Weekend Open Thread Open Trackback
By: Pam On: Jan/26/07 - 97 Comments
I’ll be in Chicago for the weekend, so consider this an open thread. Feel free to leave links and trackbacks.
Who said it?
“We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others’ point of view,”
Aren’t we on the same side? And isn’t it rather odd that the left has been waving their white flags for years, and have been especially critical of the troop escalation, yet they unanimously confimerd Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command U.S. troops in Iraq. He just happens to be the one that planned this escalation, yet the vote was 81-0!
January 26, 2007 - 08:21 PM on January 26th, 2007
I’m waiting for the gloves to come off. Speaker Pelosi and the Lost Boys are outta ammo after that less than impressive 100 hours. Feel free to view a take on one or more of Pelosi’s announcements at
January 26, 2007 - 09:16 PM on January 26th, 2007
“And isn’t it rather odd that the left has been waving their white flags for years”
I’ll play along…
If the Left is waving a white flag, then you’d have to admit that the Right has been waving an “I’m a gullible idiot” flag for starting and supporting this totally unnecessary and patheticly tragic war in Iraq.
I suggest that only people who support this war send themselves and their children and pay for it, exclusivly.
I want nothing to do with this sick mess that the right started…
January 27, 2007 - 05:03 AM on January 27th, 2007
Weekend Specials 1/27-1/28
…
January 27, 2007 - 05:49 AM on January 27th, 2007
I have a topic:
Last weekend I was at the train station- waiting for my wife to arrive. And there I saw the soldiers that were driving home and was scared how young they were. I mean, when I was at the army, I was such a fledgling as well… But to think today how immature I was then and that kids at that age have so much responsibility is an idea, that I find rather frightening today!
People should not be a soldier before they are at least 25. At that age you have made enough experiences to know how to decide and maybe also how to survive…
January 27, 2007 - 08:45 AM on January 27th, 2007
2- No problem, in exchange, only the left pays for all the social welfare spending..
January 27, 2007 - 09:45 AM on January 27th, 2007
To Matthias Roggenbuck:
I certainly believe that, if there is a draft, the low age limit should be 25 or thereabouts; however, for volunteers, I think the lower ages are acceptable. I’d go back to the age of 21 for voting, though.
And to anyone in authority – why doesn’t someone clean out the mess the discussion forum has become? It’s nearly all spam!
January 27, 2007 - 10:11 AM on January 27th, 2007
“the Right has been waving an “I’m a gullible idiot”flag for starting and supporting this totally unnecessary and patheticly tragic war in Iraq.”
That’s a completely inaccurate assessment of Iraq.
“2- No problem, in exchange, only the left pays for all the social welfare spending..”
Which by 2010 will take up 70% of you federal budget.
Folks like SFL have no problems with spending my money.
January 27, 2007 - 07:51 PM on January 27th, 2007
“the Right has been waving an “I’m a gullible idiot”flag for starting and supporting this totally unnecessary and patheticly tragic war in Iraq.â€
“That’s a completely inaccurate assessment of Iraq.”
Your statement does make me wonder… At what point did the diehard Nazi supporters realize that maybe Hitler wasn’t so great?
January 27, 2007 - 07:53 PM on January 27th, 2007
I think it’s interesting that most of the posts on “Right Voices”are about how stupid and moronic the Democrats are.
Where are the posts about how right the Republicans are?
January 28, 2007 - 02:15 AM on January 28th, 2007
The whole Iran situation seems increasingly (unfortunately) like the most important current news: the latest frightening show of “cowboy diplomacy” from a wounded president who has no support in Congress or on the streets of America.
I guess that since Iraq is going so wel…
Maybe the slime trail that has already been traced back to Rove will lead to the president more quickly than we’d imagined and another geopolitical disaster can be averted.
January 28, 2007 - 12:41 PM on January 28th, 2007
“the Right has been waving an “I’m a gullible idiot”flag for starting and supporting this totally unnecessary and patheticly tragic war in Iraq.â€
“That’s a completely inaccurate assessment of Iraq.â€
——-
No Ted, I think it’s right on.
We on the anti-war Left have been right baout Iraq since DAY ONE.
…Iraq was not a serious threat militarily
…Iraq did not have WMD’s that were a serious threat
…The Anti-War left predicited that an occupation would be long and costly in lives and money
…The Anti-War Left said that the world would turn against the US…
…The Anti-War left predicted that a War in Iraq would create more terrorists…
We on the left knew all along that Iraq would be a mess.
And the supporters of the war are, like I said, gullible fools, who should have known better: Like us in the Anti-War Left knew better.
I have two die-hard republican brothers whom I have been debating since before the war. Only recently has one come out and said “yes…you were right…the war probably shouldn’t have ever happened”
Still waiting for the other brother to come around and tell me I was right afterall.
I wonder when people like you and other RV readers will eventually come to the same conclusion?
——-
BTW, was a BIG anti-war demonstration in SF this past saturday. of course I was there with my friends and my sign…
January 28, 2007 - 12:50 PM on January 28th, 2007
“Where are the posts about how right the Republicans are?”
….sound of cricketts loudly chipping…
January 28, 2007 - 12:57 PM on January 28th, 2007
Re 10:
No Ted, I think it’s right on.
We on the anti-war Left have been right baout Iraq since DAY ONE.
No, you haven’t.
:Iraq was not a serious threat militarily
And was that why ouir prescence was there since 1991?
:Iraq did not have WMD’s that were a serious threat
No one perscribed to that assertion. You are looking at that in hind sight.
:The Anti-War left predicited that an occupation would be long and costly in lives and money
Not just the left. Many knew we would be there for at least a generation. I lnew we would, and I have no issues with that.
:The Anti-War Left said that the world would turn against the US:
The world has not “turned against the US”.
:The Anti-War left predicted that a War in Iraq would create more terrorists:
Care to provide evidence of this?
January 28, 2007 - 01:01 PM on January 28th, 2007
re 8:
I’ll give credit where credit is due. The Bushco have done a great job with the economy. They have to- that is how they garner power and wealth.
They were right for invading Iraq, as they were a legitimate long threat. The invasion itself went very well, but they floundered in the occupation.
January 28, 2007 - 03:40 PM on January 28th, 2007
That post was a joke right? How many democrats voted to authorize the war again? Remember the iraqi liberation act from when clinton was president? Remember Iraq invading Iran and starting a 10 year war? Do you remember Iraq attempting to conquer Kuwait? Do you remember Hussein talking about restoring the Islamic calaphate with him as the head honcho? Your whole post is about hindsight not foresight. What a joke, I wonder if you even know what those words mean.
I am however still waiting to hear the democrat plan for what we should be doing differently. Let’s hear some of that alleged foresight you’re bragging about. More of that idiotic talk of how if we just pull out of Iraq the killing will stop. Talk about naive. Or is it stupidity? Only an idiot would fail to realize that the power vacuum that would leave would lead to horrific bloodshed and not just in iraq. Pretending you were saying this all along while gleefully saying I told you so, is that the democrats way of uniting not dividing that they’re always talking about?
The fact of the matter is we’re in Iraq, deal with it. Whether it was a mistake to go in or not no longer matters. Leaving now would only make things worse and bring out truly horrific killing which we would most likely have to go back in and try to fix later. Think about how the world would view the US if we left and the whole middle east melted down? OH that’s right I forgot you don’t think.
January 28, 2007 - 04:42 PM on January 28th, 2007
“Think about how the world would view the US if we left and the whole middle east melted down?”
Considering how badly they now view us for going there in the first place, I’d say they’d be pretty damn surprised and happy to see us leave.
(!)
January 28, 2007 - 04:59 PM on January 28th, 2007
We on the anti-war Left have been right baout Iraq since DAY ONE.
(Ted- No, you haven’t.)
Clearly, we have. Iraq has turned out to be a foreign policy disaster for the US, just like we said it would be.
Adding to that, it’s clear the majority of the American public now side with the Anti-War left in saying that the War was “a mistake”.
:Iraq was not a serious threat militarily
(Ted- And was that why ouir prescence was there since 1991?)
