Helping along global warming

[Vegas]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html

Remember in January when the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its good friends in media trumpeted that 2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States?

NOAA based that finding - which allegedly capped a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" - on the daily temperature data that its National Climatic Data Center gathers from about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country.

Few people have ever seen or even heard of these small, simple-but-reliable weather stations, which quietly make up what NOAA calls its United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).

But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.

NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.

But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly.

To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year.

NOAA explained that it had updated its 2006 report "to reflect revised statistics" and "better address uncertainties in the instrumental record." This tinkering is standard procedure. NOAA always scientifically tweaks temperature readings for various reasons -- weather stations are moved to different locations, modernized, affected by increased urbanization, etc.

NOAA didn't say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels.

[Tom Joad]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html


But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly.



You need not have a degree in meteorology to be a TV weatherman.

[Vegas]

You need not have a degree in meteorology to be a TV weatherman.

You can also have a PhD in meteorology and it doesn't exclude you.

[Tom Joad]

Take some responsibility
Chico Enterprise-Record
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT


Anthony Watts seems to be a poster boy for right-wing ideology. This isn't a distinction that one should be proud of considering the so-called "right" seem to be wrong on almost every issue. Even after hundreds of the world's top scientists have documented that global warming has in fact been caused by the actions of man, he states that this is not true, that it is a natural occurrence. Just looking at Chico's polluted skies tells me otherwise.

It seems that Republicans in general have a hard time taking responsibility for anything. The war in Iraq, brought to you by the lies of this illegitimate administration has been a horrendous mistake costing the lives of over 4,000 Americans if you include private contractors and over 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Most Republicans still believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I've come to believe that Republicans, especially people like Anthony Watts, are the WMDs.

— Sherri Quammen, Chico

[Vegas]

Take some responsibility
Chico Enterprise-Record
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT


Anthony Watts seems to be a poster boy for right-wing ideology. This isn't a distinction that one should be proud of considering the so-called "right" seem to be wrong on almost every issue. Even after hundreds of the world's top scientists have documented that global warming has in fact been caused by the actions of man, he states that this is not true, that it is a natural occurrence. Just looking at Chico's polluted skies tells me otherwise.

It seems that Republicans in general have a hard time taking responsibility for anything. The war in Iraq, brought to you by the lies of this illegitimate administration has been a horrendous mistake costing the lives of over 4,000 Americans if you include private contractors and over 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Most Republicans still believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I've come to believe that Republicans, especially people like Anthony Watts, are the WMDs.

— Sherri Quammen, Chico

So your response is to attack the credibility because he's allegedly a conservative and conservatives take no responsibility?

[Tom Joad]

So your response is to attack the credibility because he's allegedly a conservative and conservatives take no responsibility?

No, my response is that he is the poster-child for making shit up...and is backed by originators of making shit up, the GOP.

[Tom Joad]

http://www.chicobeat.com/?q=watts_is_wrong

For the record, we don't agree with Anthony Watts' views on global warming. We think he is culturally biased against the environmental movement and because of that, has blinded himself to the reality that global warming is a product of an unsustainable and self-destructive way of life. Climate change is a threat to human existence and is something we need to take action against now.

We feel the need to say that this week because we've already heard protests from a local climate expert, who we asked to counter Watts in this issue. The expert declined because, he said that printing Watts' views will only encourage him, lending him a credibility he doesn't deserve.

We hope that isn't the case. All we are trying to do is provide a forum for divergent views and hopefully spur some debate, and maybe even some action in regard to climate change. We need to seriously think about what each of us can do to reduce our collective carbon output. We need to pressure our representatives to invest in alternative energy. We need to make smart choices as consumers and tell the companies that make inefficient and polluting products that we will not buy from them. Most of all, we need to keep ourselves informed enough to be able to counter the rhetoric used by people like Watts, who seem to be using scientific arguments, but who in reality are cherry-picking data in order to bolster their already-formed opinions.

The science is in. Global warming is real, and it's our fault. Let's deal with that while there is still time.

Let's also not forget to give credit where it is due. Watts has done more to promote solar energy here in Chico than just about any other private citizen we can think of. He also pushed it for the school district, an act we applaud. We hope he will continue to advocate for renewable energy, even if he continues to cling to the fringes of the climate change debate.

[Vegas]

No, my response is that he is the poster-child for making shit up...and is backed by originators of making shit up, the GOP.

So I should respond by finger pointing and name calling liberals?

[Tom Joad]

So I should respond by finger pointing and name calling liberals?

How is that different than most days?

[Jiddy78]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html

Remember in January when the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its good friends in media trumpeted that 2006 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States?

NOAA based that finding - which allegedly capped a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" - on the daily temperature data that its National Climatic Data Center gathers from about 1,221 mostly rural weather observation stations around the country.

Few people have ever seen or even heard of these small, simple-but-reliable weather stations, which quietly make up what NOAA calls its United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).

But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.

NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.

But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly.

To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year.

NOAA explained that it had updated its 2006 report "to reflect revised statistics" and "better address uncertainties in the instrumental record." This tinkering is standard procedure. NOAA always scientifically tweaks temperature readings for various reasons -- weather stations are moved to different locations, modernized, affected by increased urbanization, etc.

NOAA didn't say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels.

Cool.

[Tom Joad]

The exception is not the rule. Fifteen scientists disagreeing with thousands does not mean much (except that maybe there are fifteen scientists who are on someone's payroll).

[Vegas]

The exception is not the rule. Fifteen scientists disagreeing with thousands does not mean much (except that maybe there are fifteen scientists who are on someone's payroll).

That's simply not true.

Have you read about the peer reviewed study that I posted that was signed by over 17,000 qualified scientists? It's not nearly such a one-sided issue as has been presented by folks like algore.

[Jiddy78]

The exception is not the rule. Fifteen scientists disagreeing with thousands does not mean much (except that maybe there are fifteen scientists who are on someone's payroll).


Blah blah blah right right right blah blah blah

Blah blah blah left left left blah blah blah



"Hey Guys" *points to glacier....or lack thereof*


*blank stares*



Blah blah blah right right right blah blah blah

Blah blah blah left left left blah blah blah

[Jiddy78]

That's simply not true.

Have you read about the peer reviewed study that I posted that was signed by over 17,000 qualified scientists? It's not nearly such a one-sided issue as has been presented by folks like algore.

What's the percentage of SUV ownership of those 17,000? Just checking...Gotta keep myself busy until my home is underwater and I gotta start all over again.

[Tom Joad]

I went back and read through some of the articles that Vegas claims refute the idea that global warming is caused by human activities. I noticed that many of the articles came from the AGU. Here's the AGU's official statement on this "controversy":

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.



For further reading about the AGU's position, please check out: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml

[Jiddy78]

I went back and read through some of the articles that Vegas claims refute the idea that global warming is caused by human activities. I noticed that many of the articles came from the AGU. Here's the AGU's official statement on this "controversy":



For further reading about the AGU's position, please check out: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml


I'm building a mini-arc. I'm letting you and Vegas duke it out for the last spot.

