About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Rush attacks National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as "corrupt"

February 23, 2010 1:06 pm ET

From the February 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Limbaugh attacks NASA scientist James Hansen as an "insane lunatic"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (February 23, 2010 1:08 pm ET)
      12  
      Of course they're corrupt. They won't bow to Limbaugh's authoritative knowledge about all things.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 23, 2010 1:44 pm ET)
        7  
        Hey Rush, the new NASA administrator is a black guy,and a real astronaut too. Compute that !!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by TURK 63 (February 23, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
        2  
        Damn them put science before the dollar.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:49 pm ET)
            3
          ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/


          Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 1:08 pm ET)
      17  
      For Limbaugh:

      Corrupt = they don't agree with my BS.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
        21  
        Oh come on... How naive do you have to be not to know that NOAA is on the payroll of big atmosphere?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by txthinker (February 23, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
          5  
          I guess Nitrogen has deep pockets...... :-)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by JoeSixpack (February 23, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
          4  
          Thank you for that. If I had been drinking coffee, it's be all over my monitor right now. As it is, everyone in the office just looked over at me, wondering what the hell I was laughing about.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MickD (February 23, 2010 4:52 pm ET)
          2  
          "Big Atmosphere"...in these threads of wit, that is a real winner.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Dradeeus (February 23, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
        7  
        "It turns out, there are many scientific institutions that are funded by the GOVERNMENT. Since I don't like the government, obviously every one of these scientific organizations can't be trusted."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 23, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
        5  
        That's about it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (February 23, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
      3 16
      More and more people are pulling their heads out of the sand and seeing just how irrational man caused global warming is. Al Gore flying aroung on his private jet and riding in limos and telling us to save energy while making aroung a billion dollars off of the hysteria all the while most of what he said in his movie is being discredited on almost a daily basis. Kind of like the sea levels rising being withdrawn due to faulty science.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The New Pilgrims (February 23, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
        15 4
        More and more people are pulling their heads out of the sand and seeing just how irrational man caused global warming is.

        I couldn't have said it better, seahawks123. You're a good man, after all.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
          10 2
          Beat me to it, NP. It's almost as if seapickle's subconscious couldn't take it any more.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Invent a Scandal (February 23, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
        3  
        Brilliant Seahawks...

        And not even 1 example! You rock!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (February 23, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
        10 1
        Yep, that whole clean air, clean water, sustainable energy policy is really really bad for big business and therefore conservatives. Well, Faux Cons, at any rate. And the idea that we could develop clean energy technologies that the rest of the world would want to buy? And that it would create badly needed jobs here at home? Not important in the face of big corporate profits. Way to go to bat for the only thing that matters to you, seahawks123: wealthy people's money. You keep on letting them get richer at the expense of the other 99% of us, okay?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by seahawks123 (February 23, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
          1 10
          You mean like Al Gore?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bongo Fury (February 23, 2010 1:41 pm ET)
            5  
            Man bear-pig in South Park.Oh wait,that's you.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
            8  
            Al Gore?
            The bottom-line, two-word, reason why wingnuts hatefully reject all the years of science and documented evidence behind man-made global warming: Al Gore. You'll never get them to admit it tho.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:12 pm ET)
                10
              No - its because its junk science based on emotion, social engineering, and destruction of capitalism all for the cause of "social justice".

              If the administrations and scientists and other countries leaders were proposing ideas that didn't cost trillions of dollars, or taxing the hell out of anyone, or trying to tell me how to live my life to conform to your standards...then we decide to look at your so called "scientific data". But until you decide to be objective in your findings, as opposed to subjective...then we'll pass.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
                6  
                Climatologists are not the ones calling for measures that cost trillions of dollars. They were the ones that said emmisions have to be cut, it is up to POLICY makers to decide how to do that. And living your life conforming to others' standards is what a society is about. But you wingnuts wouldn't understand that.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  BS.

                  Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC - which is supposed to be OBJECTIVE, admitted to exaggerating claims in the report to influence policy makers to take action. Ahh, yes the objectivity!

                  So me living my life according to what everyone else wants me to do is what this world is all about. Wow, such a wonderful place. And I thought society was about everyone just living amongst each other - not making each other live according to the way you want them to.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 2:23 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Actually he didn't. That's just another right wing talking point.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 9:28 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Rajendra Pachauri... admitted to exaggerating claims in the report to influence policy makers to take action.( JohnnyCrapplefeed)


                      I've been noticing that, on the subject of Climate change, the wingnuts are even worse about using paraphrased second-hand bunk as evidence than they are on other subjects. Can't they at least find some out-of-context or unclear quotes to work with ?

                      This " So & so said so & so" stuff is not even trying.

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is that your actions affect others and if you think that you have some kind of right to harm people by consuming and polluting without limit then you're mistaken.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:30 pm ET)
                      4  
                      right wingers always go on about people demanding rights but not wanting responsibility. but they go ballistic when someone wants to curb destructive activity they participate in. this isnt social engineering, this is saying you can swing your fist but you dont have the right ot hit my nose.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
                    5  
                    yes in order to live in a society you must conform to the standards it sets.

                    He did not admit to exaggerating claims in the report to Influence anyone. He admitted that the source of the claim was a poor source because it did not come from a peer reviewed article.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 2:35 pm ET)
                    5  
                    So me living my life according to what everyone else wants me to
                    Yeah. Let's really exaggerate, shall we?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
                        6
                      Sure, go for it. I'll start. Global warming is real. Damn, I just can't stop all that exaggeration nonsense, can i?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
                        6  
                        I just can't stop all that exaggeration nonsense, can i?
                        Saving energy = "Me living my life according to what everyone else wants me to"?

                        Yet another poor, victimized, enslaved wingnut.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:28 pm ET)
                    4  
                    umm thats called anarchy. what do you think laws and social norms are about? trying to make people live according to rules where they will not do harm to others
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
                5  
                Who knew that scientists were so emotional, interested in social engineering, and hating of capitalism?