Exactly. Iraq was isolated and contained, economicly and militarily. Post Gulf War, their once large army was turned into a fraction of what it used to be. They weren’t a real threat to anyone except its own people.
:Iraq did not have WMD’s that were a serious threat
(Ted-No one perscribed to that assertion. You are looking at that in hind sight.)
No, actually…many on the left, myself included, were not convinced about the “threat” of Iraqi WMD’s. The anti-war left were calling for more time for inspections in the run up to the war. Had there been more time, we would have come to the comclusion that we all now know – there aren’t any signifigant stockpiles threatening the world.
:The Anti-War left predicited that an occupation would be long and costly in lives and money
(Ted-Not just the left. Many knew we would be there for at least a generation. I lnew we would, and I have no issues with that.)
Well you SHOULD have issues with lengthy and costly occupation. It increases hatred and animosity towrads our country, recruits terrorists to fight against us and kill innocents…
:The Anti-War Left said that the world would turn against the US:
(Ted-The world has not “turned against the USâ€.)
Do you travel overseas post 9-11? I have, and the people I’ve meet no longer trust the US. They view us a country run by religious fanatics bent on imposing their way of life and their goddamned McDonalds all over the globe.
Look at the opinion polls from accross the globe, Ted. The US is not viewed like it once was during the cold-war. The goodwill the world felt towards us post-9/11 is quickly vanishing…
:The Anti-War left predicted that a War in Iraq would create more terrorists:
(Ted-Care to provide evidence of this?)
I was there Ted. We knew that military action in Iraq would not only result in an occupation, but that occupation would increase the anger and hatred already felt towards the US in that region. We knew that when you bomb and innocents house, the surviving members would be more likely to take revenge against the aggresser. That’s how it works. Imagine if YOUR country was invaded, your house bombed, your wife and child killed…would you not do anything in your power to take revenge? To make them pay?
I clearly remember thinking that this would only perpetuate the cycle of violence.
That is not hindsight bias Ted, that is called being right. Something the pro-Iraq War people haven’t been in a long, long time.
January 28, 2007 - 05:00 PM on January 28th, 2007
typos.
ops:
January 28, 2007 - 08:11 PM on January 28th, 2007
You know San Fran if the world hates us so much do you think they will stop asking for our MONEY? I sure do hope so. Everytime I read one of your statements that speaks of how the world views us I find myself asking who the fuck cares? I live in America. I understand muslim extremists hate us. Maybe because we made them so rich. Who knows? Who cares?
All I know is that I live in America and I want NO MORE 9/11’s. Capice?
Iraq was necessary if we are to fight evil. You are naive in your view imo and I’m sure I have a few years of experience on you.
January 28, 2007 - 08:13 PM on January 28th, 2007
PS. They are not anti war demonstrations. They are SURRENDER RALLIES and no good american wants to surrender our values; at least outside of San Francisco.
January 29, 2007 - 12:20 AM on January 29th, 2007
Bonbon you forgot to leave out one thing in your comments. We feed the world. We can produce the one thing in mass quantities that the whole world HAS to have… FOOD. We produce more food than most of the rest of the world combined. We can manufacture anything, but you can’t make food in a factory. We cut off the purse strings and then hike tariffs on all outbound agricultural products and *Poof* the whole world is our best friends again. Why do you think all of the idiotic anti American rhetoric in the UN came to a screeching halt back in the early 80s? The late Jean Kirkpatrick essentially threatened to recommend that foreign aid be reduced to those countries supporting the anti American resolutions. It ended the crap.
The rest of the world needs us a helluva lot more than we need them. We don’t need French cheese or wine, we can make our own. We don’t need German BMWs, we have the plant in North Carolina to make them. We can even produce our own oil if the damn idiotic environmentalist whackos would get out of the way. I’m not saying we need to ween ourselves off of oil, just that we have the resources necessary to produce our own until the technology advances to the point where it becomes economical to do so. Personally, I think biodiesel makes a lot more sense than Ethanol. It’s easier and cheaper to produce, it burns in any standard diesel engine, and gets better gas mileage too. We just need to produce more small diesel powered cars. it’s not like we didn’t used to produce diesel cars in the US (Chevy made the Chevette in a diesel that was called reasonably peppy by “Car and Driver” magazine), we just need to develop more of them. Diesels are very popular in Europe.
January 29, 2007 - 02:18 AM on January 29th, 2007
Clearly, we have. Iraq has turned out to be a foreign policy disaster for the US, just like we said it would be.
Iraq as a “foriegn policy disaster” has no bearing on if the war was justified or not. The ONLY reason it has had a negative impact on foreign policy is 1) oil-for-food and the UN involvement 2) state sponsors of terrorism 3) The fact the the post war occupation has thus far been bungled.
“Adding to that, it’s clear the majority of the American public now side with the Anti-War left in saying that the War was “a mistakeâ€.”
No- it is clear to me the vast majority of Americans want to win the war in Iraq and are frustrated by Bush’s failure to do do. An interesting poll:
While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats’ victory “a good thing,” even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration “from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism,” and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
Source.
“Exactly. Iraq was isolated and contained, economicly and militarily. Post Gulf War, their once large army was turned into a fraction of what it used to be. They weren’t a real threat to anyone except its own people.”
No, not economically contained at all. Money was being channeled to them using oil for food not to mention through countries ignoring the UN sanctions.
Oh and the UN deemed the no fly zones illegal, so we were going to have to withdraw. Add on that the fact that we would be there for several generations if we did stay and your blatant disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi’s themselves and it didn’t seem that Iraq was more of a threat than you claim. if they weren’t, we wouldn’t have been there to begin with.
No, actually:many on the left, myself included, were not convinced about the “threat”of Iraqi WMD’s. The anti-war left were calling for more time for inspections in the run up to the war. Had there been more time, we would have come to the comclusion that we all now know – there aren’t any signifigant stockpiles threatening the world.
That is conjecture on your part. First the vast majority of the left prescibed to the idea that they had WMD’s even before Bush was in office. i’m sure we can parade out the lists of quotes if need be. You are inaccurate in your assertions.
Well you SHOULD have issues with lengthy and costly occupation. It increases hatred and animosity towrads our country, recruits terrorists to fight against us and kill innocents:
No, the insurgents and terrorist are who targets and purposefully kills innocents. We had been occupiers in Germany and Japan for longer timeframes at more cost proportionately than Iraq. I have no issues with that, why should I have issues with occuping iraq as long as it is done comptently and sucessfully?
Do you travel overseas post 9-11? I have, and the people I’ve meet no longer trust the US. They view us a country run by religious fanatics bent on imposing their way of life and their goddamned McDonalds all over the globe.
Look at the opinion polls from accross the globe, Ted. The US is not viewed like it once was during the cold-war. The goodwill the world felt towards us post-9/11 is quickly vanishing:
Yes, I have. Pre 9/11 I was always advised to tell folks I was Canadian or I would find great difficulty in traveling. I am sure you’ve met people like you’ve said, but i’ve met people of all opinions. You antecdotal evidence not withstanding, America has never been popular overseas since WWII. I have no problem with that- there are no inernational popularity contests.
I was there Ted. We knew that military action in Iraq would not only result in an occupation, but that occupation would increase the anger and hatred already felt towards the US in that region.
You were “where”? You are providing anecdotal evidence once again. I know where you got the opinion though, and that basis was pure speculation. There is no way telling there would be more or less terrorist because of our occupation in Iraq. By your reasoning, our occupation of Germany and Japan created terrorist by the hoardes also.
We knew that when you bomb and innocents house, the surviving members would be more likely to take revenge against the aggresser. That’s how it works. Imagine if YOUR country was invaded, your house bombed, your wife and child killed:would you not do anything in your power to take revenge? To make them pay?
By this reasoning, then the people of Iraq would be fighting against the two main radical factions: The Sunni minority composed of a motley band of Baathists, al-Queda annd other faction and the Shi’ite factions supported by al-Sadr and Iran. That is who is killing the vast majority of innocents in Iraq. But it isn’t the innocents taking “revenge”. We are looking at radical religious and political factions who want control.
That is not hindsight bias Ted, that is called being right. Something the pro-Iraq War people haven’t been in a long, long time.