[Tom Joad]

I'm building a mini-arc. I'm letting you and Vegas duke it out for the last spot.

Jiddy Almighty?

[Jiddy78]

Jiddy Almighty?

That movie is going to suck...almightily.

I can see why Jim Carrey dumped that sh*t.

[Tom Joad]

That movie is going to suck...almightily.

I can see why Jim Carrey dumped that sh*t.

He dumped it? I did not know that...interesting. I haven't seen Bruce Almighty.

[Vegas]

I went back and read through some of the articles that Vegas claims refute the idea that global warming is caused by human activities. I noticed that many of the articles came from the AGU. Here's the AGU's official statement on this "controversy":



For further reading about the AGU's position, please check out: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml

What articles have I posted from agu?

[IBC]

The 17,000 scientists thing was not very widely accepted here or anywhere else. Just putting that out there. Sometimes it is not the rabid communists that run our newsrooms, you know the ones that have finally taking off there skirts and pom-poms for the Iraq War. Sometimes it is a little thing called accuracy in reporting. You can only present facts. There is something to the fact that nobody reports on weapons in Syria, they aren't there. At least nobody has any proof that contradicts the mountain of evidence saying there weren't any. I will not waste my time proving there are no weapons, creationism is not science,or that global warming is real. No need to, it is already accepted as fact for a reason. You think if there were proof to say that we were right about WMDs, or Christianity was right all along with the creation story, or that we can drive all the SUVs we want and run our AC all the time with no consequences we wouldn't hear about it? What does the corporate owned media have to gain here?


Waiting for the weather channel conspiracy again......

[Tom Joad]

What articles have I posted from agu?

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6851&postcount=1

[IBC]

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6851&postcount=1

About half of those?

[Jiddy78]

About half of those?

That would be 6 out of 13 commie...You should've gotten a private education.

[Jiddy78]

The 17,000 scientists thing was not very widely accepted here or anywhere else. Just putting that out there. Sometimes it is not the rabid communists that run our newsrooms, you know the ones that have finally taking off there skirts and pom-poms for the Iraq War. Sometimes it is a little thing called accuracy in reporting. You can only present facts. There is something to the fact that nobody reports on weapons in Syria, they aren't there. At least nobody has any proof that contradicts the mountain of evidence saying there weren't any. I will not waste my time proving there are no weapons, creationism is not science,or that global warming is real. No need to, it is already accepted as fact for a reason. You think if there were proof to say that we were right about WMDs, or Christianity was right all along with the creation story, or that we can drive all the SUVs we want and run our AC all the time with no consequences we wouldn't hear about it? What does the corporate owned media have to gain here?


Waiting for the weather channel conspiracy again......

No no...It is clearly stated that after "we report" the next logical step in the progression is "you decide."

[IBC]

No no...It is clearly stated that after "we report" the next logical step in the progression is "you decide."

We decide what to report to you? Damn I can never get this right!:) :) :)

[Jiddy78]

I'm saying Vegas chickened out and is hiding in a closet at his work right now.

[IBC]

I'm saying Vegas chickened out and is hiding in a closet at his work right now.

Not Vegas, he will wait until it is evening his time, which is bedtime my time. Then he will barrage the site with articles by various global warming deniers, chicken-hawks, and Creationists just to see the reaction I get when I have a coronary in the morning. They will be from sites like Australians for Conservatism, and Rupert Murdoch monthly so that it is an exceptionally painful grabber.

[BoredWithNoSB]

That would be 6 out of 13 commie...You should've gotten a private education.


Only if its a publicly funded private education.

[IBC]

Only if its a publicly funded private education.

Thats right. Because if I want to teach my kid that the Earth is 6000 years old, the public should pay for it!

[Vegas]

Thats right. Because if I want to teach my kid that the Earth is 6000 years old, the public should pay for it!

I am quite busy again today. I believe that creation and evolution should both be taught in schools. I have stated that before.

[Vegas]

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6851&postcount=1

So you're going by one post. That's "many" of the articles I've posted.....semantics definitely. The fact is that there are peer reviewed articles written by qualified scientists who see it not algore's way. I accept that there are thousands of scientists who see it algore's way. Why do you have such an issue with the thousands of scientists who see it the other way? They don't by any means all work for oil companies.

[Tom Joad]

So you're going by one post. That's "many" of the articles I've posted.....semantics definitely. The fact is that there are peer reviewed articles written by qualified scientists who see it not algore's way. I accept that there are thousands of scientists who see it algore's way. Why do you have such an issue with the thousands of scientists who see it the other way? They don't by any means all work for oil companies.

Your next post after the list you posted:
The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.

1. You claim that global warming is not affected by human activities (or, perhaps more precisely, claim it does not even exist).
2. You post links which are supposed to counter the arguments being made by Al Gore (why you combine his name, I know not). Gore's claims include that human activities are negatively impacting the environment.
3. You claim the debate is over, the proof is in the pudding.
4. Six of the thirteen articles you posted come from a website whose stance on the subject is the opposite of your point. So, you've found the information that hurts your argument.

Now that we're caught up...what?

[Vegas]

Your next post after the list you posted:


1. You claim that global warming is not affected by human activities (or, perhaps more precisely, claim it does not even exist).
2. You post links which are supposed to counter the arguments being made by Al Gore (why you combine his name, I know not). Gore's claims include that human activities are negatively impacting the environment.
3. You claim the debate is over, the proof is in the pudding.
4. Six of the thirteen articles you posted come from a website whose stance on the subject is the opposite of your point. So, you've found the information that hurts your argument.

Now that we're caught up...what?

The earth has been warmer in the past few years, but it depends totally on your reference point. It has absolutely been warmer in the distant past when nobody drove an SUV. What made it warm then? It wasn't from human activity then and it isn't from human activity today. Why did it get warmer on Mars during the same period of time?

The quote about the debate being over is from algore.

A website can have an official standing about an issue and can still list opposing points of view, can they not?

[Tom Joad]

A website can have an official standing about an issue and can still list opposing points of view, can they not?

The authors on that site obviously don't agree with what they posted, then. Do you do that, post stories with which you obviously disagree?

[Vegas]

The authors on that site obviously don't agree with what they posted, then. Do you do that, post stories with which you obviously disagree?

Authors and publishers are different, are they not?

[Ed Who?]

"Hey Guys" *points to glacier....or lack thereof*


*blank stares*



You sure he wasn't pointing to the melting icecaps on Mars? Those damned Grand Cherokees.

[Tom Joad]

Authors and publishers are different, are they not?


Yes, authors are subservient to their publishers.

[Jiddy78]

You sure he wasn't pointing to the melting icecaps on Mars? Those damned Grand Cherokees.

What is that "icecap" comprised of on Mars? Furthermore, what is Mars' atmosphere comprised of? Furthermore, how would a human do on Mars because of those two's composition?


But yeah, the land rover is a b*tch for that environment.

[IBC]

That's simply not true.