                Amazing findings, where did you learn this?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
                4  
                But until you decide to be objective in your findings, as opposed to subjective...then we'll pass.
                Looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

                What I said bears repeating:

                Two words: Al Gore. You'll never get them to admit it tho.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
                3  
                Emotion, thats for the screaming deniers.social engineering, destruction of capitalism, good thing you arent all emotional about this. give me 1 example of how this could possibly be linked to the destruction of capitalism or social engineering
                Report Abuse
        • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
          1 8
          clean air, clean water
          It's just too bad that CO2 isn't a pollutant - and has nothing to do with clean air and clean water.
          And the idea that we could develop clean energy technologies that the rest of the world would want to buy?

          Why dont we just worry about our own energy that we have here and use that? Coal, Nuclear, Oil, Shale oil, hydro, and even wind & solar if their development increases enough to make them have a positive cost-benefit relationship (not emotional benefit).
          And that it would create badly needed jobs here at home?

          Yeah, lets just f up the entire economy, make people suffer even worse with higher energy costs....so we can make up jobs for people. Wonderful!
          You keep on letting them get richer at the expense of the other 99% of us, okay?

          Are you talking about Al? He's getting richer at the expense of 99% of us...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
            5  
            CO2 is a pollutant and is a greenhouse gas. Look at the planet Venus to see what happens when there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. What happens when we run out of that energy and we have not developed any alternatives? What happens when we pollute our atmosphere to the point it can no longer sustain us?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:24 pm ET)
                5
              First, we're not even close to the level of CO2 in a pmm basis during past times in history in which life has flourished, so spare me the nonsense of Venus.

              Seeing as how we have over 100 years of coal in JUST the US, not to mention the world has another at least 100 year supply of oil (just of what we KNOW of right now)...I'm not worried about it.

              The last question is such a beautiful attempt at guilt-trip fear-mongering, that is almost hilarious.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
                5  
                Uh.. you realize that the last time CO2 reached the concentrations we're approaching now the Earth was a completely different place right? As the temperature rises our methods of growing and producing food are going to be disrupted and people will be uprooted by drought and famine. But that's okay because we'll have lots of deeply buried, extremely expensive oil to make fertilizer from!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
                    6
                  A scientist of the IPCC just came out the other week and said that the claims about food not being able to be grown and a crisis in Africa are completely unsubstantiated.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
                5  
                Do you have a source substantiating your assertion that CO2 levels are not even close to what it has been in the past? About the amount of coal we have in the country and the world? I see you have no answer for my last question.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
                6  
                "...in a pmm basis..."

                Your understanding of science has made a huge impression on all of us, I'm sure.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
            5  
            CO2 in and of itself is not dangerous, but when CO2 is emitted in such quantities that it increases the acidity of the oceans and raises the average surface temperature of the earth, then it is in fact a pollutant and a threat to human health.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
                6
              LOL - it's still not a pollutant. If you want to believe it has a massive effect on things like temperature and sea levels (which still don't buy) then go ahead, but it still doesn't have anything to do with pollution.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bermensch (February 23, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
                5  
                Breath into a paper-bag for thirty minuets and let me know if CO2 in large quantities is still not a pollutant.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bermensch (February 23, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                  4  
                  *minutes
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
                    4
                  maybe we should classify water as a pollutant and regulate how much you are allowed to drink per day. After all, too much of anything can kill you.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 3:08 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Have you got anything besides exaggerations and strawman attacks?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:35 pm ET)
                        5
                      So two scenarios: dying from drinking too much water, or breathing into a paper bag until you die.

                      Which one appears to be more of an exaggeration and strawman? lol. Get real mmfa.fan. They are the same thing.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (February 23, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
                      3  
                      One can die from an excess of anything.

                      A person CAN die from too much water. It happens on a regular basis.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by The_Cat (February 23, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
                        3  
                        That would be drowning, then, wouldn't it? I'm still not convinced about tying a plastic bag around your neck, though, so I nominate Johnny Appleseed to test this one. He seems very certain of the outcome.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by bermensch (February 23, 2010 3:27 pm ET)
                    5  
                    maybe we should classify water as a pollutant and regulate how much you are allowed to drink per day. After all, too much of anything can kill you.

                    Except you can regulate how much water you can (and will) drink.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:35 pm ET)
                        6
                      And the sad thing, you would probably like that. I bet you'd probably rather have Barack hand feed you with a baby bottle so you don't drink too much.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (February 23, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
                        4  
                        ? This is the kind of answer that leaves a warm fuzzy feeling. Uber's point sailed away from your brain pan since you're stuck on the word "regulate" as being evil. Self-regulation of one's own water intake might be okay...

                        But getting hand-fed with a baby bottle sounds like mixing the solids with the liquids ala Frank Burns. Thanks for the entertainment.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by bermensch (February 23, 2010 4:51 pm ET)
                          2  
                          Thanks mary59,
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 9:36 pm ET)
                          3  
                          Haha, thanks Mary. I was trying to figure out how he went off into weirdville there. I guess you can't use "regulate" in any sense with the rightys. It's like "Niagra Falls", just makes them go all loopy.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:19 am ET)
                            3  
                            Self-regulation has been a long time bugaboo for the Neocons and other RW's.
                            One of my favorite is in the Illegal Drug Debate: the insistence that 'legalizing marijuana will lead to everyone getting hooked'. (Of course, there is no physical addiction, but never mind)