All I ask is that if indeed you re “right” then you provide emperical evidence to support your assertions instead of emotionally based gobblty-gook.
January 29, 2007 - 09:11 AM on January 29th, 2007
FAO,
Car and Driver wouldn’t know their Carburator from a fuel injector.
We could be using E85 fairly easily in this country IF the proper information concerning the requsites for conversion were made known to the public and the government stop trheatening corporate officers with jail time for selling real conversion kits to the public.
The only problem I heard is with aluminum cylinder heads, like on my Ford 3.8L V6, and other softer metal parts.
January 29, 2007 - 11:01 AM on January 29th, 2007
oh wow, man! I was at the big anti-Bush, anti-war rally in San Francisco and it was way kewl! It was just like those pictures of people power in the 60s! I kept yelling “Bring it all down, man!” cause that’s what they used to yell back then, I heard. I bet the 60s were great. The only bad part is most everybody protesting back then had VD, so I probably wouldn’t like that!
I’m glad to see all of the best Liberals posting here! San Francisco Liberal has posted some awesome stuff. AKD yer really smart too, thanks for the post!
Hey, Democratic talking points come out today for this week, so get yours right away!!!
San Francisco Liberal, GREAT hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking! That was AWESOME! Great technique, and dont worry it doesnt really matter if some of your stuff is wrong thats not important its the main point thats important and your right on there! Oh and sorry I missed you at the protest this weekend. Where were you? You werent that naked guy, were you?
Hey wheres Maria on this thread? She says shes not a Liberal, but I can spot a great Liberal and she is the best!!! She’s a righteous Liberal!
I am getting tired of the disparaging of Lieberals here. Liberals are the smartest, the best, the most compassionate, the ones who know everything. Who do so many, like Maria, deny what they are? San Francisco Liberal is proud, as he should be!
Be PROUD, Liberals! Don’t let them keep you in the closet! Right now, shout, “I am a Liberal, and Im not going to take it anymore!” Put bumper stickers on your car proclaiming your Liberalism! Put a huge yard sign in front of your pad saying: I am a Liberal! This is a nuclear and gun-free house! I support Al Gore! Clinton/Obama in ‘08! STOP Global Warming!
January 31, 2007 - 11:56 AM on January 31st, 2007
Hey,
Speaking of global warming…
I’m sure that you’ve seen the news about the recent study. I guess that after a study of climatological change that took nearly 6 years to complete, the world’s top climatologists have determined that there is, in fact, a clear link between man-made carbon emissions and global warming.
Uh-oh, somebody better tell these eggheads that the existence of such a link was disproven by the amateur climatologists right hear at RV. I’m sure that they’ll revise their findings accorningly.
Strangely, over 150 scientists linked to the study reported a total of 435 incidents of political interference in their work. It seems that they were pressured to eliminate sensitive terms like “global warming” and “climate change” from their results.
I don’t get it. It’s not like the oil companies have any vested interest in denying the link between global warming and man-made carbon emissions, right? And even if they did, its not like Bush was an heir to his family’s oil business money…
Ohhhh, this must be another hoax perpetuated by those dang Gorebots. Why does everyone have to pick on the oil companies; they just have our best interests at heart…
Here’s a link to one of the many recent articles on the subject.
I’m confident that you’ll carefully weigh the evidence.
January 31, 2007 - 12:08 PM on January 31st, 2007
A bit more info:
Democrat Henry Waxman and Republican Tom Davis both say the White House is refusing to hand over documents on climate change.
Do these documents need to remain classified for our safety? What is the Bush WH protecting us from now?
January 31, 2007 - 12:16 PM on January 31st, 2007
Regarding the scientists who claim they were pressured, those wouldn’t be any of the same scientists who have been on the man-causes-Global-Warming bandwagon, would they? And speaking of $ and self-interest by oil companies, what about the scientists who make their living depending on grants for this kind of study? You don’t think they and Al Gore have a “vested interest”.
For every scientist who has joined the religion, there is one or more scientists who say not so fast. It is a matter of who you want to believe and ally yourslef with.
But when you look at the overall picture (Kyoto Protocl fraud), the incredible economic implications of what the GW activists are proposing, the power and control over our lives they want to assume, how can you not want to have proof of their hypotheses before you accept them?
I’m from Missouri on this one: Show me!
btw Al Gore’s travelling snake oil roadashow is a huge fraud. WHY won’t Gore appear in public with anyone who disgrees with him? Why did he include all the information in his movie that supports his claims, yet excluded anything that did not support it or countered it?
Sucker…
January 31, 2007 - 12:55 PM on January 31st, 2007
They became the “world’s top climatologists” when they wrote what they were paid to.
January 31, 2007 - 01:05 PM on January 31st, 2007
Why, its Robert. The first of our amateur climatologists to weigh in. Let’s look at his post.
Regarding the scientists who claim they were pressured, those wouldn’t be any of the same scientists who have been on the man-causes-Global-Warming bandwagon, would they?
I assume that if they’ve been pressured to remove discussions of global warming and climate change from their results, then they are part of said “bandwagon.” Duh.
And speaking of $ and self-interest by oil companies, what about the scientists who make their living depending on grants for this kind of study? You don’t think they and Al Gore have a “vested interestâ€.
I spoke of self-interest from oil companies, which have a hell of a lot more money and clout (especially with the current administration) than any academic entity. Not surprisingly, you (sloppily) tried to redirect this fact. Do you concede that oil companies (and the presidents that they own) have a vested interest? Here’s some more info to help you out:
“Rick Piltz, a former climate change official testified that a Whitehouse aid once edited a report on climate change, and even deleted some sections. Piltz, who co-coordinated and edited reports on climate change, said he resigned from his post in 2005 to protest against the Bush administration impeding communication on climate science for political reasons.”
I’m not sure what Al Gore’s “vested interest” is. Do you just mean that he believes in global warming? He’s made this clear. As far as university grants go: We’re not talking about anywhere near the sort of money that the oil companies command. Moreover, when someone receives a grant, it’s simply a grant to gather/study a given set of data. A grant doesn’t proscribe certain results (which is, apparently, what the Bush admin. is seeking to do). Within the university, any indication that you’ve falsified data to procure a grant is grounds for revocation of tenure. I wish the penalties were as harsh for holders of public office.
A scientist could certainly make a living studying global warming and concluding that it doesn’t exist (with the same penalties if it turns out that he falsified data). In fact, he could probably make a lot better money, since most of the university grants going to scientists come from large corporations or our current government. Luckily, despite the fact that a huge paycheck might be involved, most scientists are too intellectually honest to take this route.
Incidentally, most scientists could give a damn about whether their findings get dems or reps elected. They’re famous for not thinking through the political implications of their work (that’s why so many of them were taken by surprise by the whole ID debacle). This is probably why they’re right most of the time. They don’t spend their lives with ideological blinders on. They tailor their opinions to the results; you might consider doing the same.
For every scientist who has joined the religion, there is one or more scientists who say not so fast.
Care to provide some actual statistics on that, Robert? And I don’t mean the name of one guy who works for Exxon. It’s funny, I heard the same thing about scientists who believe in evolution rather than ID—a real division in the field, etc. Surprise, surprise, when I actually checked a recent survey, over 98% of biologists, zoologists, and archaeologists said that ID was BS. The 2% or so who didn’t were by and large affiliated with religious institutions. Hmmmm. I was under the impression that the precentage of scientists who believe in human caused global warming is currenly in the mid-nineties. Please, correct me. Or are they all lying Gorebots?
But when you look at the overall picture (Kyoto Protocl fraud), the incredible economic implications of what the GW activists are proposing, the power and control over our lives they want to assume, how can you not want to have proof of their hypotheses before you accept them?
Well, if the great majority of scientists are right we’re likely to see environmental catastrophe on a global scale; regardless, you can’t use the fact that you wouldn’t like the consequences to disprove the results of a scientific study.
I’m from Missouri on this one: Show me!
