OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:10 am

I think Polar Bears were put on notice a few years ago as an enemy to us all.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:50 am

fsquid wrote:I think Polar Bears were put on notice a few years ago as an enemy to us all.

More polar bear hating hacks...

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

Picking and choosing the opinions and "data" we like. Trying to indimidate and silence those that we dont sure does signal a cult or religion to me.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:52 am

You keep picking and choosing individual scientists, I'll go with the science academies and professional societies.

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."

* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change

In 2007 Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years while 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... ncern.html

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:59 am

XXXIV wrote:Picking and choosing the opinions and "data" we like. Trying to indimidate and silence those that we dont sure does signal a cult or religion to me.

True, but you're also taking these testimonials at face value. Skeptics often cry "intimidation" when their opinions fail to reverse prevailing opinions. It's like playing the race card.

Not saying they're wrong or that they shouldn't be heard. But as you know, everyone has an agenda. There's plenty of money to be made as a global warming skeptic and it's also a good way to get noticed in the field.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this horse with a Gears of War chainsaw bayonet.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:02 pm

Ok, let's switch gears. Obama in his weekly address says he's going to add 600,000 new federal jobs. That is quite a cost to us.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:07 pm

Brando70 wrote:
XXXIV wrote:Picking and choosing the opinions and "data" we like. Trying to indimidate and silence those that we dont sure does signal a cult or religion to me.
True, but you're also taking these testimonials at face value. Skeptics often cry "intimidation" when their opinions fail to reverse prevailing opinions. It's like playing the race card.

Not saying they're wrong or that they shouldn't be heard. But as you know, everyone has an agenda. There's plenty of money to be made as a global warming skeptic and it's also a good way to get noticed in the field.

Im not taking their word for anything either...and that is my point. There is dissent and Therefore there is no consensus

Brando70 wrote:

Anyway, I think we've beaten this horse with a Gears of War chainsaw bayonet.

I agree and will retire my rusty blade...

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:08 pm

fsquid wrote:Ok, let's switch gears. Obama in his weekly address says he's going to add 600,000 new federal jobs. That is quite a cost to us.

Ya but it will lower the unemployment rate.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:12 pm

XXXIV wrote:
fsquid wrote:Ok, let's switch gears. Obama in his weekly address says he's going to add 600,000 new federal jobs. That is quite a cost to us.
Ya but it will lower the unemployment rate.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:24 pm

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/burris. ... 01914.html

Blago - 1
Illinois - 0

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:31 pm

I knew the economy was in bad shape, but these numbers are just terrible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28539403

The U.S. federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.

The CBO estimate released Wednesday also sees the U.S. economy shrinking by 2.2 percent this year and recovering only slightly in 2010, and the unemployment rate eclipsing 9 percent early next year unless the Obama administration steps in.

"The recession — which began about a year ago — will last well into 2009," the CBO report says.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:49 pm

Yup, we are having the pay the piper for our misgivings of the last decade.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:54 pm

bdoughty wrote:http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/burris. ... 01914.html

Blago - 1
Illinois - 0

Thats just today's score.

Over the last 6 years its been Blago 752,000 Ill 0

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:23 pm

fsquid wrote:Yup, we are having the pay the piper for our misgivings of the last decade.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:32 pm

More like Beavis and Butthead broke America.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:43 pm

I wonder how many on here would vote for Bush again, if given the chance. I bet there are at least a few.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:51 pm

GTHobbes wrote:I wonder how many on here would vote for Bush again, if given the chance. I bet there are at least a few.

Not me! Never voted for the numbskull, so why start now?

Sorry to disturb the delusions of me as a conservative that some seem to hold here ...

Take care,
PK

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:52 pm

GTHobbes wrote:I wonder how many on here would vote for Bush again, if given the chance. I bet there are at least a few.

Oh I doubt that number would be very high. I think some people tire of Bush getting all the crap he gets, when there is a group in congress (Democratic led mind you) getting even LOWER approval scores. In July it was like 14% (gallup), have no clue what it is now but it could not be that much better.

If I was given two choices, Obama and Bush, I simply would not vote. It is like the South Park, turd sandwich vs. giant d***** debate.

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:55 pm

GTHobbes wrote:I wonder how many on here would vote for Bush again, if given the chance. I bet there are at least a few.

I would. The elder one, that is. I think he got a raw deal in '92.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:59 pm

bdoughty wrote:More like Beavis and Butthead broke America.

If you're claiming that 2 years as Speaker of the House makes Pelosi as culpable as Bush who enjoyed a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years as President, then that's just as silly as someone claiming that everything is Bush's fault.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/0 ... sh-s-maki/

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:23 pm

Feanor wrote:
bdoughty wrote:More like Beavis and Butthead broke America.
If you're claiming that 2 years as Speaker of the House makes Pelosi as culpable as Bush who enjoyed a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years as President, then that's just as silly as someone claiming that everything is Bush's fault.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/0 ... sh-s-maki/

Well it might have been confusing to have an image showing congress and Bush together, so I just stuck their current leader in. Had you actually taken the time to read my next post you would have noticed that I called out congress, as a whole (just stating that it is currently Democratic led) and their abysmal ratings.

Isn't it ------------ silly ------------ to not read all the posts, before replying? Why do you always feel the need to give special little insults/digs to other peoples opinions? Attack the message, not the messenger. I think that is Jared mantra here? You constantly berate the intelligence of people who disagree with you and why Jared continues to allow you to do so baffles me.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:31 pm

Pretty cool meeting today of past, present and future Presidents:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28535240/

Take care,
PK

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:43 pm

bdoughty wrote:Well it might have been confusing to have an image showing congress and Bush together, so I just stuck their current leader in. Had you actually taken the time to read my next post you would have noticed that I called out congress, as a whole (just stating that it is currently Democratic led) and their abysmal ratings.

Isn't it ------------ silly ------------ to not read all the posts, before replying? Why do you always feel the need to give special little insults/digs to other peoples opinions? Attack the message, not the messenger. I think that is Jared mantra here? You constantly berate the intelligence of people who disagree with you and why Jared continues to allow you to do so baffles me.

I did attack the message given by your posted image, not you: "that's just as silly" refers to the claim I thought you were making with your image, "you're just as silly" would refer to you.

Your follow-up post was 20 minutes later and wasn't there when I clicked on the quote button, and you seem to be calling out the current Democratic Congress anyway rather than the 107th thru 110th Congress in general. But if you're telling me now that you really meant Congress as a whole since 2001, then fine.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:04 pm

To be fair, I had you mixed up with macsomjrr's post history. Sometimes I get my DSP environmentalists crossed.

He was the one who really went out of his way to attack those with different views. For that I apologize.

Believe it or not, I think there are just as many bad republicans in congress over the past 8 years, as there are bad democrats. Not agreeing with most liberal views makes it easy for me to point them out more often.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:12 pm

I would guess that there have been slightly more bad Republicans just because there have been more Republicans than Democrats in Congress over the past 8 years. Is that close enough to say we've reached consensus on how bad Congress has been?

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:32 pm

Congress has been s***. Would love nothing more to see Barney hung for his role.