were never my source of credible information......... nor are they for the rest of the scientific community. I hate the politics behind Cap and Trade... I hate the politics period because it is tainted with bs of self sustainable energy creation and usage.

 

Truthfully before they blather about anything recycling should be mandatory and plastics should be more tightly controlled and produced....... IS global warming going to really drastic in the next 10-50 years.... The answer is really just projection..... now in the next 100-200 we can more safely project POTENTIAL problems........ This is about doing something BEFORE we screw things up badly....

 

You people forgot about the ozone hole "theory" being caused by man made and contributed CFC's.......... remember all of the scientific detractors? for DECADES even though the rest of the community was amassing tons of data otherwise? Remember all of the right wing garbage about it is too complicated to point to just man made causes and things like that are cyclical and natural.... the hole will never get larger..... all of the contributing industrys rushing to push pr saying their does not exist scientific data............ sound familiar? the huge movement about the big bad government does not need to regulate the private chemical industries..... no proof of any damage or it was man made........... Well that talk is all gone now and forgotten about how the same people, same party, same lobbyist tactics, the same scientific minority was used to prop up "skepticism"....... just like tobacco........ just like CFC and ozone depletion..... so far your side is 0-2...... might as well go for the strikeout.........

 

same crap, same people,same pr, same politics....... 0-2 now going for 0-3...... in the face of literally 9.9 out of 10 of the smartest people on the face of the planet....... so forgive me if i side with literally mountains of independent data from every scientific field from all over the world compared to the .01% of the scientific skeptics backed by PR paid for by political and industry money.

 

0-2.... tobacco and CFC...... soon to be 0-3 but no big deal the planet and all of our future grandchildrens problem not ours..... lets just continue to be selfish no big deal. we only have one world we may as well destroy the ecology like the easter islanders did.... As far as I know we have not terra formed Mars yet.......

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get ready, sev:

 

Here comes the cut and paste.

 

Then some version of "Why don't you take up your entire day answering all of these points someone else made that I just cut and pasted?"

 

Then "Your silence is only incriminating you further."

 

Also, did you know the climate has changed over time?

 

Didn't you cut and paste this from another post. I thought we've been down the "cut and paste" route. Same ol' Heckie Boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry. I should have said, "Spin." Whatever that meant. Or mentioned the concept of peer review. Haha! Peer review!

 

And what about you, Kosar. You've been all over these "lots of snow in DC" threads. You don't seem to know that it's irrelevant to the discussion either.

 

Are you aware that the fact that it's snowed in the mid-Atlantic states does not in any way prove or disprove the theory of global warming?

 

Can you at least admit that? It seems hard for you guys to do, but it shouldn't be that hard.

 

Can you do that?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, I dont know why I let myself get sucked in on these threads...... I mean really logically:

1. I dont know these random posters personally

2. You cant reason or discuss anything with either yourself or others if they already have an entrenched position

3. what does it really matter what I post...

 

Than I realize its the pure hypocrisy of being a conservative... and then the mantra of independents of self sustainability(thank you Teddy Roosevelt which I agree with), the Moral right wing supposed family first.....

 

I am thinking about my family..... my children and my future grand children are they? Self sustainability should start not only at the personal level but also at the government/social level, Conservative........ I mean the base root of the word CONSERVE for goodness sake.......

 

Than I watch these same type of people in my life boo hoo the scientific community yet they use the microwave....... I mean do you really think people are thinking about a 2.45 gigahertz non ionizing microwave radiation affecting molecules rotating IE resonance creating heat....? NO they are just spouting off that Drudge or some Fox news crap or they heard this scientist was a skeptic and he was a PHD so its all BS and hooey. If they took more than 1 minute to formulate and opinion by understanding the basic principles and data that is supported by years of study from all of these fields I could understand....

 

But No its the whole PR/right wing Ideology or the skeptical its too complicated we cant be responsible ...... it just snowed today HA global warming does not exist.