The full document will be out in a couple days. Will you accept the data gathered over six years from the top scientists in the field, or will you be conducting your own studies? Maybe RV can get you a grant…
January 31, 2007 - 01:30 PM on January 31st, 2007
Al Gore’ vested interest? He get’s paid millions to say what he does….wife doesn’t need to worry about money anymore…
January 31, 2007 - 01:37 PM on January 31st, 2007
He was rich before it all got started. He hardly has to rely on the whole global warming thing to keep Tipper in furs. And you haven’t begun to answer any of the real questions.
January 31, 2007 - 02:00 PM on January 31st, 2007
AKD,
Global Warming is a theory held by acclaimation, not by proofs. You come spouting the propaganda, but can you refute the Books and Authorities that Hannity has been showcasing?
Oh, leave your arrogance and pomposity at the door. They are not arguments.
January 31, 2007 - 02:18 PM on January 31st, 2007
30- see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you need more, let me know!
January 31, 2007 - 05:12 PM on January 31st, 2007
31: PCD, How could my pomposity refute “Books” and “Authorities.” I know that I have to take them seriously because they’re CAPITALIZED. Maybe if you read a Book every now and then, you could become an Authority instead of a Joke.
32: Peejz, honey, you seem to have linked to the same right wing opinion pieces that you posted here months ago. Is this your argument against the most recent study of global warming? You’re not citing scientific studies. Do you know the difference?
Also, what about the charges that Philip Cooney, the Bush administration’s former head of the Council on Environmental Quality who now works as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil, has routinely imposed his own views on the reports of climate change scientists? What about Rick Piltz, the former Bush inside who left in disgust? What about the 453 reports of interference from climatologists? I guess that you’ll close your collective eyes to anything that threatens your closed minds.
Its pretty clear that the facts will never convince you. You’re more likely to listen to Hannity (that “Authority,” as PCD would capitalize it) than to actual climatologists. Actually, Robert probably hit the nail on the head when he admitted to being afraid of “the incredible economic implications of what the GW activists are proposing.” If you’ve decided that economic interests trump everything else, I guess that there’s not much else to say.
January 31, 2007 - 05:23 PM on January 31st, 2007
One more thing…
Before you attack the IPCC (as I suspect that none of you will actually read their study), you should look into what they’re actually all about. For example, they’ve been criticized in the past for being too conservative in their estimates, they were attacked by the left for saying that a life in a 3rd world country isn’t worth as much as a life here, etc. These aren’t the lefty boogeymen that you seem to be so terrified of. They’re scientists with a reputation for being blunt and overly conservative.
Christ, even Bush admits to “the serious challenge of global climate change.”
Here’s a more complete article for you to disregard without reading.
January 31, 2007 - 05:40 PM on January 31st, 2007
Among others, the following scientific organizations recognize human-caused global warming: IPCC, US National Research Council, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, and the G8 National Science Academies.
The only recognized scientific organization to reject human-caused global warming is the AAPG—-the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. They were in the news not too long ago after they gave their journalism award to Michael Crichton for State of Fear, a work of fiction, appropriately enough.
January 31, 2007 - 08:18 PM on January 31st, 2007
recognized by who?
January 31, 2007 - 09:06 PM on January 31st, 2007
#28: I’m not sure what Al Gore’s “vested interest”is.
You need someone to point out the obvious?> Well let’s start with being an International Environmental Guru and Founder of the Church of Global Warming, which gives this divinity school dropout the attention and adoration he has craved for years.
Why do you and Al Gore both forget to mention the Petition Project, signed by more than 15,000 scientists who correctly point out that human-caused GW is no more than a hypothesis at this point?
Sorry, no sale. AKD you have swallowed the kool-aid, you have joined Al Gore’s Church of Global Warming. You are a true believer, steeped in faith for the dogma. You are a zealot, and there is no way logic and common sense will penetrate the mind of the zealot.
January 31, 2007 - 09:34 PM on January 31st, 2007
URL to a report demonstrating that the Global Warming hypothesis has not been proved, and also showing that the IPCC’s computer model predictions (which is their basis) do NOT match actual data over the last 19 years:
http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm
Peejz, sorry for the unlinked URL, I have to use a proxy server or my posts do not appear. When I use the proxy, the buttons to link properly do not appear.
February 1, 2007 - 03:44 AM on February 1st, 2007
36:
recognized by who?
The wider scientific community, by which I mean those publishing in peer reviewed journals and teaching at accredited institutions.
37:
Why do you and Al Gore both forget to mention the Petition Project
Let’s see…
The senior author of the article was Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a biochemist. The second and third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Both Baliunas and Soon have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which receives financial support from the oil industry. The fourth and final author was Zachary W. Robinson, Arthur Robinson’s 22-year-old son. Not exactly the world’s premier climatologists.
Of course, the Petition Project claimed that it avoided any funding or association with the energy industries, but of the few actual scientists who signed the petition (more on this in a moment), most are closely affiliated with organizations funded by Exxon and others to discredit legitimate climate science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition’s Patrick Michaels.
The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (one of those peer reviewed journals the right never seems to get its paws on). Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago, said that it was “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review.” Obviously, it wasn’t and hasn’t.
What about the evidence?
Among other things, the “article” states that “… over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly”and says that this was based on comparison of satellite and balloon data from 1979-99. Even at the time the petition was written, this was not true: the data showed warming. Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows even more warming.
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that 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 also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.â€
But how could all those scientists be wrong, Robert?
Petitioners were requested to list their academic discipline; although most (strangely) chose not to, the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (already an embarassingly small number), but offered no evidence in support of its claim.
But they were all scientists right?
Actually, the term “scientists”is often used in describing signatories, but the petition did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said “send more petition cards for me to distribute.â€
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a sample of the 30 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science [not quite 15,000, huh]. Of the 26 who actually held a degree, 11 said they still agreed with the petition “- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?
So I’m the one who’s swallowed the kool-aid, huh?
38.
URL to a report demonstrating that the Global Warming hypothesis has not been proved, and also showing that the IPCC’s computer model predictions (which is their basis) do NOT match actual data over the last 19 years:
Looks like you linked to the same petition project, Robert. Was that a mistake? I’m not sure how a petition from January 1998 refutes a scientific study carried out between 2001 and 2007, even if the PP were legitimate.
February 1, 2007 - 08:05 AM on February 1st, 2007
AKD, Your pomposity and condesension only proves you are a propagandist. All you proved is that you are a “TRUE BELIEVER”. This is a religious article of faith with you. Anything is heresy that does not agree with you. Now, saying that the Oil companies are behind something is a bullying scare tactic of lefties who are scared that thier carp storm will not stand basic scrutiny.
February 1, 2007 - 08:05 AM on February 1st, 2007
AKD, Your pomposity and condesension only proves you are a propagandist. All you proved is that you are a “TRUE BELIEVER”. This is a religious article of faith with you. Anything is heresy that does not agree with you. Now, saying that the Oil companies are behind something is a bullying scare tactic of lefties who are scared that thier carp storm will not stand basic scrutiny.
February 1, 2007 - 08:32 AM on February 1st, 2007
I wonder when MIT lost their accredation?!?!?!
Anyhow, this sums up my feeling:
Steven LJ Russo
GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH VS. REALITY
February 1, 2007 - 10:07 AM on February 1st, 2007
AKD you have proven nothing more than that you are a fervent member of the Church of Global Warming. You attempt to dismiss any scientists that disagree as oil industry bogeymen with vested interests, but will never address the obvious conflict of interests for the scientists on your side (and Al Gore). Same with the credentials; if they do not agree, they aren’t really scientists or not trained in disciplines that qualify them. But on your side, why there’s no question!!!
What you don’t know is that this debate was thoroughly gone through on this site several months ago, and so if some of us seem reluctant to engage every detail in your posts with the zealousness you exhibit it is because we have been through this already. I myself posted a detailed discussion of the relative effectiveness of the leading greenhouse gases, plus the relative concentrations, and the contributions to GW that each likely makes. The info came from NASA. And the conclusion was that human-generated C02 is an unknown but very likely insignificant insignificant factor. At BEST, its role in unknown and unproven.
The ONLY evidence and basis for the dire predictions comes from computer models made by, guess who, the advocates themselves who are depending on this hysteria for their livelihood.