Have you read about the peer reviewed study that I posted that was signed by over 17,000 qualified scientists? It's not nearly such a one-sided issue as has been presented by folks like algore.

Remember my response. Why don't you post the study again?

[IBC]

Ok, first of all the "scientists" signed a petition to not join Kyoto, not a peer review of the paper. The article was never peer reviewed. The article was written almost ten years ago, which ignores the hottest years on record. Only 2/3 of those scientists hold advanced degrees. 1/2 of those degrees are in a relevant field, and that can include chemistry and biology or other pseudo related fields.

Also, this is what they signed:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Not so much of a refutation of global warming, but a refutation of Kyoto.

This paper is irrelevant scientifically today. They presented one side of teh issue ten years ago, and claimed the Earth was cooling. Thats right, cooling.

[Vegas]

Ok, first of all the "scientists" signed a petition to not join Kyoto, not a peer review of the paper. The article was never peer reviewed. The article was written almost ten years ago, which ignores the hottest years on record. Only 2/3 of those scientists hold advanced degrees. 1/2 of those degrees are in a relevant field, and that can include chemistry and biology or other pseudo related fields.

Also, this is what they signed:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Not so much of a refutation of global warming, but a refutation of Kyoto.

This paper is irrelevant scientifically today. They presented one side of teh issue ten years ago, and claimed the Earth was cooling. Thats right, cooling.

You have a few facts wrong. The petition project is based on the peer reviewed scientific paper, not based on Kyoto. There are more than 17,000 signers, but that number is based on those who have been verified to have advanced degrees in science. There have been several names taken off when they were found to not have been qualified.

And there's no basis whatsoever to say it is scientifically irrelevant. Facts are facts and there are qualified scientists who continue to sign up to the current day. To say that they only present one side is no different from those who only present the other side.

[LSU]

You have a few facts wrong. The petition project is based on the peer reviewed scientific paper, not based on Kyoto. There are more than 17,000 signers, but that number is based on those who have been verified to have advanced degrees in science. There have been several names taken off when they were found to not have been qualified.

And there's no basis whatsoever to say it is scientifically irrelevant. Facts are facts and there are qualified scientists who continue to sign up to the current day. To say that they only present one side is no different from those who only present the other side.


Who gives a fuck about facts? The fact is that the temperature is x number of degrees higher than it was 100 years ago. That is the fact.

What matters, and what you should be talking about is the fucking interpretation of those facts, i.e., that means, or does not mean that the warming is due to man.

What those scientists say is not fucking fact. It's fucking interpretation of the facts presented, observed, etc.


That's a fact.


Jack.

[IBC]

You have a few facts wrong. The petition project is based on the peer reviewed scientific paper, not based on Kyoto. There are more than 17,000 signers, but that number is based on those who have been verified to have advanced degrees in science. There have been several names taken off when they were found to not have been qualified.

And there's no basis whatsoever to say it is scientifically irrelevant. Facts are facts and there are qualified scientists who continue to sign up to the current day. To say that they only present one side is no different from those who only present the other side.
Sorry man, that is wrong. Read your own propaganda before you put it out there. Less than half have advanced degrees, it is not peer reviewed, and the statement they signed is exactly as written. If they peer reviewed this article sometime after 2004, 6 years after it was published I am sorry for my mistake.

[IBC]

You have a few facts wrong. The petition project is based on the peer reviewed scientific paper, not based on Kyoto. There are more than 17,000 signers, but that number is based on those who have been verified to have advanced degrees in science. There have been several names taken off when they were found to not have been qualified.

And there's no basis whatsoever to say it is scientifically irrelevant. Facts are facts and there are qualified scientists who continue to sign up to the current day. To say that they only present one side is no different from those who only present the other side.

Also, the data the presented was based on a short cooling spell, thus they said in the paper the Earth was cooling. Do you believe the Earth is cooling Vegas?

[LSU]

Sorry man, that is wrong. Read your own propaganda before you put it out there. Less than half have advanced degrees, it is not peer reviewed, and the statement they signed is exactly as written. If they peer reviewed this article sometime after 2004, 6 years after it was published I am sorry for my mistake.


I don't remember the peer-reviewedness of it, but I do remember the 17,000 scientists thing.


And I had many questions back when it was first posted about these 17,000 scientists that went unanswered.


What science? What level of science? Relatedness of the discipline to the field, i.e., how much do they really understand? Involvement in the field? Still in the field, i.e, they have a degree, but are they still working in the field? Employers?


But let's not let us confuse important points with the fact that if all those are left unanswered then people can just make a broad ambiguous stroke of a brush that says "scientists" because people get shivers down their spine when "scientists" are brought into an argument because "scientists" know exactly what the fuck they're talking about. Except, apparently, when they're not on the same side as Republicans. Then they're simply hacks that falter under the pressure of politics and only do studies that have results that are made up to scare people that will further fund their labs for years to come.

This is so fucking tired, it's sickening.

[IBC]

These guys sent out a mailing with a reply card to people in the field of Science. Less than half of them held an advanced degree. Only 2000 were in very relevant fields, such as climatology and oceanology. More than half had an undergrad science degree. That is not a review, and that is not a petition. It is a crap political maneuver, not science. You try and defend this, show me where it was peer reviewed. Show me where they all had advanced degrees.


http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/comment-page-2/

I verified this through a couple other sites, including ones that supported thsi petition. Nobody said they were all scientists, nobody said they all had advanced degrees.

[IBC]

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University


This is the letter people signed. What do you all think it says? Also, this guy was a NAS president in the 60's.

[IBC]

From your website. Don't call me a liar. This is from your late 90's article.

Explanation
Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers

During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.

Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: info@oism.org

If you would like to mirror this site or download it to your hard drive, click here.

You may also view and print this entire web site in one easy step.

[Vegas]

Who gives a fuck about facts? The fact is that the temperature is x number of degrees higher than it was 100 years ago. That is the fact.

What matters, and what you should be talking about is the fucking interpretation of those facts, i.e., that means, or does not mean that the warming is due to man.

What those scientists say is not fucking fact. It's fucking interpretation of the facts presented, observed, etc.


That's a fact.


Jack.

So people can interpret facts and conclude that the world is flat?

[LSU]

So people can interpret facts and conclude that the world is flat?



Stop being such a fuck about what I say. I explain this shit 15 times a day and you still come back the next day fucking twisting shit like this.


Jesus fucking christ.


Where the fuck did I say anything about interpretation leading to a fucking conclusion that has already been fucking proven false? Where?

Fuck.

[IBC]

I don't remember the peer-reviewedness of it, but I do remember the 17,000 scientists thing.


And I had many questions back when it was first posted about these 17,000 scientists that went unanswered.


What science? What level of science? Relatedness of the discipline to the field, i.e., how much do they really understand? Involvement in the field? Still in the field, i.e, they have a degree, but are they still working in the field? Employers?