 

My Mind just cant wrap my head around it...... I dont even bother with the topic 90% of the time personally because its fruitless. Some part of me believes that because these are posters already obviously online they can access within seconds TONS of data fro tons of independent credible sources......... silly me it seems they just cherry pick for data to support a poorly thought out and preconcieved notion.

 

I will never understand it really. I totally hate a lot of the sacrifices and expenses I have incurred to show my children by example responsible behavior (and my daughter restricting my red meat intake.....)

 

I just happen to love my children and my future grandchildren and want them to know I was moving in responsible logical direction out of concern for the earth they will inherit. What is the problem with accepting and betting on moving toward a more responsible direction in energy consumption and to error on the side of caution? Wait that must be liberal thinking not conservative.... family values/self sustainability/conserve and use local rescources...... funny how that seems to parallel right wing PR...... yet they are the ones leading the charge against this..... I claim to be moderate with conservative values yet I get called a liberal somehow? whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preacher, meet choir.

 

There really is no point. I tell myself this after every post, and yet I can't seem to stop checking in here every once in a while. It really is an eye-opener, though. They need no evidence other than some vague notion that some liberals think the opposite, therefore we'll set up shop over on this side. (Never mind that many conservatives believe in global warming. And even more used to! At least until their party was taken over by the impressionable fringe, to whom they had to start catering to.)

 

I've scaled way, way back into the limited arguments like I'm making in this thread - ones that really don't have anything to do with global warming. Hell, all I'm asking them is if they can distinguish between anecdotal evidence and a more valid, scientific method. And they can't even get there! It's amazing. Grown men with jobs, who are making an argument similar to "My Dad smoked his whole life and never got cancer; therefore, cigarettes don't cause cancer." And then, as the cherry on top, proclaiming how devastating an argument it is. It is, quite literally, the definition of ignorance.

 

Before that I spent many man hours unsuccessfully trying to get Steve to understand the basics of a cap and trade system and how it worked. That didn't get very far either, and never goes anywhere, though in his defense, he's a lot further than the rest of them. That just isn't saying much.

 

Which brings me right back to where we started - the futility of this whole enterprise.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Before that I spent many man hours unsuccessfully trying to get Steve to understand the basics of a cap and trade system and how it worked. That didn't get very far either,

 

Here's exactly how far it got you insufferable ignorant shill.

I wrote out exactly what I believed cap and trade was and how it's proponents hoped it would work if everything fell into place as they wished.

As you recall I posted it directly to Toop who said that it was correct.

 

Now just because you hate to admit you're a fool you repeat rubbish.

 

Why is that?

"My Dad smoked his whole life and never got cancer; therefore, cigarettes don't cause cancer."

 

Of course that's bullshit.

It's also bullshit to deny that hundreds of thing cause cancer to some extent and that you aren't willing to outlaw them all

 

And that's just part of your personal hypocrisy.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, that's ridiculous. That was an example of an anecdotal argument, not a statement of personal philosophy or a pivot point for you to make some additional argument about me. All you just did was help me make mine - that the level of the arguments in here can be embarrassingly low.

 

It should be taken as a given that anecdotal arguments aren't any good. We're adults. We shouldn't have to waste our time explaining what they are. But in here you do. In here people make them every day, and then gloat about how devastating they are.

 

You've got the entire Fox/Drudge/Rush/Beck wing of the party - which is about 28% of America - crowing about the snowstorms and how they disprove global warming. ...What do you expect in return? We're supposed to take these arguments seriously? Should we doubt the intelligence of the people making them? And if not, at what point does that start?

 

Here's Sean Hannity:

 

"And it’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories. ...Pretty unbelievable. I bet the snow even kept Al Gore’s jet from taking off."

 

Yes, he's that dumb too.

 

And if you know the difference, why aren't you pointing it out?