And yes, I wrote about the tremendous economic and social implications of going along with an unproven hypothesis, because why in the hell should we give our money, our rights away to Eco Frauds, Al Gore, and international socialists?
You conveniently ignore questions and issues that shoot holes in your assertions wide enough to drive a truck through. You never acknowledged that Environmental Messiah Al Gore is a known hypocrite, he is NOT a scientist, he HAS a vested interest, and his movie DID ignore any facts that conflict with his conclusion. You never explained why the Kyoto protocol heavily penalizes the U.S., England, and other western countries, but does not include China and India.
Like Al Gore you simply ignore what doesn’t fit your model, or find ways to dismiss it using rationalizations that could be used in the same way to dismiss your side.
Therefore, imo you are a sucker who has indeed consumed the envirowacko Kool-Aid.
February 1, 2007 - 10:12 AM on February 1st, 2007
#42 Peejz apparently if MIT does not agree with Al Gore and the IPCC, then MIT is not only not scientific, they are being paid off by oil companies, and their scientists are not trained in the relevent disciplines.
This is what we have learned from AKD.
February 1, 2007 - 10:14 AM on February 1st, 2007
So if my weatherperson doesn’t subscribe to GW, then I am not to believe their weather reports?
February 2, 2007 - 03:42 AM on February 2nd, 2007
You attempt to dismiss any scientists that disagree as oil industry bogeymen with vested interests, but will never address the obvious conflict of interests for the scientists on your side (and Al Gore).
apparently if MIT does not agree with Al Gore and the IPCC, then MIT is not only not scientific, they are being paid off by oil companies, and their scientists are not trained in the relevent disciplines.
Gore isn’t a scientist. He’s a politician who happens to be convinced by the evidence. You’re the one who keeps bringing him up as a compromised authority. I’ve never claimed him (except to comment that as soon as anyone brings up global warming, you call them Gorebots or something equally clever). As for whether the actual scientists who disagree with the scientific consesus are by and large oil industry boogeymen: We’re talking about an incredible minority of scientists, which makes it fairly easy to figure out where there money is coming from. For example, in the case of Lindzen (the only guy from MIT that you’re actually citing, and the MIT guy who the other climatologists at MIT disagree with). He charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC, etcetera, etcetera. This isn’t just a conspiracy theory. He admits to it. An oil company paying for a scientific study of the effect of oil companies on the environment seems like a conflict of interests. Do you disagree?
Now we have a committee made up of thousands of the world’s best climatologists who say that global warming does have a human cause. Not that you’ll listen, but it’s nice to see you look so stupid.
Two things that I’m wondering about:
1) How do you spin the 435 charges of govt. interference by scientists involved in studying global warming? It seems to me that if Robert, for example, were charged with 435 separate counts of indecent exposure (even if he remained unconvicted):
2) Why is the right so afraid of science? I can accept that there’s an ethics debate over stem cells, but what about the whole intelligent design debacle? Is it just the right’s religious interests? I know that some on the left have opposed nuclear power as an alternative fuel source, but they don’t try to deny that nuclear power exists.
February 2, 2007 - 06:59 AM on February 2nd, 2007
AKD, thank you for admitting you are an anti-American, anti-capitalist, Luddite of the left. You aren’t interested in anything but consensus. Screw you!
February 2, 2007 - 07:06 AM on February 2nd, 2007
47.
Why does my belief in science (rather than in poorly written right wing opinion pieces) make me a “luddite?” Do you know what this word means?
Oh well…
PCD’s clearly too stupid to come up with anything but name calling (and threats to “screw me”). Do any other members of the Right Voices Amateur Climatological Society want to weigh in?
February 2, 2007 - 08:15 AM on February 2nd, 2007
46- No you are talking about a minority..that minority is not even real…there are more that don’t go along with GW than do, but if they don’t agree with GW, they are not the leading scientists according to you…
How much are Gore and the “leading” climatologists making per day? You throw out these fees as if the pro global warming are doing this for nothing…
February 2, 2007 - 08:17 AM on February 2nd, 2007
AKD,
Yes, I know the entomology of Luddite and of Saboteur. You are both. If humans cause global warming, kill yourself to keep the globe cooler.
You are the non-logical one.
You do not throw out countervaling evidence to your theories by shouting concensus and call it science. That is RELIGION.
Does the A in your acronym stand for Acolyte?
February 2, 2007 - 10:49 AM on February 2nd, 2007
49: The scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans has been determined by scientists who are paid to carry out their studies, regardless of the results. Oil industry tools like Lindzen are paid to arrive at specific results.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
This isn’t a request for an alternate study; it’s a bribe. Do you, dear peejz, understand the difference?
50: Yes, I know the entomology of Luddite and of Saboteur
The term “entomology” refers to the study of insects? I think that you mean “etymology” (which refers to word origins). Man, you’re stupid.
February 2, 2007 - 10:52 AM on February 2nd, 2007
Perhaps the RVACS and PCD’s Junior Entomology Club could join forces.
February 2, 2007 - 11:16 AM on February 2nd, 2007
“Perhaps the RVACS and PCD’s Junior Entomology Club could join forces.”
AKD your sophomoric attempt to mock us only makes you look like an idiot.
AKD, Eben, and Matthias are apparently all active, zealous members of Al Gore’s Church of Global Warming, the newest Leftist religion.
AKD if you actually knew about some of the science involved, rather than digesting then regurgitating rhetoric and propaganda, you just might have some doubts of your own. Of course that takes some native common sense, so it might not be possible for you.
CO2 is a very minor player in the Greenhouse Gas portfolio. For example, water vapor is 30 to 100 times as effective a GG as CO2. Methane is also more effective as a GG than CO2. Human contribution to CO2 is a very small percentage of the total; most, along with Methane and water vapor, comes from natural sources. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% at most of all CO2 generated is from human activity. So you have a small percentage of a minor player in the GG gas arena. And the “greenhouse effect”from the sun’s energy as a contributor to earth temperature is not understood. At best it is just one component to be input to a computer model, that’s it. (All this info is from NASA, btw).
So not a few, but the 15,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition Project, plus countless others who DO NOT have any vested interests, rightly point out that human contribution to GW is a HYPOTHESIS, and nothing more.
EVERYONE who is now asserting that human activity is causing GW falls into one of the following categories:
1. Scientists or other researchers who have a vested interest in promoting the GW hoax.
2. International Socialists who want control over other nation’s economies and other people’s lives.
3. Fraud artists and hucksters like Al Gore who see this issue as the ticket to notoriety, the limelight.
4. Religious zealots, typically Liberals and ecowackos, who have accepted the Church of Global Warming doctrine faithfully
5. Politicians who want to jump on the bandwagon for political promotion and self-interest.
6. Dopes who think it sounds so wonderful they’re on board, they’re on the bandwagon, they’re just oh-so-ecological.
7. Wankers who hate capitalism, hate the U.S. because we use more energy per capita than the mud people, hate SUVs, hate everything traditional.
8. Weak-minded individuals, trendoids, who have no capacity to think for themselves, no fundamental common sense, and just go with the flow du jour of their peers (this actually might be the same as #6. lots of crossover here).
Which category(s) do you fit in, AKDemocrat, Eben, Matthias?
February 2, 2007 - 12:18 PM on February 2nd, 2007
51-The scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans has been determined by scientists who are paid to carry out their studies, regardless of the results. Oil industry tools like Lindzen are paid to arrive at specific results.
WRONGGGGGGG They produce the results they are paid to, because they are smart enough to know that if the results are not the desired outcome, they stop getting funded..funding is results oriented…All research is done like this..very competitive and results oriented. If the person that is paying doesn’t get what they want, they go elsewhere…But then again, you know that…
February 2, 2007 - 12:42 PM on February 2nd, 2007
AKD, pull the GOVERNMENT FUNDING with no possible restoration and we’ll see what tune your puppets sing.
You xerox machines never can explain why man is so bad to the environment, but the massive and much greater quantities VOLCANOS have emitted since the formation of Earth is not the problem. AKD are you going to run to each volcano with a stopper to plug it up? Are you going to eliminate cattle from the Earth?
Let me get to the bottom line, are fools like AKD going to dictate who lives, who dies, and how the survivors live?