                            I usually take that to mean that "I - the claimant - cannot control myself enough to not become 'hooked', therefore no one else can stop themselves". It's part of the egotism of many people.. like AGW deniers... "I can't understand the Science, so I'll believe what Rush, Beck, etc. say" - because if the Deniers can't understand it, no one else can (because they're as smart, intelligent and good-looking as anyone else).
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 24, 2010 3:29 am ET)
                              1  
                              Same with "approving" of homosexual relationships. I think most who are opposed to gay marriage, gays in the military, etc., are just terrified closet cases who know that society's refusal to accept their nature is the only thing keeping them from leaving the wife & kids.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by bermensch (February 24, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
                                2  
                                Ask GOProud about the conservative agenda.
                                Former Vice President Dick Cheney has even said "it's time to reconsider" the don't ask, don't tell mantra, whatever that means. He has his time in office to do what he needed to do concerning "don't ask, don't tell" but didn't.
                                Report Abuse
              • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                3  
                Yes it does. The acidification and greenhouse effects are well known and well documented in the literature. You can choose to believe what you want, but facts are facts.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                4  
                it does have a massive effect on things like temperatures as I said look at Venus for an example.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 23, 2010 10:53 pm ET)
                2  
                pollutant -- A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

                The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
            5  
            why has German industry( not exactly a bastion of communism) so strongly embraced alternative energy sources. because they are looking towards the future. they have also created lots of new jobs for their countrymen and reduced their dependancy on foreign products
            Report Abuse
          • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 23, 2010 10:48 pm ET)
            1  
            It's just too bad that CO2 isn't a pollutant - and has nothing to do with clean air and clean water.


            And CO2 is the only byproduct of burning coal and oil right?

            All this emphasis on CO2 and ONLY CO2 is not coming from the scientists. Is it the media driving the conversation that way?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 1:30 pm ET)
        9 1
        Al Gore flying aroung on his private jet and riding in limos and telling us to save energy
        And that's much, much worse than all the people who fly around on private jets and ride in limos and make millions and don't do anything about saving energy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by roverflash (February 23, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
          6  
          Al Gore buys carbon credits, too, unlike many frequent fliers.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
            6
          Stuff and nonsense. Being a hypocrite using more energy in one month than a normal person does an entire year gives you no right to tell someone else to conserve energy. The fact is, he ISNT doing anything about saving energy. If anything, he's contributing too much CO2 just by opening his mouth.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
            5  
            I'd wager he's done more to raise awareness and invest in energy saving technologies than you have.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:38 pm ET)
                5
              Awareness to make more money for himself. Wow, what a great guy he is.

              And maybe he can get those energy saving technologies to partake in his carbon credit scheme....not like that would make him any money by buying and selling something that doesnt even exist lol
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
                5  
                Why would you begrudge someone from making money? I thought that was your whole ethos.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 4:14 pm ET)
                    5
                  I don't. I begrudge being forced to participate in their schemes which are based on fiction. If the government didn't force a cap & trade system, and instead let the open market try to have one on its own - do you really think it would be a success? No.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 4:32 pm ET)
                    5  
                    I'm not in favour of a cap and trade system, I'm in favour of putting a price on carbon emissions. Any country that chooses to exempt themselves would have their products subject to import tariffs based on the carbon emissions that went into the making of said products.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (February 23, 2010 8:38 pm ET)
                    1  
                    The open market has had a long time to fix it or at least just say, this "pollution thing is kinda bad you know?" but just like with health care, they have not.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 5:40 pm ET)
            3  
            If anything, (AL Gore) is contributing too much CO2 just by opening his mouth.
            Oops! Careful, careful. Deniers must remember to seek out reasons for rejecting Global Warming without betraying the real reason for doing so.

            Go find out where it's snowing a lot, or find a right-wing opinion columnist. But don't give away your utter contempt for Gore, please. It just makes Deniers look like partisan, knee-jerk, librul haters.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Lord of Light (February 23, 2010 1:39 pm ET)
        9 1
        Al Gore flying aroung on his private jet and riding in limos
        Wait, I thought being rich automatically made one virtuous in conservatives' eyes. Oops, that's right, not if the person with wealth actually shows awareness of those less fortunate and the world around him.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
            7
          Of course he's aware of how less fortunate those people are...he's the one who conned them out of what money they had left and then left with fear that they'll soon be swamped by the rising seas.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
            6  
            Who did Al Gore con out of money? He isn't out selling anti CO2 sprays, or anything like that.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
            5  
            While the rate at which it is occuring and projected to increase by is being debated, you do realize that sea levels are already rising, right? Even if you don't care about those other countries that are more affected by it, you might want to consider that it's eroding coastal land in places like California. But wait, the coasts are liberal right? So I guess it's okay.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
                6
              No, its called "erosion", and is not not caused by global warming. So get off it. You want to buy a house on the beach, then its your problem with deal with.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 3:10 pm ET)
                6  
                Are you seriously this dumb? What do you think the effect of rising sea levels is? EROSION. Obviously you haven't read much science, but sea levels are rising, and that's a fact.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (February 23, 2010 2:48 pm ET)
            8  
            LINKS PLEASE!!!!!!

            WTF? Where did you hear anyone say that SOON we'll be swamped by the rising seas?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 23, 2010 1:45 pm ET)
        4 1
        If you want to change minds, start providing some corroborating links to all this stuff you're trying feed us.

        "Kind of like the sea levels rising being withdrawn due to faulty science."
        What about the "faulty science" behind a loss of protective arctic ice that's causing remote Alaskan subsistence villages to fall into the sea? I haven't seen anyone withdrawing that claim yet.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rumpleteasermom (February 23, 2010 11:07 pm ET)
          1  
          Oh, Pete, I can explain this one! See, there was ONE Journal article that was withdrawn recently because it had some issues. In the minds of the deniers. that means that ALL science surrounding rising sea levels is faulty.