 

As for your cap and trade stuff, yes, you have the basic parts down. But that's as far as you'll go and it's hardly far enough for people who have been discussing it for three years. It'd be like discussing baseball for three years and never getting past the idea that the game is nine innings long, played by two teams, and there are balls and strikes. And instead of going any further, you substitute your grumpiness and excess cynicism, which rarely makes any sense. It's just a lot easier and takes up less of your time.

 

Nothing would ever change in your world. Ever. If we lived in the segregated South in the 50s you'd be writing about how things seem to be working out fine - they have their fountains and lunch counters and we have ours, and what everyone really needs to do is stop whining about their rights.

 

There's never any point to doing anything, because nothing will ever work. And anyone who tries to make something work is doing so for cheap or nefarious reasons.

 

That's what's so boring and tiresome about what you write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, that's ridiculous. That was an example of an anecdotal argument, not a statement of personal philosophy or a pivot point for you to make some additional argument about me. All you just did was help me make mine - that the level of the arguments in here can be embarrassingly low.

Dude it’s your choice to bicker on and on.

"Cigarettes cause cancer"

"If you smoke cigarettes you will get cancer."

 

 

It should be taken as a given that anecdotal arguments aren't any good. We're adults. We shouldn't have to waste our time explaining what they are. But in here you do. In here people make them every day, and then gloat about how devastating they are.

Me? I don’t give a rat’s ass about GW. That pisses you off. Sorry.

 

You've got the entire Fox/Drudge/Rush/Beck wing of the party - which is about 28% of America - crowing about the snowstorms and how they disprove global warming. ...What do you expect in return? We're supposed to take these arguments seriously? Should we doubt the intelligence of the people making them? And if not, at what point does that start?

We? But hey you got in another Drudge mention. Kudos.

 

Here's Sean Hannity:

 

"And it’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories. ...Pretty unbelievable. I bet the snow even kept Al Gore’s jet from taking off."

 

Yes, he's that dumb too.

 

It means nothing about whether there is or isn’t global warming.

It’s kind of funny but the joke, like the hysteria on your side has been beaten to death.

 

And if you know the difference, why aren't you pointing it out?

 

Like I said I don’t care.

I don't think the cold weather means that GW does not exist.

So what?

Like you didn’t care that Shep was (and till is I assume) a douchebag.

I care about Obama’s shitso healthcare boondoggle.

Cap and tax is probably dead anyway.

 

As for your cap and trade stuff, yes, you have the basic parts down. But that's as far as you'll go and it's hardly far enough for people who have been discussing it for three years. It'd be like discussing baseball for three years and never getting past the idea that the game is nine innings long, played by two teams, and there are balls and strikes. And instead of going any further, you substitute your grumpiness and excess cynicism, which rarely makes any sense. It's just a lot easier and takes up less of your time.

 

Nothing would ever change in your world. Ever. If we lived in the segregated South in the 50s you'd be writing about how things seem to be working out fine - they have their fountains and lunch counters and we have ours, and what everyone really needs to do is stop whining about their rights.

Wow!!!

I was wondering how you’d work the race card in here.

That was a stretch Heck.

 

There's never any point to doing anything, because nothing will ever work. And anyone who tries to make something work is doing so for cheap or nefarious reasons.

 

How about you Heck?

Do you think the BushCheneyHaliburtonBlackwater coalition was only trying to make life better for the USA and the world?

That Pat Robertson Sean Hannity Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh are working to make America a better place?

 

 

That's what's so boring and tiresome about what you write.

 

 

I imagine being reminded what a narrow minded putz you are would get tiring.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta love the way Heck trys to psychoanalyze someone because of their position on politics differs from his warped thinking.

 

 

Even when Steve backs up his position with facts you still try to attack his character by playing the race card. That is

sad on your part Heckler.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the "race card" line. You mentioned something to do with race, therefore you're using the race card. Huh? What a useless conservative trope. Typical though. Sort of like reading everything on this board for the last three years and then accusing me of being the narrow-minded gay basher. Comical.

 

The point is that I can't recall a single instance where Steve has listed a serious concern about a contemporary American problem - unless you count "whining" or "hysteria". That's all he's concerned about. That gets him all riled up.

