RSS Feed
Loading ...
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 - 05:49 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.”
“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.”
“That’s a completely inaccurate assessment of Iraq.”
——-
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 US”.)
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 mistake”.”
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 interest”.
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.”
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.”
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