But let's not let us confuse important points with the fact that if all those are left unanswered then people can just make a broad ambiguous stroke of a brush that says "scientists" because people get shivers down their spine when "scientists" are brought into an argument because "scientists" know exactly what the fuck they're talking about. Except, apparently, when they're not on the same side as Republicans. Then they're simply hacks that falter under the pressure of politics and only do studies that have results that are made up to scare people that will further fund their labs for years to come.

This is so fucking tired, it's sickening.

Read below. It is from the makers of the petition. 2600 had advanced degrees in relevant fields. The rate of people that wouldn't sign today is probably a quarter, based on a random sampling of 30 of the 17,000 "scientists" that signed the petition. It is not peer reviewed, and it is junk science that analyzes a snapshot to say teh Earth is cooling.

This si tired. I said I wasn't even going to give credence to these crap arguments anymore. It only strengthens the other sides position to say there is science behind creationism, or going through the time to debunk crap. It is like being on a wild goose chase to disprove (when I already did months ago), only to know it will be brought up again, and anything I write will just have to be written again.

[IBC]

Stop being such a fuck about what I say. I explain this shit 15 times a day and you still come back the next day fucking twisting shit like this.


Jesus fucking christ.


Where the fuck did I say anything about interpretation leading to a fucking conclusion that has already been fucking proven false? Where?

Fuck.

Fuck.

[LSU]

Fuck.



Fuckin' A.

[IBC]

About the organizer of the "petition"

Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program.

By 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." [2] However, in 1994, Seitz authored a report published by the George C. Marshall Institute, of which he was a founder and chairman of the board, entitled "Global warming and ozone hole controversies. A challenge to scientific judgment." In a broader discussion of environmental toxins, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances." [3]

[Vegas]

Stop being such a fuck about what I say. I explain this shit 15 times a day and you still come back the next day fucking twisting shit like this.


Jesus fucking christ.


Where the fuck did I say anything about interpretation leading to a fucking conclusion that has already been fucking proven false? Where?

Fuck.

You said it's all about interpretation. I'm merely pointing out that interpretations are often wrong.

And have you questioned the "thousands" of scientists who see it the Democratic way as far as whether they have advanced degrees and what those degrees are in?

[IBC]

Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics.

List Organizations

Launch Flash Application

Search ExxonSecrets.org using Google Search:




FACTSHEET: Frederick Seitz
DETAILS

Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy Project.
Chairman Emeritus, George Marshall Institute. President Emeritus, Rockefeller University. Board Member, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Former Science Advisory Board, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.

A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz' article. Seitz signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

Seitz is a recipient of the National Medal of Science. "In 1983 he reeived the Fourth Vannevar Bush Award presented by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation and the R. Loveland Memorial Award of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Seitz is currently a member of the New York City Commission for Science and Technology and has served as chair of the United States delegation to the U.N. Committee on Science and Technology for Development." (Seitz biography)

[IBC]

Classy guy. You know the NAS won't even acknowledge him anymore.

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html

[LSU]

You said it's all about interpretation. I'm merely pointing out that interpretations are often wrong.

And have you questioned the "thousands" of scientists who see it the Democratic way as far as whether they have advanced degrees and what those degrees are in?



YOU keep bringing fucking politics into fucking science. Then you complain about how fucking science is so fucking intermingled with politics. What the fuck.

How about you try to have a discussion that doesn't bring up democrats or republicans when science is involved. Maybe (and I stress maybe) we could have a real fucking discussion about the fucking stuff going on.

Being a general fan of the fucking scientific method, I tend to put stock in what the science is saying and when a fucking international committee of people involved in the science concludes that man has a fucking effect, I will believe them for the time being that what they're concluding is what the fucking science fucking points to...particularly when they're the same group of hacks that a few years ago reported that it was inconclusive whether or not man is involved (like how I changed my view of the scientists between then they agreed and disagreed with my particular stance? I knew you would).

Fuck 'em in the ass if they're democrat or republican.

My guess is that if they're on some sort of fucking committee, they have some sort of fucking relevance and expertise in the area they're discussing. It's not like this thing is run by the Bush admin where some cupcake that game Georgie an 8 ball one day gets a high ranking position.

[IBC]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/seitz.html

More on Seitz. Can we drop this now? Anyone still buying this shit? This si an interview with him, but ti was done by the..... MEDIA!!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!

[IBC]

Look, the guy defended tobacco and was a shill for them, he has close ties to big oil. The own organization that sponsered his study won't support it. The NAS basically disavows him. Respected scientist turned shill. A sad story.

[IBC]

oh, and the review was written by a guy named Arthur Robinson. He has never worked as a climate scientist.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12951

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine

[Vegas]

YOU keep bringing fucking politics into fucking science. Then you complain about how fucking science is so fucking intermingled with politics. What the fuck.

How about you try to have a discussion that doesn't bring up democrats or republicans when science is involved. Maybe (and I stress maybe) we could have a real fucking discussion about the fucking stuff going on.

Being a general fan of the fucking scientific method, I tend to put stock in what the science is saying and when a fucking international committee of people involved in the science concludes that man has a fucking effect, I will believe them for the time being that what they're concluding is what the fucking science fucking points to...particularly when they're the same group of hacks that a few years ago reported that it was inconclusive whether or not man is involved (like how I changed my view of the scientists between then they agreed and disagreed with my particular stance? I knew you would).

Fuck 'em in the ass if they're democrat or republican.

My guess is that if they're on some sort of fucking committee, they have some sort of fucking relevance and expertise in the area they're discussing. It's not like this thing is run by the Bush admin where some cupcake that game Georgie an 8 ball one day gets a high ranking position.

I don't believe for one second that I'm the one bringing politics into a scientific discussion. I post news stories that relate to the subject. The whole global warming topic is extremely political. It's impossible to get away from that. There are a lot of people who latch onto it to impose their politcal agenda -- more government control, higher taxes, restricting energy use by the USA, etc.

[IBC]

Case Study: The Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.

Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [6]

Is there a scientific basis for Robinson's claim that increased carbon dioxide levels will contribute to increased growth of some plants? Some research has gone into investigating this possibility, but the evidence does not point to the type of reassurance that the OISM is peddling. Fakhri Bazzaz, a plant physiologist at Harvard, has found that carbon dioxide-enriched air accelerates short-term plant growth, but his studies were carried out under controlled greenhouse conditions and are difficult to translate to a larger scale. Plant growth in natural systems may be constrained by a shortage of soil nutrients despite the greater availability of carbon dioxide. Moreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth. The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has produced a video, titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth Continues," publishes a newsletter called the World Climate Report, and works closely with a group called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

[LSU]

I don't believe for one second that I'm the one bringing politics into a scientific discussion. I post news stories that relate to the subject. The whole global warming topic is extremely political. It's impossible to get away from that. There are a lot of people who latch onto it to impose their politcal agenda -- more government control, higher taxes, restricting energy use by the USA, etc.


We were just talking about this article and the relevance of the fucking scientists, and in your post was something related to DEMOCRATS. No, you're not the one bringing politics into it...never.

[Vegas]

We were just talking about this article and the relevance of the fucking scientists, and in your post was something related to DEMOCRATS. No, you're not the one bringing politics into it...never.