 

So I can't imagine him wanting to upset the status quo even it were something with clear lines of right and wrong, such as segregation in the 50s. I just don't think he would have bothered. He hates marches and the people in them, after all. And there were lots of civil rights marches.

 

I can't imagine him thinking anything was a problem that needed a change in policy, or immediate action from the courts, or anything that required him to give a shit. In all this time, I can't think of a single thing of import he's concerned himself with.

 

It's just like he says here: "I don't give a shit about global warming." And then he imagines this will come as a surprise to me.

 

Um, I think that's been pretty clear all along. Otherwise you might know something about it, become concerned about it, and - God forbid - want to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the "race card" line. You mentioned something to do with race, therefore you're using the race card. Huh? What a useless conservative trope. Typical though. Sort of like reading everything on this board for the last three years and then accusing me of being the narrow-minded gay basher. Comical.

It is indeed.

No idea why you think calling me a segregationist and Matt Drudge gay matters to the discussion.

And frankly I think you mention Drudge being gay because you thought someone here didn't like gays and would be shocked.

 

The point is that I can't recall a single instance where Steve has listed a serious concern about a contemporary American problem - unless you count "whining" or "hysteria". That's all he's concerned about. That gets him all riled up.

 

Well then Heck it's because you're unwilling or unable to read.

I mentioned one in this very thread.

 

So I can't imagine him wanting to upset the status quo even it were something with clear lines of right and wrong, such as segregation in the 50s. I just don't think he would have bothered. He hates marches and the people in them, after all. And there were lots of civil rights marches.

 

If you tax your little brain Heck you may recall what I did say.

Remember?

Here. I'll help.

It was a thread about the tea party protests.

 

I can't imagine him thinking anything was a problem that needed a change in policy, or immediate action from the courts, or anything that required him to give a shit. In all this time, I can't think of a single thing of import he's concerned himself with.

 

Poor grumpy Heck.

You're correct.

I do not think the change in policy you so desperately want (cap and trade) is needed.

Let me ask this serioulsy.

There are probably enough senators and congresspeople opposed or wary of that policy that it probably won't become law.

Are you as generous with those who oppose it?

Are their motives pure?

If not why do you think they aren't on board?

 

It's just like he says here: "I don't give a shit about global warming." And then he imagines this will come as a surprise to me.

 

No Heck I don't expect it will.

But seriously again I don't think C and T will change it even if I was worried.

Do you pray that your fellow men will see the light and support the bill?

Why or why not?

 

 

Um, I think that's been pretty clear all along. Otherwise you might know something about it, become concerned about it, and - God forbid - want to do something about it.

 

Give me a program that might help enough to enact.

But there's no point in badgering me about this because you're mad at the "It's snowing so GW is dead" guys.

You're free to beat that drum without my help.

 

But I've mentioned quite a few issues that I'll be glad to toss around.

 

Unless you want to debate segregation or Matt Drudges sexual preferences.

 

Happy Valentine's Day. :wub:

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have to go round and round on this because it leads nowhere. I simply can't take your criticisms seriously, and you shouldn't offer them seriously. You believe cap and trade won't do anything, but you don't know how cap and trade works, other than a first paragraph of Wikipedia type of explanation. Not too long ago you couldn't even distinguish between a carbon tax and cap and trade. You don't realize that the single largest difference between the two is a cap on emissions - then you go on to worry that emissions won't change ...even though they're capped. Except that you don't know that they're capped. Because you think it's just a tax. Except that it isn't.

 

And this is also so ineffective a program, one that won't make so much of a dent in the problem that ...it's completely going to hold the US economy back.

 

You say you don't give a shit about global warming. Also that even if you do, there isn't a policy prescription that would work. Even the one that every expert recommends. Even the one that's worked before.

 

Much like saying, "I've got an ant problem."

 

"Well, try ant traps."

 

"Ant traps won't work."