          Here in Realityland, we understand that this one study had a couple issues and that the conclusions may have been skewed in either direction and we won't know until the problems are accounted for. We also know that this was NOT the only study and that other studies showed a higher projected sea level in the future than the one that was withdrawn did.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Dr Tachyon (February 23, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
        4  
        I would ask you to show this by citing some recent peer-reviewed journal articles, but you and I both know you can't do that. Likely, you haven't or wouldn't bother trying anyway. That is the difference between being knowledgeable and being full of @#$%%. The evidence for anomalous climate change existed before Gore said a word about it. You being uncomfortable with the idea that humans may be responsible is of no consequence.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
        4  
        More and more people are pulling their heads out of the sand and seeing just how irrational man caused global warming is.


        As someone once said, I do not think this means what you think it means.

        Al Gore flying aroung on his private jet and riding in limos and telling us to save energy...


        Which he then buys carbon offsets to offset what he uses, as in, he puts his money where his mouth is.

        ...while making aroung a billion dollars off of the hysteria all the while most of what he said in his movie is being discredited on almost a daily basis.


        I'm pretty certain that Al Gore makes nowhere NEAR a billion dollars off of, well, anything. Just more hyperbole. And the things he said in his movie aren't being discredited at all. That is just more willful ignorance on your behalf, but that's OK.

        [quote][Kind of like the sea levels rising being withdrawn due to faulty science. /quote]

        This hasn't been withdrawn at all. There is scientific evidence that indeed, sea levels are rising. There is no scientific evidence to show that sea levels are NOT rising.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:24 pm ET)
        3  
        Whatever Al gore rides around in is really irrelevant to the truth or not of climate change or the crazy conspiracy theory that the NOAA is corrupt.what about NASA, THE DEPT of Defence and studies by shell, exxon etc. that also conclude man made climate change is a fact
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 23, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
      10 2
      As usual, El RustyRushbo is so jealous of a highly educated individual. This is why he attacks anything he doesn't/can't understand.

      Dr. James Hansen--from wikipedia

      He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo.

      Maybe he should pay Chuck Grassley a visit to discuss climate change.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 23, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
        8 1
        Rush Limbaugh must obviously have more knowledge about global climate change than Dr. Hansen. Why else would Limbaugh be a multi-millionaire with his own right wing radio show?

        <sarcasm>
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jim359 (February 23, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
      7 1
      seahawks123,

      Do you have any relevant links for your assertions?
      I didn't think so.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seahawks123 (February 23, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
        1 11
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8529506.stm
        http://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/stories/More-Snow-Expected-Tonight-84994822.html
        http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
        Report Abuse
        • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 1:54 pm ET)
          8 1
          seahawks "relevancy" in a nutshell:

          -Snowy weather in Moscow in winter.

          -Snowy weather in Dallas in winter.

          -Snide, die-hard Climate Change Denier Sen. Inhofe wants an investigation!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (February 23, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
            7 1
            Why, it's a virtual blizzard!!! Now if seapickle could understand that weather extremes come thru warming, we'll be getting somewhere....
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (February 23, 2010 8:40 pm ET)
              1  
              Well he's the one who in a past post said that "warm air doesn't cause snow".
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Bongo Fury (February 23, 2010 2:12 pm ET)
            9  
            And a rainy night in Georgia means that it's raining all over the world.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
            5  
            At least he didn't post that article from a chinese news paper entitled "Coldest winter in 30 years in Europe" that was nothing to do with weather, but on diplomatic relations.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by blueline99 (February 23, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
          11 1
          So the first two links you gave weather reports. Obviously you think record snow in an area negates global warming.

          Next you give a report that Sen. Inhofe is requesting the DOJ to investigate IPCC and Al Gore.

          Oliver Stone wanted to put the LBJ on trial for the assassination of JFK... that doesn't make it so.

          You really are aligning yourself with the flat earth society and moon landing fraud folks.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by roverflash (February 23, 2010 2:23 pm ET)
          5  
          Read up, Seahawk.

          In a major investigation, the leading science writer Fred Pearce uncovers the real story behind the hacked emails[.]

          ...

          [The c]limate science emails cannot destroy [the] argument that [the] world is warming, and humans are responsible[, but c]limate science can no longer afford to be a closed shop or over-simplify the complexities of a changing climate if it is to reclaim credibility[.]


          http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-change-data-request-war
          Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 23, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
      14 1
      Next thing you know some liberal government "science" agency is going to try to tell us cigarette smoking causes cancer.

      Where does it stop...?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MidnightWriter (February 23, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
        7 1
        Well, certainly not with gravity. I understand it's corrupt, too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (February 23, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
          5  
          See: Intelligent Falling.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
          3  
          the hand of god is holding us down on earth until he has plans to takes us up or down as he sees fit. to imply that gravity has anything to do with it is just typical liberal,secular thinking. sorry to offend anyones religion but that is basically what some religious right leaders are preaching about climate change.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
          7
        No...but they somehow things its relevant to make the person who smokes in their own home pay for someone elses kids health insurance. Just saying....
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rms (February 23, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
          5  
          "but they somehow things its relevant..."

          You really don't understand how insurance (auto, home, health, etc.) companies operate, do you?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
              7
            Their operations have nothing to do with it. In fact, those companies aren't providing anything in this case. You're taking from the person (have) under the guise of "guilt for children" to give money to low income person. Its redistribution plain and simple.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by blueline99 (February 23, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
              4  
              Philosophers have been arguing over enlightened self-interest for centuries, but today the discourse isn't so intellectual.

              Is it in your best interest to have such a large underclass in society. Is it not in your self-interest to make sure that the underclass doesn't become so desperate and poor that their condition adversely impacts your condition.

              Or do you feel that what's yours is yours, you earned it and screw the rest....