In response to your post that the republicans are the ones who want to see it the other way.

[IBC]

I don't believe for one second that I'm the one bringing politics into a scientific discussion. I post news stories that relate to the subject. The whole global warming topic is extremely political. It's impossible to get away from that. There are a lot of people who latch onto it to impose their politcal agenda -- more government control, higher taxes, restricting energy use by the USA, etc.

Read what I posted. If you can't defend it then give it up. I am tired of making this argument. This paper has been discredited by so many people. Today I went even farther into it. It is shit Vegas. Sorry man but it is.

[Vegas]

Read what I posted. If you can't defend it then give it up. I am tired of making this argument. This paper has been discredited by so many people. Today I went even farther into it. It is shit Vegas. Sorry man but it is.

It's been challenged, I don't dispute that. Just like there are qualified scientists who have challenged papers and algore's movie.

[LSU]

In response to your post that the republicans are the ones who want to see it the other way.



So, all those other times with stem cells, evolution, climate change, and whatever other stuff we've talked about, you didn't allude to the science being a political move, or that politicians dipping their hands in the information for campaign strategies?


This is much bigger than today's conversations.


If you believe you haven't, so be it. I'll wipe the slate clean and go on information garnered from here on out.

[LSU]

It's been challenged, I don't dispute that. Just like there are qualified scientists who have challenged papers and algore's movie.



That's the most asinine equivalence I've heard.


It's been shown to be out right false (at least the claims being made that rely on it) versus being challenged...

Great spin right there.

[Vegas]

So, all those other times with stem cells, evolution, climate change, and whatever other stuff we've talked about, you didn't allude to the science being a political move, or that politicians dipping their hands in the information for campaign strategies?


This is much bigger than today's conversations.


If you believe you haven't, so be it. I'll wipe the slate clean and go on information garnered from here on out.

There is politics on both sides of those debates as well. It's a fact. Take John Edwards quote where he said that when John Kerry was elected president that people would get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. There are plenty of examples. And I have brought up plenty of those things. That doesn't mean that I'm the only one that has brought up political angles in these debates. It's impossible to divorce politics from these issues.

[LSU]

There is politics on both sides of those debates as well. It's a fact. Take John Edwards quote where he said that when John Kerry was elected president that people would get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. There are plenty of examples. And I have brought up plenty of those things. That doesn't mean that I'm the only one that has brought up political angles in these debates. It's impossible to divorce politics from these issues.



I know. Everything is "impossible".

Except for that's bullshit.

You can talk science without fucking talking politics. Well, I don't know about you, but I can.

Here's the point, I don't give a FUCK what Gore, Kerry, Edwards, or anyone thinks they know about science. They're not fucking scientists. So why attack or condemn what they fucking say as being proof that the science is wrong? It's fucking ridiculous.

[LSU]

There is politics on both sides of those debates as well. It's a fact. Take John Edwards quote where he said that when John Kerry was elected president that people would get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. There are plenty of examples. And I have brought up plenty of those things. That doesn't mean that I'm the only one that has brought up political angles in these debates. It's impossible to divorce politics from these issues.


There's that argument again, too. "The Democrats do it, so why can't I?"


Jesus H. Mother and Joseph.

[Jiddy78]

Stop being such a fuck about what I say. I explain this shit 15 times a day and you still come back the next day fucking twisting shit like this.


Jesus fucking christ.


Where the fuck did I say anything about interpretation leading to a fucking conclusion that has already been fucking proven false? Where?

Fuck.

Look at this f*cking tampon of a post.

REP

[Vegas]

There's that argument again, too. "The Democrats do it, so why can't I?"


Jesus H. Mother and Joseph.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that. I said that it happens that politics gets mixed into the discussion. And yes it sometimes is brought in by me. And I'm not the only one on these boards that does so. It's a political board, by the way.

[LSU]

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that. I said that it happens that politics gets mixed into the discussion. And yes it sometimes is brought in by me. And I'm not the only one on these boards that does so. It's a political board, by the way.




I know, everyone else does it, so should you.


I don't give a fuck if it's a political board. I'm not saying every fucking science conversation should be politics free...but for fuck's sake, when we're talking strictly science and your logic is being challenged, turning into a political debate is about as fucking nancy as I can think of...


There's no fucking discussing here. None. It's a fucking cat fight. No recognition of good fucking points, even if they completely destroy one piece of the opposition's logic. All just fucking denials if you're lucky...most of the time a good point is met with the sound of crickets. A discussion would discuss. Not just be a clusterfuck of everyone trying to 'burn' everyone else with the next article from the Washington Post or Weekly Standard.

[Jiddy78]

I know, everyone else does it, so should you.


I don't give a fuck if it's a political board. I'm not saying every fucking science conversation should be politics free...but for fuck's sake, when we're talking strictly science and your logic is being challenged, turning into a political debate is about as fucking nancy as I can think of...


There's no fucking discussing here. None. It's a fucking cat fight. No recognition of good fucking points, even if they completely destroy one piece of the opposition's logic. All just fucking denials if you're lucky...most of the time a good point is met with the sound of crickets. A discussion would discuss. Not just be a clusterfuck of everyone trying to 'burn' everyone else with the next article from the Washington Post or Weekly Standard.

I'm in it to win it.

[IBC]

It's been challenged, I don't dispute that. Just like there are qualified scientists who have challenged papers and algore's movie.

No, not just like. Very different. The people we are talking about here are the scum of the Earth. This is a guy who defended big tobacco in the 80's. This is a paper that was not peer reviewed. You didn't answer for anything that I posted. To say it is challenged like Global Warmong and human contribution is challenged is a distortion and close to an outright lie. The thing is, you know it. You are too smart not to. So why do you defend it?

[LSU]

No, not just like. Very different. The people we are talking about here are the scum of the Earth. This is a guy who defended big tobacco in the 80's. This is a paper that was not peer reviewed. You didn't answer for anything that I posted. To say it is challenged like Global Warmong and human contribution is challenged is a distortion and close to an outright lie. The thing is, you know it. You are too smart not to. So why do you defend it?

...

I'm in it to win it.

[IBC]

I know, everyone else does it, so should you.


I don't give a fuck if it's a political board. I'm not saying every fucking science conversation should be politics free...but for fuck's sake, when we're talking strictly science and your logic is being challenged, turning into a political debate is about as fucking nancy as I can think of...


There's no fucking discussing here. None. It's a fucking cat fight. No recognition of good fucking points, even if they completely destroy one piece of the opposition's logic. All just fucking denials if you're lucky...most of the time a good point is met with the sound of crickets. A discussion would discuss. Not just be a clusterfuck of everyone trying to 'burn' everyone else with the next article from the Washington Post or Weekly Standard.