 

"Yes, they will."

 

"I don't give a shit about the ant problem."

 

"But the ant problem is growing and needs to be addressed."

 

"Ant traps will cost money."

 

"Yes, they will. Most problems cost money to address. That's why--"

 

"--Give me a solution other than ant traps and maybe I'll think about it."

 

"How about using Raid?"

 

"I told you I don't give a shit about the ant problem."

 

Why discuss this (or any other) issue with a person who simply wants to argue for doing nothing about everything? Even if that means arguing both sides of the issue simultaneously?

 

It's like discussing AIDS treatments with someone who doesn't think AIDS is a big deal - and also that AIDS treatments don't work anyway. What's the point of that?

 

So "give me program that might help enough to enact?" Sure. It's called cap and trade. It's worked before, and for a problem I bet you didn't give a shit about or want to do anything about either.

 

Your nihilism is hardly my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was pretty funny.

 

Lemme ask ya...

You ever have an ant problem?

You use ant traps?

Did they work?

(probably not too well)

Do the guys that manufacture and sell ant traps want you to use them?

I bet they do.

 

What I'd say is this.

If this ant problem is as dire as you think then you'll need more extreme measures.

Raid might be one but that's not what you want.

Replacing all the doors and windows might work.

Sanitizing the entire house might help.

15 foot radius of diazinon could help.

Hire an exterminator.

No!!!!!!

Too extreme you say.

Ant traps dammit.

WSS

 

 

ps next time we'll discuss the fact that you only plan to put ant traps in one room of the house. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd try this for starters: saying that a program that would have a mandatory and enforceable cap on emissions won't make a difference doesn't make a lick of sense. You should stop doing it. If the law says you can only emit this much, that's how much you're going to be able to emit. That's a difference. And 80% of 2005 emissions is a huge difference, and that's what the bills call for by 2050.

 

If you think the cap is too small, then you'd want to argue for a stronger cap that lowers emissions further. If you're worried about people trying to game the system, you'd argue for stronger enforcement provisions, stronger international agreements. What you wouldn't do is point to all the potential problems and then throw your hands up, as if nobody has ever written a law or negotiated a treaty before. Is this process going to be hard? Yes. Complex? Very. Costly? Yup. Is this a problem like none other? Absolutely.

 

So what? That's what these people do for a living, or at least should be doing.

 

But then you also have to have this discussion in the real world, not in the theoretical one, where we get to pick numbers and dollar figures out of our ass. The only thing that's possible is what's politically possible, and so far that's been a cap set at a goal that's not horrible, but not quite what the science would demand, especially initially. There are no ideals in Washington. You get what you can get, and you scratch and claw for the rest.

 

I know you don't like how ugly this system gets and the sausage it makes (who does?), how this Congressman or that Senator will get millions for their provincial interests, in part to boost their re-election prospects. But this is the world we live in. This is the system. You can't be cynical and naive at the same time.

 

So ...this is why we sort of wince when people talk about snowstorms in DC as being some sort of argument. And I'm not talking about the dopes in here. I'm talking about certain senators with real power, who are also dopes, guys like Inhofe and DeMint and Pence. Or the ones who are catering to the dopes, like McCain is now. It's a giant circle jerk of stupid, with the right-wing noise machine convincing the rubes, who send people to Washington to cater to them, or go apeshit when their crazy ideas -- "Global warming is a socialist plot to kill capitalism and redistribute wealth!" -- aren't translated into policy.

 

It's amazing to me that no one on the right seems to understand why all of this "climategate" stuff is coming out now, right at the time when these bills are being negotiated. It's really not hard to imagine who is behind these curtains. They pretend to be the realists, the cynical "been around the block" types, and yet they all eat this shit up, post it on message boards, and email it your friends like a bunch of drones.

 

Which isn't to say you can't get a sizable portion of liberals to do the same thing. But there really isn't any comparison. There's no left-wing equivalent to the information arm the Republicans have. Yours is really, really efficient.