              I'm guessing your're the latter.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
              4  
              You have a pretty simplistic view of things. I guess every road should be a toll road and every sidewalk should be a toll sidewalk etc. because otherwise it's redistribution if someone else's taxes are paying for something you use.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by JohnnyAppleseed (February 23, 2010 3:52 pm ET)
                  5
                Nice attempt, but fail. Those things you cite are used by all in society (or at least available to them). In this case, the people who pay do not benefit, and the people who benefit do not pay.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:42 pm ET)
          3  
          ever consider that the smokers long drawn out death may be a drag on everyones medical costs?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (February 23, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
        7  
        Cigareetes do not cause cancer because it is snowing here and it's hot in Australia.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by The New Pilgrims (February 23, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
      9 2
      Rush Limbaugh is on the same side of history as those who persecuted Galileo for suggesting the Earth was not the center of the universe.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dr Tachyon (February 23, 2010 1:48 pm ET)
        1  
        Rush would have to be, he knows he is the center of the universe.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:27 am ET)
          1  
          Gravitationally speaking......

          (Dr. Tachyon? must be one fast fellow! )

          ;)
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
        9 2
        Yup, NP, and I'm sure the Denial Cultists of Galileo's time cited his conviction and lifetime house arrest as refutation of his science.

        I saw an eerie reminder of this recently. An acquaintance told me that GW theory was "unraveling". As evidence, he mentioned Al Gore being MIA ( I asked where he was supposed to have shown up, but just got a blank stare) and as additional evidence, it was mentioned that Phil Jones was suicidal.

        Jones, as I'm sure you know, is a nerdy scientist who was attacked by well-funded Denial Cultists, flooded with FOI requests in an attempt to interfere with his research, and he also received death threats.

        He mentioned that he felt suicidal as this was all going on, and the wingnut thought this was a refutation of the science, just as one of the zombies above believes Al Gore's jet is a counterpoint to the science.

        The pitchfork and torch-wielding mob is not only alive and well, but admired by the teabaggers as an opposing viewpoint to the heretic scientists.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by internet soldier (February 23, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
      10 1
      One thing anti-democratic movements throughout history seemed to have shared, be they communist, fascist etc., is their paranoid demonization of university intellectuals and scientists. Needless to say, the American right has this feature in spades.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by michaelkconnolly (February 23, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
        2  
        I read a book called "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter M Miller Jr. and in it there is an anti intellectual movement in a post apocalyptic world that reminds me of the wingnuts rejection of the educated and booklearned people.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:28 am ET)
          1  
          Great book... I have considered mentioning it many times.

          (On my Must Read list.. or re-read for me)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (February 24, 2010 11:54 am ET)
          1  
          One of my favorite books. It also illustrates the rejection of science by the religious-based power structure.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (February 23, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
        2  
        Indeed.Bertrand we barely knew ye.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by internet soldier (February 23, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
          4  
          And I probably should mention that I am not actually Bertrand Russell, but rather the commenter formerly known as Jmille426471. But I am happy to be the spokesman for my favorite philosopher. I don't take this responsibility lightly.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bongo Fury (February 23, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
            2  
            Not naive enough to think you were.I too appreciate Russell's views on many thing.He really freaked some "thinkers" out.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
      2 7
      NOAA, CRU, IPCC and the rest them should be worried. Looks like Inhofe is raising the stakes.


      http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/


      From page 2.

      The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

      1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
      2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
      3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
      4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

      The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

      1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
      2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
      3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

      If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.



      Man Made Global Warming BS is unraveling fast.

      Feels good man.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
        1 5
        More fun for you true believers out there.

        http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-coal-company-brings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud


        The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

        The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.

        Peabody is, in effect, challenging the right of the current U.S. federal government to introduce cap and trade regulations by the ‘back door.’ In this article we summarize Peabody’s legal writ.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
          4  
          A coal company is opposed to action on climate change?

          Stop the presses!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 2:42 pm ET)
              5
            baaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 9:46 pm ET)
            2  
            Har ! Inhofe --> Pajamas Media --> Tommy. That's a chain I want to rely on for my unfiltered science. Funniest post of the day.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 2:40 pm ET)
        4  
        Feels good man
        Ooooh! One congressman--a Republican die-hard Climate Change Denier and right wing partisan--demands an investigation!! Yeah, we'll get right on it.

        Fail. Get back to us when you've got somethin'. Man.
        Report Abuse
          • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
            4  
            baaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
            Yep, that's how I reacted to your "unraveling" claim. LOL.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 9:51 pm ET)
              2  

              An acquaintance told me that GW theory was "unraveling".
              by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 1:49 pm ET)




              Man Made Global Warming BS is unraveling fast. by Tommy (February 23, 2010 2:26 pm ET)


              That's the cutest thing about the zombies, the way they all use the same word their trainers give them.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by jim359 (February 23, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
        5 1
        You're quoting from Inhofe? No wonder you clowns are losing it. The guy is the worst of the deniers in the Senate. And that is saying something.
        The only thing he does is belittle those who do have the knowledge and expertise in the field of Anthropogenic Warming and Climate Change. He pushes "Clean Coal" which is anything but.
        Sen. Inhofe is his own Climate Change Factory with all the CO2that spews from his mouth.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
            6
          You're pretty funny. Mounting evidence and you true believers are out here holding on with your finger nails.

          You act like you're going through the 5 stages of grief. You seem to be somewhere between 1 and 2.


          1-Denial-"this can't be happening to me", looking for the former spouse in familia places, or if it is death, setting the table for the person or acting as if they are still in living there. No crying. Not accepting or even acknowledging the loss.

          2-Anger-"why me?", feelings of wanting to fight back or get even with spouse of divorce, for death, anger at the deceased, blaming them for leaving.

          3-Bargaining-bargaining often takes place before the loss. Attempting to make deals with the spouse who is leaving, or attempting to make deals with God to stop or change the loss. Begging, wishing, praying for them to come back.

