I'll accept that, rsr, and also accept that you are only stupid and not subversive as I suspected.
Banned
I'll accept that, rsr, and also accept that you are only stupid and not subversive as I suspected.
Socialism = Poverty
Directions for use:
1. Hold object next to head
2. Turn switch to the "high" position
3. Listen to the latest message from Al Gore
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan
Banned
If you check your definition against reality you will discover that your dictionary is pretty well fucked up. Pretty aspirations but very well dispelled by the present dictator and his former congress who exemplified everything other than your stated aspirations.
Member
Cloudy days and certain weather patterns can keep local temperatures from spiking, scientists say South Floridians still have at least one major reason to be concerned about global warming.
Senior Member
Ex-Clinton Official Ties Minneapolis Bridge Collapse To Global WarmingOriginally Posted by Psychoblues
By Noel Sheppard | August 7, 2007 - 00:12 ET
A former member of the Clinton administration, and current Senior Fellow at the virtual Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress, claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I35 bridge in Minneapolis last week.
I kid you not.
Writing at Climate Progress, the global warming blog of CAP, Joseph Romm - who served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from 1995 though 1998 - stated in a piece amazingly entitled "Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?" (emphasis added throughout):
I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search - and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are "looking at everything" including "the weather" - I think it is a legitimate question to ask.
Keep your seatbelts fastened, for it got better:
Melissa Hortman of the Minnesota House of Representatives "speculated that 90-plus-degree heat Wednesday and the above-normal temperatures of the past two summers may have been a contributing factor," and said "You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer." Or even if it was built to withstand heat, whether its structural deficiencies undermined the design integrity to a point where heat contributed to the collapse.
[...]
Some may object to even asking the question, "Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?" My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem - the same people who inevitably say "we can adapt to whatever climate change there is."
But, in my experience, those "adapters" are actually not interested in finding out what the impacts of global warming are. The Bush administration has blocked research into the impact of climate change on this country and muzzled climate scientists from discussing key climate impact issues, such as the connection between global warming and the recent increase in intense Atlantic hurricanes - which is obviously a central adaptation issue.
By the way, for those that have forgotten, CAP is the group headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta which in June outlined a Democrat assault on conservative talk radio. But I digress:
Those who argue against strong action today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - the adapters who are essentially saying to climate change, "Bring it on!" - cannot criticize those who then ask the obvious adaptation question - how will climate change impact this country and its infrastructure?
Certainly climate change will have the biggest infrastructure impact on our coastal cities, water and sewage systems, levees, and electric grid. But given that a remarkable 70,000 other bridges in the country are also structurally deficient, we should seek to learn whether such troubled bridges can take the ever-growing stresses generated by global warming. We need to be as prepared as possible for a changed climate - as the Center for American Progress has previously argued. Indeed, if the adapters have their way in blocking serious efforts aimed at prevention, we'll need to be prepared for the very worst.
Absolutely unbelievable.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ridge-collapse
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Make sure the energy being used is "green"
Directions for use:
1. Hold object next to head
2. Turn switch to the "high" position
3. Listen to the latest message from Al Gore
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Al Gore Faces New Debate Challenge Expert
Battle of best-selling authors
CHICAGO, Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Best-selling author Dennis
Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is
promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery
have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite
conclusions.
The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme
rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and
researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author
Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S.
National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist),
Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT)
among others.
Gore claims recent climate change is the result of human activities,
and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global
catastrophe. Conversely, Avery amassed physical evidence of past
warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations
in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.
"My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very
dangerous anyway," stated Avery.
"These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's
recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is
the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the
public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each
other," continued Avery.
Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president
of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists
tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists
do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than
$500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington
Times promoting a debate.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4639709&EDATE=
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
In Two Segments, CBS's Harry Smith Raises Global Warming Alarm
By Justin McCarthy | August 7, 2007 - 15:00 ET
CBS’s Harry Smith led the charge against "global climate change," first with billionaire airline founder and activist Richard Branson and then in the health segment. On the August 7 edition of "The Early Show" at 7:49 AM, Harry Smith hosted the health segment on how to handle the heat with the current heat wave that is affecting much of the eastern half of the United States. With many Americans baking in the hot conditions, Smith appealed to their emotions with this editorial comment.
"Before we do anything else, there is in fact, global climate change. It really affects some climates much more than others, and it's really caused some real serious problems."
Resident physician Emily Senay affirmed Smith’s claim.
"It has, absolutely. And the last five to ten years we've seen serious illness and death, heat related. And, honestly, I mean, I think it's a sign of the times. We all need to get familiar with what happens during this, and do our best to prevent anything bad from happening to us."
Earlier in that half hour, at 7:31, Harry Smith spoke with Sir Richard Branson about his new Virgin America flight. Through the course of the interview, Smith hailed Branson’s attempts to fight global climate change. The relevant portion of the interview is below.
SMITH: It's interesting to me, because we've had occasion to talk several times over the last six months or so. Talk about global warming, of climate change, and everything else. Are you as passionate about business as you ever have been, or are these other issues more important to you now?
BRANSON: Well, some of the other issues are obviously more important. I mean, global warming is obviously incredibly important. But having said that, and if you can make -- you know, traveling for a whole nation a pleasant experience rather than a very unpleasant experience, you can make a big difference to people's lives. But, you know, as you said earlier, if we can make profits from Virgin America, the money is going to be invested into clean fuels.
SMITH: Right, because you've pledged all the profits from what you call your dirty businesses into finding alternative fuels.