 

Take it from someone who knows - these are scraps of truth cloaked in enormous amounts of bullshit and misdirection, all to serve the goals of certain industries at precisely the right time. I shouldn't have to tell you how this game is played. I suspect you know. (There's a whole street full of office buildings in DC dedicated to this stuff, and believe me - it extends well beyond that street.) And yet, while you don't pass these things on or repeat them verbatim, it seems to have worked on you anyway. You agree with the tenor of it all, mostly because you don't like hysterics who overstate things. What I'd say to you is this: some people were pretty hysterical about how the AIDS epidemic would unfold in America, and how many people it would affect. That didn't mean AIDS wasn't a problem. I could give you another 30 examples of this, but it'd be boring.

 

Stop focusing on the activists who annoy you. Sometimes they annoy me too. Movies about giant waves engulfing the Statue of Liberty don't help. They just distract and make everything sound Chicken Little. So forget all of that. Just think about the science. Just remember that the science academies of every single nation on the planet have signed on to this theory. Every. Single. One. A few emails or mistakes or proof that scientists can be as nasty as the rest of us doesn't change any of this, and neither does a snowstorm. It's just well-timed smoke.

 

Here's a way to look at it: the scientific community says they're 90% certain. The business/energy community goes through everything they can get their hands on and points to a few things they think are errors out of a giant, decades-old pile of research and data. (And believe me - all you have to do is point at something and say "That's wrong." Doesn't matter if it is. Some people are already willing to believe it's wrong.) So let's be generous and say they've reduced the grade from a 90% to an 89%, or an A- to a B+. That doesn't mean you get to run around screaming that the science community got a F.

 

So ...if this nonsense wins out and we can't get a bill through the Senate with meaningful targets, the international agreements become even more unlikely, if not impossible. Then you could be looking at EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So hopefully we get a bill through the Senate, but I'm not holding my breath. Right now it looks like we're going to get a bunch of clean energy provisions instead, which usually amount to subsidies for favored industries - clean coal, nuclear energy, wind and solar, drilling, you name it. And if that happens, that's a direct result of my side losing some of the PR war on this. It's also tough to tell Americans to do something that is going to affect poorer nations more than it's going to affect us. But more than either of those it's about having to do this in a time when people are already hurting and have more pressing and immediate needs. It's tough to tell someone to do something for 25-30 years from now when he can't pay his mortgage today.

 

I'm completely sympathetic to that argument. But at the same time, we've got to be able to do a lot of things at once, and the bills are crafted to minimize the impact on working people.

 

Off to buy jewelry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, you can certainly tell it's Valentines Day.... @@

 

"Climategate" is no conspiracy, Heck. It was real, legimate corrupt activities by people on your side of the global warming thing.

 

It isn't just the emails. The scientists who are adamantly on your side, ADMIT their calculations and projections are grotesquely in error.

 

Nasa is back tracking.

 

More and more EXPERT scientists in this field are coming forward and lambasting this political movement.

 

And that is what it is, Heck. A political movement. Were it anything else, it would involve an outrage against

 

the false "science" that brought this climate thing into prominence. Global warming has been a cause since, what, 2997 ?

 

And skyrocketed to prominence because of... oh yeah, the POLITICIAN who lose his pres election - was defeated by Bush.

 

Steve, btw, isn't alone. Now, global warming is nearly last on the list of concerns Americans have now. I'm sure you can

 

go look up the poll.

 

Over seven hundred scientists have refuted the man made global warming theory now, Heck. More and more all the time.

 

When science is flawed, everybody who cares about the subject, should step back and re-evaluate, and not just

 

hang on to the earlier popular notions that were portrayed as absolute fact.

 

It just isn't. It's just a theory that has been found out to be supported by mistakes, fraud, greed and politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of painting a picture, Heck, can I get a picture of you responding to K's excellent post of all the

 

super progressive/Marxist/dummies wailing about the lack of snow meaning "man made global warming crisis" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...