We are all a bit guilty of it LSU. I know I am sometimes. But I do agree with you. I love discussion and debate. I go out of my way to research (if internet is research) who the guys are that are cited, if there is review, who is writing the articles and who they work for because for me at least, that is truth. I am not a Dem shill, I don't even like them for the most part. In fact, I would be fine with never mentioning another republican if we could just talk facts from time to time.
I would rather just have facts acknowledged. The only acknowledgment i get is that it has been challenged? And even that is equated to algore (sic) and the science behind global warming. I asked before for one goddamned peer reviewed article in the last 5 years. I never get it. Just this shit again. It is frustrating. I would love to read the science against global warming, but when this is what I get?!?!?!?

[IBC]

...

It would be nice if we were in it to understand. I could use more of that attitude and I know it. I also fashion myself a understanding and intelligent guy who can accept when he is wrong. I have had to in the past. I will have to in the future.

[IBC]

*Crickets*

[Jiddy78]

We are all a bit guilty of it LSU. I know I am sometimes. But I do agree with you. I love discussion and debate. I go out of my way to research (if internet is research) who the guys are that are cited, if there is review, who is writing the articles and who they work for because for me at least, that is truth. I am not a Dem shill, I don't even like them for the most part. In fact, I would be fine with never mentioning another republican if we could just talk facts from time to time.
I would rather just have facts acknowledged. The only acknowledgment i get is that it has been challenged? And even that is equated to algore (sic) and the science behind global warming. I asked before for one goddamned peer reviewed article in the last 5 years. I never get it. Just this shit again. It is frustrating. I would love to read the science against global warming, but when this is what I get?!?!?!?

What? WHAT? WHAAAAATTT???

My ass smells like sweet potato pie mofrackey.

[Ed Who?]

That's the most asinine equivalence I've heard.


Paraphrase: We're right, you're wrong, nanny nanny Ima ideological twit.

[LSU]

Paraphrase: We're right, you're wrong, nanny nanny Ima ideological twit.



No. Just the bold.

[Ed Who?]

No, not just like. Very different. The people we are talking about here are the scum of the Earth. This is a guy who defended big tobacco in the 80's. This is a paper that was not peer reviewed. You didn't answer for anything that I posted. To say it is challenged like Global Warmong and human contribution is challenged is a distortion and close to an outright lie. The thing is, you know it. You are too smart not to. So why do you defend it?

I see the environmentalist movement as detrimental to the country, as detrimental as secondhand smoke. Therefore, I consider Al Gore to be as despicable as this Seitz you describe.

[Ed Who?]

No. Just the bold.

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.

[IBC]

I see the environmentalist movement as detrimental to the country, as detrimental as secondhand smoke. Therefore, I consider Al Gore to be as despicable as this Seitz you describe.

Good point. Pollute away, after all, it doesn't matter does it. Now, about how global warming doesn't exist. Where is your proof Ed? Oh, you don't need any, you just know? Well awesome man, now run along and be confident in your beliefs, and I will run along and ruin our country by asking people to consume less. God and consumption, now appearing together in a new play called: Jesus wants you to consume, be rich, and don't forget to consume!!!!

[LSU]

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.


Wow. And people call me the arrogant one.

For the first paragraph, that's what I've surmised many of the conversations to be here, so it wouldn't be much different than the status quo thus far. I will add again, though, nice conspiracy theory you have playing out there.

But for the fistfight? Fuck, man. I appreciate your knowledge of my current state of life, and your fortune-telling of my upcoming years...based mostly on the simple that that I just don't agree with you, so that means I'm miserable.

And again, since I don't agree with you, there's no way I can be a Christian.

Thank you for such an enlightening stance on how I'm living my life the wrong way to be considered a Christian.

I have learned so much from your great abilities.

[IBC]

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.

The thing is Ed, there is no proof for your stance. There is lots of proof against it.

[LSU]

The thing is Ed, there is no proof for your stance. There is lots of proof against it.


I would again like to point out that the word "proof" should be replaced with "evidence" in these types of situations. I said it to someone on the "other side" awhile back, and in the interest of decent discussion would like to try to hold my side of the argument to the same standards.

Although, my fucking assessment is definitely open to some fucking debate.

[IBC]

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.

As for the second part, good job following the Bible. Can't wait to burn in hell! Thanks for not judging man.

This is what it comes down to for you? Wow man. So what if what I say isn't supported by facts, you are going to hell? Wow. BOOOO!!!! LOGIC! BOOOOOO!!! REASON! Jesus hates them.

[IBC]

I would again like to point out that the word "proof" should be replaced with "evidence" in these types of situations. I said it to someone on the "other side" awhile back, and in the interest of decent discussion would like to try to hold my side of the argument to the same standards.

Although, my fucking assessment is definitely open to some fucking debate.

Fair enough. Evidence is better. Now where is your evidence Ed?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.

http://www.wingsofwitness.org/images/Courtney%20-%20Karel%20Frohlick%20Playing%20Violin.jpg

[LSU]

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.



This has to have been a sarcastic post.

Holy Fuck.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Wow. And people call me the arrogant one.

For the first paragraph, that's what I've surmised many of the conversations to be here, so it wouldn't be much different than the status quo thus far. I will add again, though, nice conspiracy theory you have playing out there.

But for the fistfight? Fuck, man. I appreciate your knowledge of my current state of life, and your fortune-telling of my upcoming years...based mostly on the simple that that I just don't agree with you, so that means I'm miserable.

And again, since I don't agree with you, there's no way I can be a Christian.

Thank you for such an enlightening stance on how I'm living my life the wrong way to be considered a Christian.

I have learned so much from your great abilities.the great ability of god fearing christians, who know and practice the teachings of jesus christ so well, to indiscriminately and ignorantly judge and condemn others.

[Jiddy78]

Perhaps I should just get on here and tell you to read the Bible, and that's the end of it. Your fossils are fabrications, created by some left-wing society set upon trying to debunk the religion most of America believes to be real.

If you want to get in a fistfight, we can do it. That's what it's going to come down to, because you hold firm to your stance, and we hold firm to ours. So enjoy whatever lies ahead, for you a few more years of miserability, while us Christians can at least believe that there's something better beyond.

Think of me when you have sex.

[IBC]

This has to have been a sarcastic post.

Holy Fuck.

Well, I think there are people out there that are manipulated or devoid of logic enough to believe that. There are people that believe the trade centers were brought down by bombs, a missile hit the Pentagon, and Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I think it is safe to say that there are actually people that believe people are trying to take down Religion. Ed might be one of them, his posts sometimes say that he feels this way. He thinks the media is not reporting on anything good in Iraq because it is a liberal conspiracy to defeat the Army and the USA.
Holy Fuck is right

[Jiddy78]

This has to have been a sarcastic post.

Holy Fuck.


You stop swearing in Jesus' presence....or we shall fistfight, heathen.

[LSU]

You stop swearing in Jesus' presence....or we shall fistfight, heathen.


I don't think Ed's around anymore, so we should be good.