          4-Depression-overwhelming feelings of hopelessness, frustration, bitterness, self pity, mourning loss of person as well as the hopes, dreams and plans for the future. Feeling lack of control, feeling numb. Perhaps feeling suicidal.

          5-Acceptance-there is a difference between resignation and acceptance. You have to accept the loss, not just try to bear it quietly. Realization that it takes two to make or break a marriage. Realization that the person is gone (in death) that it is not their fault, they didn't leave you on purpose. (even in cases of suicide, often the deceased person, was not in their right frame of mind) Finding the good that can come out of the pain of loss, finding comfort and healing. Our goals turn toward personal growth. Stay with fond memories of person.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
            4  
            Come back when you have the majority of the scientific community on your side.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
            4  
            Speaking of mounting evidence, I think I can safely speak for us all when I say be sure to wipe it off with a Kleenex real good when you're done with it. When you and your fellow deniers use it over and over again as you so regularly do, we really don't need to see the remnants of your lust for ignorance...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 3:27 pm ET)
                6
              "Lust for ignorance...." and deniers in the same sentence, that's just rich.

              You are encouraging ignorance by the simple fact that you would prefer to call a skeptic a denier. Science is suppose to be skeptical in case you didn't know.

              But this topic hasn't been a scientific discussion for decades. It is a political power grab.


              Report Abuse
              • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 4:13 pm ET)
                5  
                No, you're a denier. A true skeptic would search for all viable information regarding a topic and make a decision based on that information. In your case, were you a true skeptic, you would have had on one hand all the physical scientific evidence along with the bona fides of the analysists, and on the other hand had the op-eds and criticisms of minor anomalies along with the bona fides of the authors, compared the two handfuls and quickly discarded the op-eds in favor of an opinion that it's more likely global warming is a fact. Instead, you search only for material which refutes a few minor points (a lot of which is over-blown), find a column that contains it all, and copy and paste the contents on a MEDIA BLOG trying to convince other readers of your politically driven preconceived notions - denial. That's self-induced ignorance. And you are firmly in favor of promoting it. Lustful, even.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
                    5
                  No, I figure since this site so extremely biased that I take the hard side of the debate with the same vigor as you folks.

                  Sometimes I feel like I can at least get people to take a look at the other side instead of just closing your eyes and denying that this isn't happening.

                  I once believed the story. Because I was being lied to by these scientist. Hell, they even got dubya to believe it. Then I started to look into this. Then the Al Gore coming out and saying all the time that the debate was over got me to look more.

                  Then all hell broke lose in November 2009. And all the nasty dirty secrets are flooding out now.

                  Who is denying what?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 4:25 pm ET)
                    3  
                    YOU are denying GLOBAL WARMING.

                    I'm sorry for being so abstract before. I hadn't realized the limits of your comprehension.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:27 pm ET)
                        4
                      You are endless amusement.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
                        3  
                        All those scientists were lying to you? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think?

                        What else do you suppose they're lying about?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
                        3  
                        You're not. I have to agree with MMFA fan that you're just tiresome. I've written probably 20-some-odd refutations to your tired overused arguments by now, and I've never had any desire to try to comvince you or any other denier of the fact of climate change. It's just kind of fun once in awhile to see you guys drag your lazy ignorant faces out in the open every so often to be ridiculed. But I'm bored with even that, now.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:40 pm ET)
                            4
                          Keep shutting your eyes to the truth. Just deny that it exists. Everything will be OK.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by neon desert (February 23, 2010 7:14 pm ET)
                            2  
                            While I appreciate that there's no animosity, and you're willing to offer me the best advice you know, I think in that same spirit that I owe it to you to point out it hasn't been working as well for you as you think.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:16 pm ET)
                            3
                          People only become tiresome when you can't win the argument. Unfortunately for you I have those silly facts on my side.


                          also, The Game.


                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 9:57 pm ET)
                    2  
                    ...I take the hard side of the debate... (Tommy)


                    I'll give you that. Trying to play lawyer for the Denial Cult is pretty difficult, what with the lack of evidence, and unreliable witnesses.

                    And you're making it look even harder than some of the other ones who do it here.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 3:31 pm ET)
              1 5
              Oh, and also.

              http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx


              De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country's most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled "Henk Tennekes - He was right after all."

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 3:35 pm ET)
                5
              and furthermore.....


              http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1601:oklahoma-climatological-survey-strangely-mum&catid=54:tulsa-speaks&Itemid=147


              When I testified before the United States Senate on December 6, 2006, I stated that the public was “vastly misinformed” on global warming and that “there is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty.”

              Looks like I was right. Since the Climategate scandal broke, the global warming hoax has collapsed like a house of rotten cards.

              The Earth has not warmed appreciably for the last decade. There is no significant evidence that our climate has changed, or that the mild warming of the last 150 years can be attributed to anything other than natural variation. The Poles aren't melting, polar bears are thriving, and last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was below average in activity. And this bitter winter has brought home to Oklahomans the undeniable truth that cold weather is inherently more inclement than warm. The Christmas Eve blizzard of 2009 was directly responsible for the deaths of at least nine people, and seven more died as a result of the storm that peaked on January 29.

              I received little thanks for telling the truth as I saw it. I was called a “professwhore” and a “denier” who didn’t care about the environment or the future. I was accosted by angry students. The Provost at the University of Oklahoma removed my freshman geology course from the list of approved general education courses. And contrary to popular belief, I have received no money from any energy company.


              *snip*
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
                5  
                This is tiresome. Can you post something that isn't rife with falsehoods and/or an opinion piece?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
                    3
                  Please list all the lies in the piece from a Scientist that was asked to testify before Congress.

                  Thanks.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
                    3  
                    There is no significant evidence that our climate has changed, or that the mild warming of the last 150 years can be attributed to anything other than natural variation. The Poles aren't melting, polar bears are thriving


                    ...and up is down.