February 2, 2007 - 12:43 PM on February 2nd, 2007
Just to add, is AKD one of the elites from Soylent Green?
February 2, 2007 - 03:26 PM on February 2nd, 2007
PCD- Funding is the key…look at stem cell research…adult stem cell research has been around since the 50’s and through private funding, many beneficial “cures” have been gained…When the private sector did not get positive results from embryonic stem cell research, the private funds dried up, hence we now have an ad campaign going on about how the govt should fund this..it’s a game…
Hey what happened to those storms we were supposed to get last year?
February 2, 2007 - 03:36 PM on February 2nd, 2007
Peejz, you know better than to confuse a true believing acolyte like AKD with facts that don’t fit his religion.
February 2, 2007 - 05:24 PM on February 2nd, 2007
I sincerely apologize to San Francisco Liberal for forgetting to include him in my list of Church of Global Warming members in good standing. He surely is at least at the level of an Acolyte, if not higher. He was one of the first to declare his faith in Messiah Al Gore and the Church of GW in this forum!
It was an oversite, nothing more!
February 3, 2007 - 03:24 AM on February 3rd, 2007
So many attacks from the RVACS and PCD’s JEC; so few arguments.
Just three quick points:
1) You suggest a liberal bias in all reports of human caused global warming, but you haven’t given me any indication that such a bias exists. On the other hand, we have a money trail leading from oil companies to GW debunkers. Can you provide any statistics in support of your ravings or are we supposed to take it all on faith. Incidentally, even if there were bias on the side of the scientific consensus (bias you’ve insisted on without providing any evidence), it doesn’t make the bias on your side go away.
2) Robert’s long, rambling description of CO2 doesn’t mean much in the face of the scientific consensus that I’ve cited above. I suggest you look over the previous posts. I’m sure you’ll agree that, though Robert may be the treasurer of the RVACS, he isn’t really a climatologist and we should probably take the scientific consensus more seriously. The fact that Robert is still trying to cite the petition project as a reliable source is proof of his desperation (or his illiteracy). Still, I guess that he’s more capable of putting a sentence together than pcd, who’s no doubt too busy with his bugs.
3) It’s funny to hear a group of dolts who likely jumped on the intelligent design bandwagon claiming that the scientific consensus on global warming is a religion. At least you’ve learned that religion is a bad word.
February 3, 2007 - 03:32 AM on February 3rd, 2007
Breaking news:
It looks like Exxon is changing its tune in the face of the scientific consensus and joining the church!
…Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human’s role in global warming.
Damn Gorebots!!! Where will the RVACS get the money for next meeting’s milk and cookies?? Could pcd please provide the entomology [sic] for “screwed?”
February 3, 2007 - 05:00 AM on February 3rd, 2007
I am wondering if anyone is aware of SEPP?
February 3, 2007 - 05:41 AM on February 3rd, 2007
That would be the Science & Environmental Policy Project associated with Mr. Fred Singer. About a decade ago he argued that “there has been no indication in the last century that we’ve seen anything other than natural climate fluctuations.”
This turned out to be based on faulty science. The core of his argument was that although computer models show climate change, satelite photos do not. At the time, other scientists simply argued that the computers are more accurate—they’ve proven to be so in other cases. Regardless, recent satelite photos using more advanced equipment do in fact show warming and current scientific studies make use of both computer models and satelite imaging (though they still insist that the computers are generally much more accurate). Singer hasn’t responded to these findings.
Unfortunately, SEPP does not publish research. Supposedly they’re looking into the failures of their earlier position, however.
February 3, 2007 - 05:55 AM on February 3rd, 2007
OOOPS!
I assumed that Singer and SEPP were simply wrong about their research (no conspiracy here), but I just found this…
“… S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO for his studies of global warming”
SEPP as a wider organization officially denies ever taking money from industry or governmental sources; however, ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 and 2000.
February 3, 2007 - 06:51 AM on February 3rd, 2007
AKD:
So, are you asserting that $20,000.00 in donaations over six years ago to a single member invalidates SEPP’s assertions (non-profit, 501(c)3 educational group), yet a $1 billiom a year enviromental lobby some how does not invalidate their?
During the 1995-96 election cycle alone the enviromenytal lobby spent 95% of all money contributed to Democrats.
I’ve not entered the “Global Warming Debate” because frankly I don’t care about it. But to sit here and accuse one side of having a vested financial interest and give the other carte blanche is simply ridiculous.
I can see how both sides have a substantial finanicial interest here. It is the way Washington works. To deny that is to deny the nature of politics, and this topic definately falls under that category.
February 3, 2007 - 07:57 AM on February 3rd, 2007
AKD- I did some research and found your source..just like you they don’t link to sources so I had to really do some digging.
Let’s take a look at the lobbying that is happening from sources listed but not cited:
Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $820,000
  Subtotal for Parent: $820,000
 the Sierra Club in 2005
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $171,000
  Subtotal for Parent: $171,000
Industry
Total
Environment
$171,000
the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2005
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $420,000
  Subtotal for Parent: $420,000
Industry
Total
Misc Issues
$420,000
Alaska Conservation Foundation
-
$160,000
Alliance to Save Energy
-
$60,000
Amer for Responsible Recreational Access
-
$240,000
American Bird Conservancy
-
$0
American Rivers Inc
-
$60,000
Assn of National Estuary Programs
-
$80,000
Bay Delta Urban Coalition
-
$30,000
California Coastal Conservancy
-
$120,000
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
-
$60,000
Citizens to Protect Lake Berryessa
-
$80,000
Climate Council
-
$20,000
Coastal Conservation Assn
-
$60,000
Conservation Fund
-
$120,000
Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico
-
$560,000
Crop Protection Coalition
-
$60,000
Defenders of Wildlife
-
$460,000
Ducks Unlimited
-
$60,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
-
$740,000
Environmental Council of the States
-
$70,000
Environmental Defense Fund
-
$450,898
Environmental Law & Policy Center
-
$40,000
Environmental Working Group
-
$13,566
Everglades Trust
-
$120,000
Fort Peck Lake Assn
-
$0
Friends of the Earth
-
$93,909
Friends of the River
-
$0
Heritage Conservancy
-
$20,000
Highlands Coalition
-
$80,000
ID Conservation League
-
$20,000
Indian Head Defense Alliance
-
$140,000
International Arid Lands Consortium
-
$40,000
Interstate Council on Water Policy
-
$20,000
Intl Assn of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
-
$230,000
Land Trust Alliance
-
$57,707
League of Conservation Voters
-
$40,000
National Audobon Society
-
$40,000
National Environmental Trust
-
$223,301
National Parks Conservation Assn
-
$127,000
National Wildlife Federation
-
$280,000
Natural Resources Defense Council
-
$820,000
Nature Conservancy
-
$120,000
Nature Conservancy/Arizona
Nature Conservancy
$10,000
Northern Forest Alliance
-
$80,000
Ocean Conservancy
-
$20,000
Operation Clean Air
-
$20,000
Oregon Water Resources Congress
-
$20,000
Pew Center On Global Climate Change
-
$11,000
Piedmont Environmental Council
-
$80,000
Prince William Sound RCAC
-
$0
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
-
$40,000
Responsible Environmental Solutions
-
$60,000
Responsible Industry for a Sound Enviro
-
$60,000
Restore America’s Estuaries
-
$40,000
Save America’s Forests
-
$0
Save the Bay
-
$80,000
Scenic America
-
$0
Sierra Club
-
$171,000
Six Agency Cmte
-
$20,000
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
-
$80,000
TCE Issues Group
-
$20,000
Trout Unlimited
-
$350,000
WateReuse Assn of California
-
$40,000
Wilderness Society
-
$407,000
World Wildlife Fund
-
$480,000
Yakima Basin Storage Alliance
February 3, 2007 - 08:10 AM on February 3rd, 2007
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a lobbists group to influence policy? It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, money is flowing from both sides and money is being paid to get the desired results…
BTW, if your source is so sure of the authenticity of the letter that was uncovered, why no link?