[LSU]

Well, I think there are people out there that are manipulated or devoid of logic enough to believe that. There are people that believe the trade centers were brought down by bombs, a missile hit the Pentagon, and Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I think it is safe to say that there are actually people that believe people are trying to take down Religion. Ed might be one of them, his posts sometimes say that he feels this way. He thinks the media is not reporting on anything good in Iraq because it is a liberal conspiracy to defeat the Army and the USA.
Holy Fuck is right


Every scientific theory/practice/thought that the Religious Right (notice I did NOT say Christians, conservatives, or republicans) disagrees with is the result of a conspiracy by the government and science against them in the hopes of destroying them.


Very fucking convenient.

[IBC]

This has to have been a sarcastic post.

Holy Fuck.

About your sig LSU... my mother always said to me: "If your friends jumped off a bridge would you follow?" Actually, we used to jump off bridges into the lake, one right after the other. Anyway...

[Jiddy78]

I don't think Ed's around anymore, so we should be good.

Ed's having sex....thinking of me.



Let's play an imagery game:

What seems more likely to be a symbol of heaven?

A hummer....or....The Suwannee river.

Go.

[LSU]

About your sig LSU... my mother always said to me: "If your friends jumped off a bridge would you follow?" Actually, we used to jump off bridges into the lake, one right after the other. Anyway...




Tit for tat is my motto of late.

[IBC]

Ed's having sex....thinking of me.



Let's play an imagery game:

What seems more likely to be a symbol of heaven?

A hummer....or....The Suwannee river.

Go.

Trick question... A hummer on the Suwannee river is the correct answer to that.

[Jiddy78]

About your sig LSU... my mother always said to me: "If your friends jumped off a bridge would you follow?" Actually, we used to jump off bridges into the lake, one right after the other. Anyway...


My sig is better than both of yours.

Jiddy > ILBSUC

[LSU]

Ed's having sex....thinking of me.



Let's play an imagery game:

What seems more likely to be a symbol of heaven?

A hummer....or....The Suwannee river.

Go.


Is the river polluted?

Because I know the hummer pollutes, even the littler one. So this may be a trick question.

[IBC]

Every scientific theory/practice/thought that the Religious Right (notice I did NOT say Christians, conservatives, or republicans) disagrees with is the result of a conspiracy by the government and science against them in the hopes of destroying them.


Very fucking convenient.

My favorite is a trick by Satan. That is classic. Satan is tempting you with sound thought and logic! Don't buy it!

[Jiddy78]

Trick question... A hummer on the Suwannee river is the correct answer to that.

You've just polluted the Suwannee river. I am sorry. You lose. You receive no points....and are condemned to the worst Hell that Al Gore can conceive.

[LSU]

My favorite is a trick by Satan. That is classic. Satan is tempting you with sound thought and logic! Don't buy it!


Yes, Satan is at work. But he apparently only works on those people that believe the opposite of the RR.


More convenience at its fucking finest.

[IBC]

You've just polluted the Suwannee river. I am sorry. You lose. You receive no points....and are condemned to the worst Hell that Al Gore can conceive.

Damn! Well, I shall be tormented in a hell of rational thought for the rest of my existence I suppose. What was the correct answer anyway?

[Jiddy78]

Yes, Satan is at work. But he apparently only works on those people that believe the opposite of the RR.


More convenience at its fucking finest.

Enough of this Al "Satan" Gore talk....Let's play more games:

If you were to go on a pilgrimage spreading "the word"...What "the word" would you spread?

This can be anything...Religion...CO2 conservation...The importance of deflowering a virgin before you are too old to find one that will touch you....

Go.

[IBC]

Yes, Satan is at work. But he apparently only works on those people that believe the opposite of the RR.


More convenience at its fucking finest.

You are full of F-bombs today LSU. Fuckin-A.


Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.
Donald Rumsfeld:) :) :)

[Jiddy78]

Damn! Well, I shall be tormented in a hell of rational thought for the rest of my existence I suppose. What was the correct answer anyway?

There is no correct answer. I made it up. But I'll think about something really witty and get back to you if you like.

[LSU]

Enough of this Al "Satan" Gore talk....Let's play more games:

If you were to go on a pilgrimage spreading "the word"...What "the word" would you spread?

This can be anything...Religion...CO2 conservation...The importance of deflowering a virgin before you are too old to find one....

Go.


"At least he died for a cause."

"What cause is that?"

"Freedom"

"Freedom's just a word. And if I'm going to die for a word...my word is poontang."

[LSU]

You are full of F-bombs today LSU. Fuckin-A.


Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.
Donald Rumsfeld:) :) :)



It's a phase. I figure if the Vice can do it on the floor of the Senate, I can do it here.

[LSU]

It's kinda funny because when I was at church this past Sunday, you know, being a heathenous non-Christian, I listened to the pastor's sermon. It was quite interesting. It kind of followed what we have discussed here recently...about how God wants us to be "perfect." But what that exactly means isn't really stated exactly. Who's idea of perfection? Perfect as in do no wrong? Or perfect in love of God and such? And is it that we have to be perfect? Or that we must actively strive to become closer to perfect?

But the big point was that everyone will have their OWN idea of perfect. And that could be way more different than your idea of perfect. And they will look down on you for not being what they consider "perfect" by their standards regardless of what "perfect" really means. And to not worry about those fucking people because it's THEIR problem, not mine.

Of course, the pastor didn't say fuck. He's much better with words than I am...

Considering I'm a godless miserable heathen, anyway.

Apparently.

[IBC]

Enough of this Al "Satan" Gore talk....Let's play more games:

If you were to go on a pilgrimage spreading "the word"...What "the word" would you spread?

This can be anything...Religion...CO2 conservation...The importance of deflowering a virgin before you are too old to find one that will touch you....

Go.

My word? I guess I would choose to spread the word of logic, reason, and questioning authority. Thinking for yourself in a nutshell.

I know what yours would be:
Your home is worth half what you paid for it.

[IBC]

There is no correct answer. I made it up. But I'll think about something really witty and get back to you if you like.

Please do.

[IBC]

It's kinda funny because when I was at church this past Sunday, you know, being a heathenous non-Christian, I listened to the pastor's sermon. It was quite interesting. It kind of followed what we have discussed here recently...about how God wants us to be "perfect." But what that exactly means isn't really stated exactly. Who's idea of perfection? Perfect as in do no wrong? Or perfect in love of God and such? And is it that we have to be perfect? Or that we must actively strive to become closer to perfect?

But the big point was that everyone will have their OWN idea of perfect. And that could be way more different than your idea of perfect. And they will look down on you for not being what they consider "perfect" by their standards regardless of what "perfect" really means. And to not worry about those fucking people because it's THEIR problem, not mine.

Of course, the pastor didn't say fuck. He's much better with words than I am...

Considering I'm a godless miserable heathen, anyway.

Apparently.
Why have you forsaken him? and hate the troops.

[Ed Who?]

http://www.wingsofwitness.org/images/Courtney%20-%20Karel%20Frohlick%20Playing%20Violin.jpg

I think this board should be disbanded. The only thing that ever gets thrown around are epithets and garbage namecalling. I'm rather sick of having to fight about this shit. Why don't you guys go find something you can gangrape and give my asshole a break?

I'm done. This is too frustrating. If you don't want to believe that a book 2000 years old is real, then that's your own problem. Good night.

[LSU]

I think this board should be disbanded. The only thing that ever gets thrown around are epithets and garbage namecalling. I'm rather sick of having to fight about this shit. Why don't you guys go find something you can gangrape and give my asshole a break?

I'm done. This is too frustrating. If you don't want to believe that a book 2000 years old is real, then that's your own problem. Good night.




Don't go.

[ryr8828]

It would be nice if the libs would replace the constant sarcasm and smartass with a few valid points.

[Ed Who?]

Don't go.

I'm pissed off right now. You have continually come out and pissed on my religion. Again. And. A. F'ing. Gain.

So I did the same to you, and what happens? More crap, more namecalling, more vulgarity, and more disrespect.

And I absolutely don't think you're sincere about this comment.

[LSU]

It would be nice if the libs would replace the constant sarcasm and smartass with a few valid points.


You know what...


The whole time I've been here, up until about last week, I tried to make very valid and respectful arguments for my side.

I didn't seem to get a lot of valid points in return. Just a bunch of trumped up talking points from various right wing entities.

So before you go firing brimstone at all us "libs" take an honest assessment of how everyone acts around here, not just the people that don't agree with your line.


I would be happy to go back to making sound respectful arguments. But I've got to get some in return.

Until then, this is the fucking me you fucking get.

[ryr8828]

You know what...


The whole time I've been here, up until about last week, I tried to make very valid and respectful arguments for my side.

I didn't seem to get a lot of valid points in return. Just a bunch of trumped up talking points from various right wing entities.

So before you go firing brimstone at all us "libs" take an honest assessment of how everyone acts around here, not just the people that don't agree with your line.


I would be happy to go back to making sound respectful arguments. But I've got to get some in return.

Until then, this is the fucking me you fucking get.

Maybe you should look around. I'm not getting fully entrenched in your evolution argument, I don't want to take the time.

The quotes I posted from Democrats on invading Iraq is a good start. Apparently those quotes were never made because the Democrat politicians have now changed their minds.

[LSU]

I'm pissed off right now. You have continually come out and pissed on my religion. Again. And. A. F'ing. Gain.

So I did the same to you, and what happens? More crap, more namecalling, more vulgarity, and more disrespect.

And I absolutely don't think you're sincere about this comment.


Well, I would say that you need to fucking listen to what I'm saying actually rather than painting me instantly as some God hating conservative hate machine.

I've pissed on YOUR religion? If you haven't fucking noticed, it's MY religion, too. So make no mistake about that anymore. You've accused me many times of being atheist or agnostic. And each time I've tried to correct you. So if you STILL thinking I'm pissing on YOUR religion, it's from your inability to listen to what I'm saying rather than anything on my end.

I don't give two fucks if you think I'm sincere. You either think I mean what I say or you don't. I've been around long enough that people around here know...

And another thing...there were many times you had to explain yourself as being "only joking" or "just being sarcastic" when you thought people took you seriously...so when I see what I consider far right or extreme talk, what do you expect me to do? If I give a serious response you tell me to lighten up...if I make some sort of sarcastic response in return, this happens?

So whatever.


I said what I said. Believe or not. It's your call.

[LSU]

Maybe you should look around. I'm not getting fully entrenched in your evolution argument, I don't want to take the time.

The quotes I posted from Democrats on invading Iraq is a good start. Apparently those quotes were never made because the Democrat politicians have now changed their minds.


You won't see my name responding to any of those points you made.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. They were wrong, and are just as guilty as the Republicans for what's going on.


I don't expect you to get into the evolution argument. I know your stance completely, and I don't believe I've ever tried to hunt you down to argue with you about it...but you know that if you make a comment about what I've said, I'll respond...that's how this place works. If you don't want to be a part of a particular conversation, you don't. I think we've both taken that liberty on many occasions around here.

[LSU]

And if any of this stuff is too heavy, I'm glad to go to PMs to keep some of the bickering off the board...

[ryr8828]

And if any of this stuff is too heavy, I'm glad to go to PMs to keep some of the bickering off the board...

No need with me.

I question carbon dating, I question's man's percentage of a role in global warming, I fully believe that Al Gore doesn't know shit and does this to feed his ego,
I believe that Gore is a total hypocrite for wanting me to live less of a life than he does in order to save the environment, as are the other rich people flying around in private jets to host global warming conferences,

I believe that God created our realm and created man. I don't know how he did it. No one does. Some think he had nothing to do with it and doesn't exist. None of these people can explain something from nothing.

[LSU]

No need with me.

I question carbon dating, I question's man's percentage of a role in global warming, I fully believe that Al Gore doesn't know shit and does this to feed his ego,
I believe that Gore is a total hypocrite for wanting me to live less of a life than he does in order to save the environment, as are the other rich people flying around in private jets to host global warming conferences,

I believe that God created our realm and created man. I don't know how he did it. No one does. Some think he had nothing to do with it and doesn't exist. None of these people can explain something from nothing.


All things already known, but duly noted for future reference.

[Ed Who?]

Well, I would say that you need to fucking listen to what I'm saying actually rather than painting me instantly as some God hating conservative hate machine.


I apologize for portraying you in this way.

[LSU]

I apologize for portraying you in this way.


No problem. I'm just being dramatic with my words.


Apologies rarely necessary. Just like to make sure that what I'm saying is what people are understanding and vice versa.

[Vegas]

It would be nice if the libs would replace the constant sarcasm and smartass with a few valid points.

What I heard the past couple of days is that conservatives are the only ones that insult anyone. Even pointing that out that anyone else makes insulting points is just another insult. Even though if you look at this thread, the initial responses to the article stated that conservatives and the GOP are a bunch of incompetent liars.

[LSU]

What I heard the past couple of days is that conservatives are the only ones that insult anyone. Even pointing that out that anyone else makes insulting points is just another insult. Even though if you look at this thread, the initial responses to the article stated that conservatives and the GOP are a bunch of incompetent liars.



Well, they are fucking politicians, aren't they?

[Vegas]

Well, they are fucking politicians, aren't they?

I'm not talking about the politicians. I'm talking about the regular folks like myself and some other posters here.

[LSU]

I'm not talking about the politicians. I'm talking about the regular folks like myself and some other posters here.



Guilty by association, I say.

[Jiddy78]

It would be nice if the libs would replace the constant sarcasm and smartass with a few valid points.


Find your stock tips elsewhere Frenchie.

[Vegas]

Find your stock tips elsewhere Frenchie.

I'll be happy to provide stock tips.

[Jiddy78]

I'll be happy to provide stock tips.

You're just jealous I don't call you Frenchie.

[hannitykillspuppies]

It would be nice if the libs would replace the constant sarcasm and smartass with a few valid points.

why, so the conservatives can ignore them or flat out deny their validity?

[Jiddy78]

why, so the conservatives can ignore them or flat out deny their validity?

Next time somebody says to me..."Oh yeah? What you gonna do about it?"

My response will be: "I deny your validity."

[Ed Who?]

why, so the conse