                    Thanks for coming out.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:40 pm ET)
                        3
                      Can you disprove his statement? Please site a credible source.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
                        2  
                        I've posted a half-dozen links to scientific sources, with no response to any of them. If you want to read them and respond with substantive criticism I'd be happy to read it. But if all you have to offer is substanceless rhetoric and a collection of words with the suffix "gate" attached to them then I think we're done here.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mary59 (February 23, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
                          2  
                          I think we can all conclude that the tommygate affair is overblown and a bit of a bore. But he can declare victory and go off to pump more bile into his bilge.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:15 pm ET)
                            1
                          So that is a

                          "no I can't disprove his statement and I don't have any credible sources but I'm going to argue anyway because I'm a denier."


                          Thanks for making that clear mmfa.fan.

                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:33 am ET)
                        1  
                        http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:33 am ET)
                1  
                Original source:

                http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf
                Report Abuse
          • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
            6  
            Mounting evidence and you true believers are out here holding on with your finger nails.
            Mountains of scientific evidence (some of it melting from global warming and floating off to sea) and you deniers out there are holding on with your finger nails to hilarious stuff like "It's snowing in Moscow" as "proof".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
                4
              In case you don't understand want mounting evidence is.....

              http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092

              It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

              At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

              ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

              FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

              ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

              HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

              PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

              PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

              SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

              SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

              AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

              PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

              RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

              Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

              U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

              IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

              ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

              ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

              AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

              DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

              AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

              Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.



              Report Abuse
              • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
                4  
                Fold this column up
                I will. I will fold it up, but not for use as a napkin.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:05 pm ET)
                    5
                  denier!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 4:41 pm ET)
                    3  
                    If or when you get a serious consensus of scientific experts rather than a right-wing newspaper opinion writer, get in touch with us.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 4:58 pm ET)
                        4
                      you mean the consensus that was built on all the false data listed above?

                      Come back when you have a current poll of scientist (post 2009).

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
                        2  
                        If or when you get a serious consensus of scientific experts rather than a right-wing newspaper opinion writer, get in touch with us.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:02 pm ET)
                            2
                          Once again, get a consensus, post 2009 and we'll talk. You don't want to talk about that because despite the US Media mostly ignoring this issue, it is HUGE in the scientific community. Do you know why?

                          Because science is at its core about discovering TRUTH. And all we have here is a bunch of lies.

                          But ignore that and keep believing.

                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 10:03 pm ET)
                      1  
                      NF, that's my local newspaper. I think they call themselves "libertarian". Coincidentally, I picked up a copy that was lying in the place where I ate lunch today, and although it's the first time I've seen the Register in a while, I can confirm it's still a rag.

                      The paper runs Michael Ramirez and Mallard Fillmore, the only two cartoons I saw in it.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:21 pm ET)
                          1
                        So, prove them wrong. You're a local. Step up to bat and show those idiot people that they're fools.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 24, 2010 3:26 am ET)
                          1  
                          It's an opinion piece. I don't take any pleasure in showing idiots that they're fools. I'll give them the facts, but if they want to keep arguing opinions against facts, I won't waste my time.

                          Besides, what does being a local have to do with it ? I could email as easily as walking over to the offices, but anybody who's that invested in believing nonsense is pretty set whether they're two blocks away or 5,000 miles away.
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by funnymanpants (February 23, 2010 6:41 pm ET)
                2  
                >>Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

                >>U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

                This is plain garbage, which is why you shouldn't be taken seriously, Tommy. This is an *opinion* column, not a peer reviewed study. Smith and D'Aleo are flat out wrong, as has been explained a bazzillion times. The anomalies in the placement of the weather stations are known and adjusted for when constructing graphs. That's why it's science, you know, the stuff that brought us vaccines and airplanes.

                Notice, too, how Mann, the scientists who came up with the hockey stick theory, was cleared of any wrong doing. Yet according to this columnists, that somehow indicates he the opposite, that AGW is in trouble.

                I could go on, too, for instance debunking the silly Russian propaganda, but then you would just post more, none of it peer reviewed.

                Really, Tommy? Why don't you just stick to saying "baaaaaw" like you do above, where at least you don't pretend to have an argument.

                The science is as robust as ever on AGW, despite the manafactured controversy.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:09 pm ET)
                    2
                  BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

                  I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANYTHING ELSE I POSTED BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE DUMB.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:11 pm ET)
                      2
                    oh and I forgot.


                    PEER REVIEWED
                    PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED V


                    OH except that we found out that the "PEER REVIEW" process was compromised. but I need to say again


                    PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED


                    hypocrite
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (February 25, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
                  1  

                  Notice, too, how Mann, the scientists who came up with the hockey stick theory, was cleared of any wrong doing.

                  Cleared of wrong doing by the school he worked for so they wouldnt look like fools.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by gpp (February 23, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
        2
      Here is an excellent article.

      http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/

      I also like this quote from Mencken "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (February 23, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
        5  
        Here is another excellent article
        http://blogs.the-global-deniars-are-p**py-pants/

        I also like this quote from me: "The urge to quote philosophers or the Bible to prove an agenda oft springs from an urge to obscure proveable facts."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:37 am ET)
          1  
          Whenever I see 'blogs' or 'blogspot', I usually skip the link. I prefer Primary (or Original) Sources.. for instance, the full OK report above.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 5:15 pm ET)
        4  
        The headline of which is "How Al Gore Wrecked Planet Earth".

        Again proving that deniers are all about their utter, spittle-flecked contempt for Al Gore and nothing more.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by gpp (February 23, 2010 4:52 pm ET)
        4
      Warmers have drunk the green cool aid.

      You twist just about everything to make it fit your beliefs.

      It is incredible the lengths you go to try to justify your position.

      You might want to stop using the word consensus. Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political term. Science is not supposed to have consensus. Most scientific discoveries have come from people who went against the "consensus", like the world is flat, or witches should be burned.

      You hide behind the term, but it isn't working anymore for you, so keep on using it. Cry louder, the world is coming to an end!

      I am having fun watching this hoax, this fraud, this charade fall apart like a house of cards. Mother nature is weighing in.

      The earth warmed, but now it is cooling, as CO2 levels rise.

      There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today.

      CO2 can not cause temperatures to rise more than about 1 deg C no matter how much there is. To cause more warming it must cause positive feedbacks. They have not been observed to exist.
      If anything, nature has negative feedbacks, that cause temperatures to cool.

      Yell louder, make even more incredible claims, we have three years to act, we are at the tipping point, we will be flooded, millions of climate refugees, yes, keep it up.

      You are soon to be placed in the dust bin of history.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mmfa.fan (February 23, 2010 5:12 pm ET)
        1  
        Source?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MickD (February 23, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
          2  
          Was that the true Tommy above or a pretender? He seemed harsher than the old Tommy. Is "Tommy" what they call themselves in that propaganda room at the Heritage Foundation?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (February 23, 2010 8:00 pm ET)
            2  
            It doesn't sound like "our" tommy. global warming tommy indeed seems to have sprung from the Heritage F.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:37 pm ET)
                2
              If you think I'm a paid shill I'll sit here and laugh. I just like making fun of single minded idiots.

              thanks anyway.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (February 24, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
                1  
                Well,if you're doing this for free, you're stranger than I thought.
                Libertarian Tommy is a bit sharper. Good luck and get well soon.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (February 23, 2010 5:16 pm ET)
        3  
        You twist just about everything to make it fit your beliefs. It is incredible the lengths you go to try to justify your position.
        The lack of self-awareness among science-deniers is absolutely amazing.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (February 23, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
        1  
        Well you should read about Venus then because the temperatures there are so high because of the CO2 content in its atmosphere, so to say that it can't cause the temps to rise more then 1C is not true. The earth is not cooling, we just went through the hottest decade ever recorded. I personally haven't had any kool-aid since I was a child.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by gpp (February 23, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
          1 3
          Yes, I know about Venus. This is propaganda also, if you had taken the time to check, Venus is nothing like the earth.

          http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.html

          Venus has an atmosphere that is 97% CO2. There are no other greenhouse gases on Venus. The earths atmosphere is .038% CO2, so Venus has 2,552 times more CO2 than earth. If you burned all the fossil fuels on earth the CO2 level won't get much larger than double today's concentration.

          Venus has an atmosphere that is 90% heavier than Earth's. It is so thick, that it is thought no sunlight reaches the planet's surface. Temperatures do not change between night and day (days and nights are 57 days long on Venus because of slow rotation).
          Since no sunlight reaches the surface of Venus, it is thought that it has a thin crust and the heat is coming from the molten interior of the planet, and not from the Sun.

          So here is another perfect example of why global warming is not happening and that warmers just make things up to make you feel like there is a problem.

          Feel free to go check out Venus information for yourself and you will see this comparison is just BS.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by gpp (February 23, 2010 6:15 pm ET)
          1 2
          Well, you better go check your facts again about Venus.

          CO2s ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is the less heat it can absorb.

          The first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs more heat than the next 560ppm and so forth.

          Thus, CO2 BY ITSELF, can not cause more than about 1 deg C of warming, even if levels double or triple.

          The man made global warming theory states that rising levels of CO2 will cause a little more warming (which it does) and this warming will cause there to be more humidity, which absorbs even more heat. (water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas). It is this additional humidity, caused by rising CO2 levels, that is said to cause dangerous warming, ends in a vicious cycle of warming. However, observation shows this does not happen. Temperatures in the tropics do not get above the high 90s, because of negative feedbacks, the humidity causes more clouds, it rains, and it cools. You can see this for yourself in the summer, thunderstorms form in the late afternoon, it rains, and cools.

          You warmers don't even know how the theory of man made global warming works, how the h*ll can you say skeptics are wrong when you don't even know how your own theory works.

          Stiff prison terms should be the result of this incredible waste of govt funding.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (February 23, 2010 8:03 pm ET)
            2  
            And the sources of this information?

            Rather see some prison time for various private contractors in Iraq. Where did that 9 Billion disappear to?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 23, 2010 10:10 pm ET)
              3  
              I really enjoy the line of reasoning I saw at least twice as I skimmed this thread;

              Denial Cultist: CO2 isn't bad in any amount

              Normal Person :
              Check out Venus

              Denial Cultist: NO fair, Venus has a lot of CO2

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Tommy (February 23, 2010 10:28 pm ET)
                  2
                Not that you'll bother but I'll post it again. Get past the first 30 seconds without being offended and attempt to take a look at the other side.

                http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 24, 2010 3:19 am ET)
                  4  
                  Is it Oldies Night ? The Great Global Warming Swindle ??

                  This is why I love the wingnuts. The ones who are up to speed on the latest propaganda are cute enough, but you retro-cultists are even better.

                  Here's a thread from almost three years ago. This film is mentioned in the thread, but look around. You'll find it addressed many other places.

                  You guys don't seem to have made any progress.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by internet soldier (February 24, 2010 11:30 am ET)
                    3  
                    Strange how that very thread contains comments from the old Tommy taking a very similar position to new Tommy. Although it wasn't really old Tommy's style to tout his links with missionary fervour; he was more of a nitpicker/ concern troll. And I just can't imagine old Tommy, who clearly viewed himself as a sensible skeptic, responding to others with "bawwwwwwwwwwwwww!" (perhaps new Tommy meant "bwahahahaha"?). If they are the same person, though, he really is quite thick headed.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 24, 2010 1:19 pm ET)
                      2  
                      I'm pretty sure this is a different Tommy. Same positions, naturally, but very different approaches.
                      Report Abuse