February 3, 2007 - 09:50 AM on February 3rd, 2007
“Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a lobbists group to influence policy? It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, money is flowing from both sides and money is being paid to get the desired results:”
Exactly my point. I have a hard time believing either side of this issue. Even “science” is influenced by the weight of gold.
February 3, 2007 - 11:19 AM on February 3rd, 2007
#60 AKD: Very, very sad. AKD you blather about science, but you can’t be bothered with a real discussion of science (like the real science about CO2 I posted). Instead you trumpet concensus (of one side) then completely dismiss concensus on the other side.
You won’t address the issue of the Kyoto Protocol fraud, probably because that one simple, stark example puts the lie to the fundamental basis of your wonderful earth warming political promoters. The obvious fraud of that one simple example is a dagger to the heart of the “integrity” of your side. You won’t even dismiss it; you just simply ignore it.
You are a pathetic kool-aid drinker, a shill for the DGlobal Warming fraud industry, or a combo. I’m telling you that this doesn’t fly here at RV, the majority of posters here are capable of thinking for themselves and are able to detect fraud and bullshit. I don’t care what X number of scientists say, Al Gore, or any one else says, if they say 2+2=3 I can see for myself that there is something very wrong. Something you are apparently incapable of doing (independent analysis and conclusion).
I know now what your handle stands for:
AKD = Another Koolaid Drinker
Sad, pathetic, idiotic. I pity you, you poor fool.
February 3, 2007 - 02:20 PM on February 3rd, 2007
test.
February 3, 2007 - 04:13 PM on February 3rd, 2007
65. So, are you asserting that $20,000.00 in donaations over six years ago to a single member invalidates SEPP’s assertions:?
No. The fact that the satelite imaging that SEPP uses turned out to prove the opposite of what they claimed invalidates their claim. The donations merely call their intentions into question.
66. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a lobbists group to influence policy? It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, money is flowing from both sides and money is being paid to get the desired results:
If the issue concerned whether the democrats get money from the environmental lobbyists just like the republicans get money from the oil industry, your points (and all those links) would be relevant. But this isn’t the issue. I’m talking about the money that’s being paid directly to scientists with the intent to influence the results of their research. A move that Exxon now admits (along with the scientific consensus on global warming):
Exxon has…acknowledged that global warming is happening…that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay humans’ role in global warming.
Show me where the IPCC (and all of the other scientific organizations that have concluded that human caused gw is a fact) is being funded by the environmental lobbies. Do you see the difference?
69. you trumpet concensus [sic] (of one side) then completely dismiss concensus [sic] on the other side.
I do indeed describe the scientific consensus. By including the adjective before the substantive, however, I mean to exclude groups like the RVACS and the oil industry (with the exception of Exxon, which now seems to be in line with the scientific consensus). Consensus need not refer to unanymity—ask pcd for the term’s “entomology.”
You won’t address the issue of the Kyoto Protocol fraud, probably because that one simple, stark example puts the lie to the fundamental basis of your wonderful earth warming political promoters.
Was I supposed to address it? For the last time, I’m not talking about Gore and the democrats. I’m with Ted. They’re by and large as bad as the republicans. Neither the IPCC, nor the majority of the other scientific organizations that I’ve cited make reference to the Kyoto protocol (or any govt. program) in their study. If their results suggest that the KP should get a vote of yea rather than nay, however, so be it. My argument isn’t about integrity (not that you’d know anything about it), but the scientific consensus. A consensus that even those who have something to lose (e.g., Exxon) are grudgingly coming to admit. Hell, even the Bush administration accepts the IPCC report.
I don’t care what X number of scientists say:
How wonderful for you and your hilarious level of ignorance. Tell me Robert, when you get sick, do you just have one of your retarded pals drill a hole in your head to let the evil spirits out? Who cares what a doctor has to say, with all him’s fancy book learnin’. Robert knows when he’s right and he knows when he’s a-bein’ fooled!!
I don’t care if you have pet theories about co2 that you’ve cobbled together from different right-wing opinion pieces. The actual scientists have come to a different conclusion. I’ll listen to them, thanks.
Speaking of drinking the Kool Aid, one of the groups that funded SEPP was actually the church of the good Rev. Moon. This doesn’t have much to do with the issue, but it’s still weird.:shock:
February 3, 2007 - 04:21 PM on February 3rd, 2007
“Speaking of drinking the Kool Aid, one of the groups that funded SEPP was actually the church of the good Rev. Moon. This doesn’t have much to do with the issue, but it’s still weird.”
Indeed, that’s very strange. Got a link to that- I’d like to look into it.
February 3, 2007 - 04:29 PM on February 3rd, 2007
“Neither the IPCC, nor the majority of the other scientific organizations that I’ve cited make reference to the Kyoto protocol (or any govt. program) in their study”
AKD,
While I can respect the reasoning behind your opinions, inherent in this though is that the IPCC was created by WMO and UNEP. Both of these organizationa are United Nations based entities. While you may respect the motivations of the UN, I do not. They make the corruptness of US politics look like a children’s playground hissy fit.
I find it a bit disturbing that any organization related to the UN is supposed to be looked upon as either being “objective” or “principaled”.
Sorry, that just doesn’t sell me.
Still, I acknowledge the debate rages on- I just wish there was a single legitimate entity doing it. This is why I don’t care about it though, because to date there has been no such entity.
February 3, 2007 - 04:35 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Here is an interesting document regarding the funding of the IPCC.
February 3, 2007 - 04:43 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Intersting…it appears that Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the cheif of the IPCC, participated in consumer boycotts against Exxon Mobile.
Hardly seems like an unbiased scientist, does it?
February 3, 2007 - 04:58 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Interesting: Dr. Pachauri is also director of TERI- an organization with a vested interested in the Indian Economy.
India? Aren’t they exempt from Kyoto?
Follow the monet trail kids…just follow the money trail.
February 3, 2007 - 05:02 PM on February 3rd, 2007
TERI receives funding from 200 organizations in 43 countries. Anyone wanna make a bet how many of those are on Peejz’s list in post 66?
February 3, 2007 - 05:09 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Here’s a link on the Moon reference. I can’t find the site where I got it originally, but this one has some of the same info.
Apparently SEPP was initially affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, itself linked to Moon. Here’s a link on the W.I.
I don’t really know much about Moon, though (besides the whole “moonie” thing).
As far as the IPCC being compromised goes, here’s how I see it…
The study was carried out by 2,500 leading scientists from 130 countries, and I haven’t seen any actual evidence that the UN attempted to dictate the results. On the other hand, Exxon basically admits to this sort of interference in the studies it funded (at least this is how I read their pledge to stop funding fringe groups to debunk gw, not to mention the whole $10,000 reward for debunkers). If the facts were ever on Exxon’s side, why the bribes?
According to the most recent statistics, 90-95% of scientists studing global warming have concluded that human caused global warming is a reality. Here’s a link. You’d be hard-pressed to find this sort of consensus in other areas of research. I assume that this is why Exxon and Bush are finally, grudgingly, accepting the data.
I’m sure that money’s changing hands all over the place, but I need to see something like a real link between, e.g., the environmental lobby and the 90-95% of scientists who have determined that human caused GW is (unfortunately) real. I agree that it’s good to remain agnostic on these things as long as possible, but at this point it looks like a case of trying to remain neutral in a moving train. Saying that we should do nothing also involves taking a stand.
February 3, 2007 - 05:17 PM on February 3rd, 2007
My last post was written before Ted’s last few posts, but I stand by what I said. I need actual examples of attempts to influence the studies. If a consensus of 90-95% of scientists is going to be debunked, we need to see actual interfernce in the scientific work comparable to what we saw in the case’s of the oil company bribes.
Also, no one has remarked on Bush’s, or Exxon’s, acceptance of the IPCC’s findings. I never thought that I’d see this. Comments?
February 3, 2007 - 05:19 PM on February 3rd, 2007
The link to the 90-95% figure is hardly relaiable, as it quotes IPCC scientist themselves as saying this. That’s like asking Krispy Kreme “Who makes the best dognuts?”. They’ll never say “Dunkin Dognuts”.
I see the money changing hands. While not in depth, it took little for me to establish a money trail here AKD. If I were interested enough in it, I have no dought it could be solidified.
As far as your assertion “I haven’t seen any actual evidence that the UN attempted to dictate the results.” I can’t disagree. But I take a bit different view. The UN is corrupt IMO. It is incumbant upon them to prove otherwise in this event. I have never seen them operate in a non-agendized method, EVER. My assumption is thus: that they always do. thgis is why I painted the picture between the ICPP and TERI- that is the vested interest for no just the good Doctor, but for the UN.
February 3, 2007 - 05:22 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Ypou do know that the IPCC solicits funding independently from governements, don’t you? This makes a pretty starke case against the “independence” of the IPCC.
“Also, no one has remarked on Bush’s, or Exxon’s, acceptance of the IPCC’s findings. I never thought that I’d see this. Comments?”
I never want to guess the sorid motivations of any politician, but it usually involves money and power.
February 3, 2007 - 05:32 PM on February 3rd, 2007
Here are the only claims I can find of the IPCC’s corruption. It’s not exactly what I expected:
It has also been noted by critics including scientists, that right-wing, pro-corporate, and related biases and influences have affected the IPCC leadership, most prominently in the strong lobbying by the Bush administration, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, from the IPCC chairpersonship, and to have him replaced by the much more soft-stated, mild-mannered, and more industry-friendly Pachauri. Link
There are many examples of scientific research which has indicated that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually under-stated them (this may be due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate, as well as to the conservative bias, noted above, which is built into the IPCC system). Examples include a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers’ analysis was “applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2001 sea levels would be 0.5-1.4m above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9-88cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001. Link
In response to criticism by respected scientific experts that IPCC’s then impending January 2007 report under-states certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story acknowledged that “IPCC is a consensus-building structure.”
They’re too conservative?! What does this say about their results?
February 3, 2007 - 05:41 PM on February 3rd, 2007
C’mon AKD- that’s a strawman arguement.
Given the IPCC is a UN organization and we all know they motivation behind the UN, isn’t this an entirely plausible situation:
IPCC solicits funds from China independently. Since China is exempt from Kyoto, they realize the added political preasures place of the US governement to join Kyoto as a result of their studies would only benefit China (and yes, India) in the world market place.
IMo, I see no reason to take stock in the belief of either side of the arguement here. It seems the enviromentalists are not beyond using scare tactics and internal political preasures to push their agenda. I also see a vested interest in the oil companies to push a “business as usual” composure. (which FTR, I completely disagree with but for other, BETTER reasons than the enviromentalist want to promote).
February 3, 2007 - 06:01 PM on February 3rd, 2007
71- Actually the lobbyist money is very relevant and you know that, or we wouldn’t have Pelosi bringing it up before a committee would we?..I also followed the link to CNN money and all I see are references to a letter, but no letter..so based upon what I have read of Exxons change of heart?..well, let’s see, they invited people to a retreat, all expenses paid..looks like buttering up..let’s see if they change their policies..The article is almost laughable when discussing the fact that Exxons image is tarnished..and the negative press is hurting them?…
February 4, 2007 - 04:02 AM on February 4th, 2007
and the negative press is hurting them?
Apparently they think it is (regardless of how well they’re doing at the moment) if they’re claiming to accept the IPCC findings and pledging to quit funding the debunkers. There statements will make it slightly more difficult for them to go on with the same practices as before (though I’m perfectly willing to accept that they’re probably lying).
Then there’s Bush
I’m not claiming that there’s not an environmental lobby, or that environmentalists are beyond using scare tactics. At this point, however, where we stand is with something as close to a unanymous scientific position as we ever could have expected to get on this (extremely political but nonetheless ultimately scientific) issue. You can continue to raise doubts, but you can hardly claim that the two sides currently enjoy equally tenable positions. Maybe this would have been possible a decade ago, but not now.
February 4, 2007 - 04:05 AM on February 4th, 2007
Here’s a short quote from the article I linked to above. This was news to me:
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman later told a news conference that the report was “sound science,” even as he insisted that the Bush administration has always accepted scientific studies pointing to man-made climate change.
”As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is attributing to changes in our earth’s climate and that issue is no longer up for debate,” Bodman said.
:?:
February 4, 2007 - 09:21 AM on February 4th, 2007
86- see what happens when you take the time to do some research?:wink:
February 4, 2007 - 01:58 PM on February 4th, 2007
AKD is a hopeless brainwashed Church of Global Warming zealot. He’s ready to punsh the United States, put our economy permanently in the toilet, and turn over our money and our rights to a biunch oh hate-America international socialists on the basis of a hypothesis (promoted maoinly by people with vested interests).
Pretty bad management, imo. You know this ecofraud thing just may be what pushes this nation into another civil war.
February 4, 2007 - 03:13 PM on February 4th, 2007
“You can continue to raise doubts, but you can hardly claim that the two sides currently enjoy equally tenable positions. Maybe this would have been possible a decade ago, but not now.”
Of course I can claim that, as I’ve seen how both positions have been derived.
February 4, 2007 - 05:13 PM on February 4th, 2007
88. You know this ecofraud thing just may be what pushes this nation into another civil war.
Is it any wonder that I think you’re a total joke? Keep posting—it can only get better!! I’m hoping for something on the connection between the “ecofraud,” the Roswell crash, and the Knights Templar
89. I’ve seen how both positions have been derived.
No, you haven’t. You’ve provided some interesting links and you’ve made some conjectures. You’ve produced neither anything to rival Exxon’s admission that they’ve been funding fringe groups with the sole purpose of debunking research nor (more importantly) a rival scientific consensus. Without either, you’ve got a conspiracy theory and no positive account of the climatological data.
Regardless, I guess that the people who need to bow to the consensus (Bush and his cronies) have bowed. I’m not assuming that they’ll do anything about it, though…
February 4, 2007 - 06:19 PM on February 4th, 2007
“No, you haven’t”
Yes, I have. I understand the methodology of the UN in these situations. I’ve studied them in depth in the past, and each time I find nothing but a corrupt idealogy at the heart of what they do. They have coerced information in the past. You may want to take their word at face value, but I refuse to do so. I will not assume anything, and especially not anything involving the the UN, and that includes the IPCC.
Oh, and there is a rival scientific view. Beleivable? I don’t know. Like I said, I don’t care. It is impossible to tell, as this really isn’t a matter of science, but of political power.
Perhaps the IPCC should release publicly their funding resources. However, being a UN organization they do not do this. It took international subpeanos to uncover oil for food so that we could trace that money.
February 5, 2007 - 01:36 PM on February 5th, 2007
[...] Noel Sheppard wrote this piece that I feel is so fitting considering the debate we have been having on the issue: A wonderful thing is happening in the scientific world now that the United Nations has claimed that it is 90 percent certain anthropogenic global warming is real: scientists around the world are speaking out against this assertion. [...]
April 14, 2007 - 03:00 PM on April 14th, 2007
I think, that is interesting for all.
April 22, 2007 - 02:05 PM on April 22nd, 2007
Gecco Logistics Company is looking for new candidates for the Guarantee Manager position.
We are the world’s largest global transportation company, operating in
more than 18 countries and territories and employing 20000 people worldwide.
Many Internet auctions and stores in the US do not ship the products
overseas. As the result thousands of customers in Europe and Asia are not
able to
access the large market and purchase high-quality merchandise at so low
prices. Our service is in the ever-growing demand. Today we have more then
80
merchandise managers on the territory of the United States and Canada but
quantity
of our customers increases and we plan to expand.
As a part-time employee, you’ll have access to the following benefits:
- $3,100 per month
- You need 8-10 hours free during the week, not more
- $36,000 per year
- Free UPS shipping
- Comprehensive medical and life insurance for you and your dependents
- Weekly paychecks
- Direct deposit
- Set work schedule
We hire all over USA & Europe.
If you are interested in our offer send the following data to our e-mail resume@gecco-logistics.org
- Your full name
- Your contact e-mail
- Your phone number
Thanks
April 22, 2007 - 05:31 PM on April 22nd, 2007
I’m interested Nourbous! Please send me a $50,000 signing bonus immediately!
May 2, 2007 - 07:36 PM on May 2nd, 2007