BRANSON: Yeah, exactly. So, so what we're hoping is that we can have fuels that we can use on our planes and on trains and buses and cars. That we'll not damage the environment and that's where all our resources --
SMITH: In the end, not that you're completely altruistic, you're in the alternative fuel business too so --
BRANSON: And if we can come up with a fuel that replaces gasoline, than I'm sure we'll make a penny
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-...-warming-alarm
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Gunny's nightmare
It may hit 100 in Winston-Salem tommorow. That's very unusual for here.
Banned
There is no explanation for your pitiful existence, rsr.
Senior Member
Pissing off liberals with the truth is a good start
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Of course, if you dare to disagree with Al and the global warming nuts...........
Directions for use:
1. Hold object next to head
2. Turn switch to the "high" position
3. Listen to the latest message from Al Gore
Are Gore and Newsweek’s Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Accusations Coordinated?
By Noel Sheppard | August 8, 2007 - 11:11 ET
As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Newsweek's current issue featured a cover story blasting anthropogenic global warming skeptics as "deniers," and pointing fingers at companies like ExxonMobil as participating in a coordinated misinformation campaign akin to the tobacco industry misleading citizens about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
Shortly after this new issue hit the stands, Al Gore told a forum in Singapore, "the deniers offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere."
This raises an interesting question: Is this a coordinated attack designed to incite anger in citizens that polls show are not as upset about this issue as the left and their media minions?
As reported by the Associated Press Tuesday (emphasis added):
Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world's largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.
"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."
Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking's harmful effects.
[...]
After the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of the world's top climate scientists, released a report in February that warned that the cause of global warming is "very likely" man-made, "the deniers offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere," Gore said.
"They're trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools," he said.
He said Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is one of the major fuel companies involved in attempting to mislead the public about global warming.
Notice the word "deniers?" This is what Newsweek published days earlier (emphasis added):
As [Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California)] left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new [IPCC] report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."
[...]
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
Coincidence, or a coordinated campaign by the left to stifle the growing number of scientists around the world who are speaking out and writing articles refuting anthropogenic global warming theories whilst inciting the public's anger?
After all, neither Gore nor Newsweek chose to address the billions of dollars being spent by global warming alarmists to elicit international hysteria concerning this issue, and how such funds dwarf what is going to skeptical scientists and writers to add a modicum of balance to the discussion.
As Marc Morano, Communications Director for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), pointed out in his rebuttal to Newsweek's disgraceful piece, "proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by comparison."
Gore talks about $10 million possibly coming from ExxonMobil, which the oil giant has denied as "completely false." However, why do both Gore and Newsweek refuse to share information about funding going to the alarmists?
As Morano carefully detailed:
"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. (LINK) Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a 'climate emergency?'"
Certainly, it seems quite suspicious that Gore and Newsweek ignored actual funding data going to both sides of this debate while employing very similar language just days apart to point fingers at "deniers," as well as using the tobacco industry analogy.
Has the June failure of the G-8 to impose CO2 emissions caps, and the July failure of Gore's Live Earth concerts, scared alarmists about the future of their cause? Have polls consistently showing that Americans aren't getting nearly as hysterical about this issue as Gore and his sycophants in the media want discouraged believers to the point that a new tactic is being tested?
With gas prices still hovering around the $3/gallon level, and oil company profits quite healthy, this looks like an easy target. As the weather really hasn't cooperated this year - especially tropical storms which, for the second year in a row, haven't materialized anywhere near the hysterical forecasts - maybe a new campaign is needed to stoke the public's anger.
Think about it: the public's real interest in this issue was largely precipitated by Hurricane Katrina followed quickly by the expedient release of Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore continues to claim that we've got ten years to act before there'll be irreversible damage to the planet. Of course, he's been making this claim for years, but nobody cares about that.
The reality is that barring additional catastrophic climate events, the public's interest in spending their own money on this issue is going to thoroughly disappear. As the recent Newsweek article pointed out about its own polling data:
39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today."
[...]
[L]ess than half [are] in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings.
As such, the public doesn't seem to be buying into the hysteria. And, if some major climate event doesn't happen soon, these public opinion numbers are going to make matters much worse for the alarmists.
As a result, maybe they feel they're running out of time, especially given the number of scientists who believe the current warming cycle peaked in 1998, and that we have begun a cooling trend. Might they be thinking a conspiracy similar to what tobacco companies did decades ago is just the tonic they need to rekindle the public's ire?
After all, Americans love a conspiracy theory, right? And, many hate the oil companies. So, maybe the new tactic being tried by the alarmists - since the current one clearly isn't working - is to create the appearance of a conspiracy concerning this issue all being funded by those nasty oil companies.
Now, to be sure, oil companies funding such activities is not a new concept. This industry is constantly in the crosshairs of environmental groups, and has been accused of funding anthropogenic global warming skeptics for years.
However, what seems new is the timing of this Newsweek piece coincident with Gore's statements in Singapore, along with skeptics now being referred to as deniers.
As such, this bears watching.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ns-coordinated
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Seeker of virtue
are you a scientist now too?
Science is the problem with the global warming advocates. The science doesnt support their conclusions. That doesnt stop them from asking scientists not related to climate study to sign onto global warming and calling it a consensus of scientists.
Seeker of virtue
unusual but not unheard of.
That is the key. There have been hot summers before. There have been mild summers before.
This isnt even one of the hottest summers. within the last century.
Senior Member
It happens every year. When we have a heat wave (like we have now) it is the result of global warming
In the winter when we have severe cold temps - it is the result of climate change
It is the weather folks. It is hot in the summer and cold in the winter
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote