Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- bowhowdy2 on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
Open thread 10/14
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Oct. 14, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
213 Comments
Op-Ed ColumnistThe ‘Good Germans’ Among Us
By FRANK RICH
“BUSH lies” doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves.
Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet another round of secret Department of Justice memos countenancing torture. President Bush gave his standard response: “This government does not torture people.” Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of “torture” is. The whole point of these memos is to repeatedly recalibrate the definition so Mr. Bush can keep pleading innocent.
By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques have a grotesque provenance: “Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.”
Still, the drill remains the same. The administration gives its alibi (Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The debate is labeled “politics.” We turn the page.
There has been scarcely more response to the similarly recurrent story of apparent war crimes committed by our contractors in Iraq. Call me cynical, but when Laura Bush spoke up last week about the human rights atrocities in Burma, it seemed less an act of selfless humanitarianism than another administration maneuver to change the subject from its own abuses.
As Mrs. Bush spoke, two women, both Armenian Christians, were gunned down in Baghdad by contractors underwritten by American taxpayers. On this matter, the White House has been silent. That incident followed the Sept. 16 massacre in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, where 17 Iraqis were killed by security forces from Blackwater USA, which had already been implicated in nearly 200 other shooting incidents since 2005. There has been no accountability. The State Department, Blackwater’s sugar daddy for most of its billion dollars in contracts, won’t even share its investigative findings with the United States military and the Iraqi government, both of which have deemed the killings criminal.
The gunmen who mowed down the two Christian women worked for a Dubai-based company managed by Australians, registered in Singapore and enlisted as a subcontractor by an American contractor headquartered in North Carolina. This is a plot out of “Syriana” by way of “Chinatown.” There will be no trial. We will never find out what happened. A new bill passed by the House to regulate contractor behavior will have little effect, even if it becomes law in its current form.
We can continue to blame the Bush administration for the horrors of Iraq — and should. Paul Bremer, our post-invasion viceroy and the recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts, issued the order that allows contractors to elude Iraqi law, a folly second only to his disbanding of the Iraqi Army. But we must also examine our own responsibility for the hideous acts committed in our name in a war where we have now fought longer than we did in the one that put Verschärfte Vernehmung on the map.
I have always maintained that the American public was the least culpable of the players during the run-up to Iraq. The war was sold by a brilliant and fear-fueled White House propaganda campaign designed to stampede a nation still shellshocked by 9/11. Both Congress and the press — the powerful institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due diligence of the administration’s case — failed to do their job. Had they done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect storm of democratic failure began at the top.
As the war has dragged on, it is hard to give Americans en masse a pass. We are too slow to notice, let alone protest, the calamities that have followed the original sin.
In April 2004, Stars and Stripes first reported that our troops were using makeshift vehicle armor fashioned out of sandbags, yet when a soldier complained to Donald Rumsfeld at a town meeting in Kuwait eight months later, he was successfully pilloried by the right. Proper armor procurement lagged for months more to come. Not until early this year, four years after the war’s first casualties, did a Washington Post investigation finally focus the country’s attention on the shoddy treatment of veterans, many of them victims of inadequate armor, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals.
We first learned of the use of contractors as mercenaries when four Blackwater employees were strung up in Falluja in March 2004, just weeks before the first torture photos emerged from Abu Ghraib. We asked few questions. When reports surfaced early this summer that our contractors in Iraq (180,000, of whom some 48,000 are believed to be security personnel) now outnumber our postsurge troop strength, we yawned. Contractor casualties and contractor-inflicted casualties are kept off the books.
It was always the White House’s plan to coax us into a blissful ignorance about the war. Part of this was achieved with the usual Bush-Cheney secretiveness, from the torture memos to the prohibition of photos of military coffins. But the administration also invited our passive complicity by requiring no shared sacrifice. A country that knows there’s no such thing as a free lunch was all too easily persuaded there could be a free war.
Instead of taxing us for Iraq, the White House bought us off with tax cuts. Instead of mobilizing the needed troops, it kept a draft off the table by quietly purchasing its auxiliary army of contractors to finesse the overstretched military’s holes. With the war’s entire weight falling on a small voluntary force, amounting to less than 1 percent of the population, the rest of us were free to look the other way at whatever went down in Iraq.
We ignored the contractor scandal to our own peril. Ever since Falluja this auxiliary army has been a leading indicator of every element of the war’s failure: not only our inadequate troop strength but also our alienation of Iraqi hearts and minds and our rampant outsourcing to contractors rife with Bush-Cheney cronies and campaign contributors. Contractors remain a bellwether of the war’s progress today. When Blackwater was briefly suspended after the Nisour Square catastrophe, American diplomats were flatly forbidden from leaving the fortified Green Zone. So much for the surge’s great “success” in bringing security to Baghdad.
Last week Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war combat veteran who directs Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, sketched for me the apocalypse to come. Should Baghdad implode, our contractors, not having to answer to the military chain of command, can simply “drop their guns and go home.” Vulnerable American troops could be deserted by those “who deliver their bullets and beans.”
This potential scenario is just one example of why it’s in our national self-interest to attend to Iraq policy the White House counts on us to ignore. Our national character is on the line too. The extralegal contractors are both a slap at the sovereignty of the self-governing Iraq we supposedly support and an insult to those in uniform receiving as little as one-sixth the pay. Yet it took mass death in Nisour Square to fix even our fleeting attention on this long-metastasizing cancer in our battle plan.
Similarly, it took until December 2005, two and a half years after “Mission Accomplished,” for Mr. Bush to feel sufficient public pressure to acknowledge the large number of Iraqi casualties in the war. Even now, despite his repeated declaration that “America will not abandon the Iraqi people,” he has yet to address or intervene decisively in the tragedy of four million-plus Iraqi refugees, a disproportionate number of them children. He feels no pressure from the American public to do so, but hey, he pays lip service to Darfur.
Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America’s recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he “never laid hands on anyone” in his many interrogations, adding, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.
Thank you for posting that Monkeyhawk, it is well written and to the very point about our actions.That I and others have pointed out here and elsewhere, It is about our actions and not theirs that history will judge. It occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, “I wonder if this was what it was like in 1938 Germany?”.The ramped up Nationalism, the reasons and excuses for what would be the invasion of another country.That would be just the beginning and not an isolated action, all in the name of self rights and defending against presumed wrongs.
There was a small corps of dedicated, delusional thinkers that control the news, the actions of the government and was leading the Germany people into what history would record as they worst hours.Ending with the repeated unanswered question, “Why do you not stop them?”. The Germany people could fall back on that they just did not have a reference point in history to forewarn them. Something that was documented and recorded that they were aware of that could be compared to their present day. Or perhaps they ignored such a foretelling, drew no comparison to they own times.
Many have been quoted as saying it, but one of the most famous and perhaps it is his greatest finale warning for all people that have came since his demise. Adolph Hitler in his rhetoric to justify his organized campaign against the Jews said, “ Those whom forget the past are doomed to repeat it!”.
Sorry, but Frank Rich lost me by calling Blackwater Contractors “mercenaries”.
He’s entitled to his opinion. But that is all it is. You can applaud him for writing it or you can shrug it off.
Cop-Counting Cop-Out–October 9, 2007
Giuliani’s wrong when he claims to have added 12,000 new NYC cops
while he was mayor.
Summary
On his Web site, Rudy Giuliani claims that he grew New York City’s police force by 12,000 officers between his inauguration as mayor in January 1994 and mid-2000. That’s just not true. Most of the cops he’s counting – 7,100 to be exact – were already housing or transit police who were simply folded into the New York Police Department. The merger of the departments didn’t increase the number of police in the city at all.
The actual increase in the size of the force was about 3,660, or about 10 percent, during the period Giuliani pinpoints. And Giuliani doesn’t mention that the cost of hiring about 3,500 of the officers was partially covered by the federal government under President Bill Clinton……..
Continue reading:
http://www.factcheck.org/cop-counting_cop-out.html
========================Mitt and Rudy’s Cherry Orchard–October 12, 2007
Romney and Giuliani harvest figures selectively. Watch out for the pits.
Summary
During the Oct. 9 Republican debate, moderator Chris Matthews unleashed a mini-brawl between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani over their respective fiscal records. Both men spewed statistics that sometimes seemed to contradict each other. We find that each man was cherry-picking his numbers, sometimes in misleading ways.
Among the transgressions:Giuliani used a questionable calculation to make it sound as though Romney raised taxes significantly while he was governor; he didn’t.Giuliani once again claimed he cut taxes 23 times in New York City, a claim that we’ve previously found to be misleading. Eight of those were cuts initiated by others, and one large cut he fought for months before deciding to support.
The two cited radically different, and utterly confusing, numbers when describing their spending records while in office.AnalysisChris Matthews posed the question to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney at Tuesday’s GOP debate: “You’ve been having a tit for tat on tax cutting. What’s the difference between the two of you?”
The two responded with figures that would mislead many voters. In fact, the ensuing back-and-forth left heads spinning even among fiscal experts. “I have watched campaigns for decades and, even by the standards of statistics being misused, [Tuesday] night was excessive,” said Michael Widmer, executive director of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Tax Foundation, when called by our bewildered fellow fact-checkers at washingtonpost.com. Giuliani was particularly guilty of this when he accused Romney of raising taxes significantly in Massachusetts:
Giuliani: [T]he point is that you’ve got to control taxes. But I did it; he didn’t. I controlled taxes. I brought taxes down by 17 percent. Under him, taxes went up 11 percent per capita. I led; he lagged.Hearing this, one could be forgiven for thinking that Romney had raised tax rates substantially during his four-year term as Massachusetts governor. Not true – he tried to lower state income-tax rates three times but was stopped by the Democratic-controlled Legislature…….Continued:
http://www.factcheck.org/mitt_and_rudys_cherry_orchard.html
Care to share the factcheck.org entries on Democrat Candidates instead of just posting Republican ones? Because factcheck has more on Democrats bobbles than Republicans.
You know! Just to make it fair and balanced. ;)
Why Iraq’s Sunnis Won’t DealGary SchmittWashington PostSeptember 13, 2005
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20050913.htm
Contrary to most commentary, then, the key to succeeding in Iraq is no longer putting in place a grand political bargain in which Iraqis of all sectarian stripes live happily ever after. In fact, by suggesting that this is the goal, we probably have fueled the Sunnis’ own misperception of their future status in Iraq and hardened their own position.The goal, of course, is to create a political order by which Iraq is made relatively stable and the normal democratic politics of give-and-take are made possible. But that will be a decidedly uphill struggle until the prospect of a successful insurgency is taken off the table and the Sunni Arabs come to the understanding that the new constitution is, in practice, a pretty good deal after all.Politics cannot solve what ails Iraq now. It can help, and certainly the constitution is an important step in that direction. But at the end of the day, it’s only when the so-called dead-enders are either dead or vanquished that one can count on the political process moving decisively forward as most Iraqis desire.The writer is executive director of the Project for the New American Century, a Washington-based think tank.
Joe, if the Blackwater troops are not “mercenaries”–non-military third parties who engage in a military conflict for monetary profit–by the strict definition of the term–I’m not sure what else we can call them.*****************Monkeyhawk’s post also reminded us of a very important point: torture is NOT EVEN INTENDED to exact reliable information. Its purpose is to create a climate of fear, at home and abroad. Fear the terrorists, and fear us–or else! It’s terrorism.
And also, possibly the most stupidly ineffective tactic to use against people who believe their cause has the holy sanction of God, and willingly blow up themselves up in its service.
But, on the other hand, if the ultimate goal is merely Eric Blair’s boot upon a human face forever, well, it’s a good start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drrmNFdQ4D8
Neo cons are socialists and why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkw5bQt0YV0&NR=1
Gee I some how miss this the morning after the debate while watching Fox News about the debate. They talked about how the “top three did” but seem to have forgotten to say Paul got the majority of the votes!Must have been a typo, everyone knows how fair and balanced Fox news is!
I have worked in technology for a long time. I was once a microwave communications tech, a broadcast tech, a landline special services tech and now a wireless systems field engineer (they call it that but I am not a degreed engineer). many of you may not know this fact but with the communications technology we have today, a person can do a radio- or even a TV show- from anyplace on the Earth. With satellite and land based T carriers, I could go to the middle of Wyoming or even Dodge City KS and build a radio studio and operate a full talk show out of it complete with music and ads 24 hours a day! Which brings me to my thought of the day which is WHY do CONSERVATIVES- given the choice- CHOOSE to live in BLUE states and cities? It occured to me that all but ONE of the neo con right wing talk show host lives and works in the BLUEST or the BLUE states. Rush, Hannity and Beck all work and live in NEW YORK CITY! You cannot get much bluer than that unless you go to the Liberal Capital of the United States which is SAN FRANSISCO where Michael Savage holds residence while calling liberalism a “mental disorder”. I beleive that Laura Ingrahm is happy at home in PHILADELPHIA. Of all the neo con parrots on the air only Neal Boortz speaks from a red state- Georgia and even he chooses to live in a work in the quite blue city of ATLANTA. My point is this- if the liberals are so horrible and the blue states so “disgusting and high taxed” as they say, why the hell do these folks CHOOSE to live in them? I personally would never live around a bunch of folks I am not comfortable with. I would not live in either the ghettos nor the trailer parks of America. They ain’t my kinda folks. These people can choose to live and work from anywhere yet they choose the blue areas of the blue states. Could it be that they are all full of crap??? Perhaps they really don’t mind the slightly higher taxes that pay for the great schools and good police and fire protection they enjoy. Perhaps the nice clean parks and rec centers their taxes pay for are what attracts them. Or maybe the well funded top tier colleges in the blue states. Who knows. But like I said, I am sure that downtown Dodge City would be happy to have any or all of them if they are really sick of the liberals!
Libs must be vampires.
They sleep all day and are up blogging all night.
They need to find J O B S.
I notice “kansas” didn’t man up.
Re yesterdays open thread.
To the death I will grapple with thee.
Posted by: J R | October 13, 2007 at 10:18 PM
I notice JR didn’t leave either.
Big Freekin Surprise!
Funny how JR was speaking FOR Steve Davis and Capn. Like he controls them somehow. Nics.
Doesn’t it break some Blog rule to try to force someone else to leave the Blog?
JR must be ONE of the editors.
Great post Kev!
I noticed some time ago the oddity of the Nobel Prize-winning Chicago School of Economics free-market anti-socialism champion, Milton Friedman’s choosing to spend the last 30 years of his life after retiring from UC, in socialist-Democrat dominated San Francisco.
Granted, he was a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University, but then why didn’t he choose to live nearby in one of Stanford’s neighboring Republican-dominated communities?
It turns out that Democrat-dominated large cities offer freedom to express and debate ideas, and enjoy a “liberal” lifestyle.
Blackwater contractors are Security Personal. They are not mercenaries.
Mercs are people who are paid to engage in a conflict. Meaning they are paid to fight offensively.
Blackwater Security Personal are strictly defensive. They are paid as body defense guards for diplomats and dignitaries.
So using the word ‘mercenaries’ is inaccurate. But it sounds juicy for Dems, so they use it. But it’s inaccurate and is just political baiting. So it’s all bs.
But hey! I’m not trying to defend Blackwater personnel. If some of them are trigger happy and killed innocent people without justification or following the rules of engagement, then they should be brought to justice on it.
But when Democrats start screaming and waving their arms in the air with all out horror and hysteria over something, you know you can’t trust what is going to be spewed out of their mouths, because it’s just going to be political propaganda and another tag to put on their hate for Bush.
But I can’t stand the political tactics that Democrats use. Just annoys the hell out of me. You guys would be a great Political Party and I would probably join if you only would shake off the leftist of your base and quit lying for political bullets, then you guys will be alright.
LOL, Joe.
Is their any right-wing sh*t you won’t eat?
Apparently not.
******
Great post, KEV! It’s not what they say, it’s what they DO.
Sorry, but Frank Rich lost me by calling Blackwater Contractors “mercenaries”.
What would you call them, Joe?
I’m not gonna go get a dictionary for ya Joe.
Do you know your history?
The Hessians in the Revolutionary war?
Mercenary: Hired gun, paid good, soldier for hire.
If that don’t define Blackwater personnel I don’t know what does.
Paid GOON that is
See Kev! You have the wrong idea about so called Conservative.
Other than Micheal Savage, I can’t speak for him. But the rest of these Radio-talk show conservative and libertarians don’t hate their ideological foes, like Leftist do.
So since leftist hate others who don’t think their way, they automatically think that their opposition hates them with the same rage and anger. But they don’t. Only the left hates. Sure, there are some conservatives that hate or are over the edge, but not in the masses like the Left.
Conservatives and Liberal Libertarians are also independent. They don’t subscribe to group think, like the leftist do. The Left are a bunch of sheep following a leader who tells them how high to jump. Liberal Libertarians and Conservatives can handle their own by themselves. They don’t need group think, so that is why they can thrive in any place in America.
They are also tolerant. They can live next door to Democrats and be best of neighbors. You will also be surprised that many Conservatives and Liberal Libertarians have many Democrat friends. Even Rush Limbaugh has good friends that are Democrats.
See there is a difference between Democrats and Leftist who are the fringe base of the party and Democrat politicians. You think they are one in the same, but they are not. Most Democrats are also the same as Conservatives and Libertarians. Sure! They disagree on certain policy issues, but nothing separates them on a human level.
Leftist on the other hand are very intolerant and hateful. They don’t have a single friend that is different from them. They all hang around together. So they can’t fathom that Republicans and Democrats could even share the same lunch table or live next to each other. It’s beyond their demented reality that something like that is possible.
That’s because leftist is a radical and dangerous ideology. And if you subscribe to it, you can’t understand reality as it really is. That is why you have so much trouble in understanding why a conservative would live in Philadelphia or a libertarian in Atlanta. Because you think that everybody that thinks like them should be huddled together in one community like the leftist do to themselves.
Sorry buddy! It isn’t Jimmy Jones and cool-aid. We live in a world that people with diverse thoughts and ideas can co-mingle in peace. The Left is a cult and following Jimmy Jones and drinking cool-aid. If you could get away with it, the left would be slitting the throats of everybody who disagreed with them. And that’s the damn honest truth, but it happens in history through genocide campaigns by leftist all the time.
Words mean to Joe whatever he wants them to mean.
He’s no slave to linguistic conformity.
He himself is a “liberal” (nevermind that he holds no positions recognizable by contemporary liberalism), the Nazis were “Socialists” (despite the fact that every historian in world has pointed out that the ’socialism’ in ‘national socialist’ was a complete and utter fiction), it’s the DEMOCRATIC party who engages in terrible politicking (despite the obvious swift-boating of Kerry, the lies about Gore, the 8 year vendetta against everything Clinton, and the “Willie Horton” face merge with Michael Dukkais).
And Martin Luther King who was an avowed socialist was a “libertarian” to Joe.
Unbelievable.
Joe Williams,
So, you’re saying you hate Leftists.
And Rush Limbaugh doesn’t hate. Right. Got that.
Because it’s Sunday morning, I’ll show a little charity and spare you the “Joe Williams is an idiot who regularly posts total nonsense” bell.
Oh, and the other day? When you accused the Cap’N of anti-semitism? Strong words, Joe Williams. It would probably be a good idea for you to reconsider them.
Joe Williams
Now with 20% more peanuts!
Mornin’, CapN.
Good morning Captain!
I see you are still using that term ’swift-boating’ in a disparaging way. Unable to counter the Sift Boat Veterans in honest debate the democratic spin machine instead attacks them and defames these patriots.
If you want to know why Kerry isn’t president today:
http://www.swiftvets.com/videos/theyserved.mov
Hank
Hank Price,
For your perusal: Swift Boat accusations debunked and proven to be lies.
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
But still, Mission Accomplished: the campaign of lies and character assassination found its mark.
Ah ya gotta forgive Hank.
He suffers from Rush selective serviceman syndrome. Only service folk he agrees with are worthy of respect. Any body else is a phony soldier.
Interesting how easily the leftists on this BLOG are willing to believe the spin of the democratic political operatives.
When Rush used the term ‘phony soldier’ he was referring to the latest darling of the left that turned out to be a phony soldier.
When you use the term ’swift-boating’ to emply someone is guilty of falsehoods you are defaming over 200 true patriots.
http://www.swiftvets.com/videos/theyserved.mov
Hank
Rush was NOT referring to one person.
Rush was referring to ANY service person that disagrees with bush dogma.
‘The phony soldierSSSSSS”
His words. Plural.
Home Front Ecology – It worked in the 1940’s
The surprisingly hopeful answer lies in living memory. In the 1940s, Americans simultaneously battled fascism overseas and waste at home. My parents, their neighbors, and millions of others left cars at home to ride bikes to work, tore up their front yards to plant cabbage, recycled toothpaste tubes and cooking grease, volunteered at daycare centers and USOs, shared their houses and dinners with strangers, and conscientiously attempted to reduce unnecessary consumption and waste. The World War II home front was the most important and broadly participatory green experiment in U.S. history. Lessing Rosenwald, the chief of the Bureau of Industrial Conservation, called on Americans “to change from an economy of waste–and this country has been notorious for waste–to an economy of conservation.” A majority of civilians, some reluctantly but many others enthusiastically, answered the call.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200707/ecology.asp
“I see you are still using that term ’swift-boating’ in a disparaging way. Unable to counter the Sift Boat Veterans in honest debate the democratic spin machine instead attacks them and defames these patriots.”
The swift boat ads were discredited by non-partisan sources almost immediately after they came out. The unfortunate thing about commercial media coverage of elections is that very little attention is paid to the accuracy of the claims of campaigns and attack ads, but instead whether they are effective. Both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, have been victimized by this. The swift boat ads were partisan political ads designed to negate the advantage that Kerry had by actually serving in a war where Bush and most of his administration did not (an advantage that Kerry tried to exploit). They also capitalized on the very real feelings of betrayal that many veterans felt about Kerry’s comments before the Senate. And the ads were very effective. Kerry, in what I can only interpret as blind arrogance, thought that he could ignore them. However, the claims of the ads were based on innuendo and capitalized on the deep seated psychological need to demonize those one doesn’t like. If Kerry said these hurtful things then he really COULDN’T have earned those medals, could he? One does not follow from the other, however. Those who were with Kerry during the events in question supported the official version of events.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html
Fact Check is a non-partisan group dedicated to assessing the validity of claims in political ads. For example:
http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_falsely_claims_bush_plans_to_cut.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/liberal_lobby_lacks_context.html
Joe Williams. Scroll over territory. ‘Nuff said.
And WTF? Roberts is whining NOW about bipartisanship? heheheh. Damn. Ya just cant make up the crap that comes out of his mouth. The most partisan senator of the 100, and now? He wants to be known not as Bush’s Senator (a label he’ll never shake) he wants to be Mr. Bipartisan?
He reminds me of germie who, when she’s been thoroughly discredited and proven to be an idiot, whines about civility?
Heheheheh. I guess that’s how we know they know they’ve had their asses handed to them…
Oh and Crowson? You are a national treasure. Your cartoon today was priceless.
I lifted this from another blog, but I thought it was worth repeating.
“Gore’s Nobel Prize shines an unflattering light on America in general and our political culture in particular. It reveals a media-driven American politics driven that still prefers beating good ideas and leadership to death and rolling around in the mess than turning to the future…”
Yep. The whining from the wingnuts about everything Nobel says more than they probably want said.
Heh. They have the propaganda machine cranked up over at the Hays Daily again. Now BOTH local utility companies are whining about the coal fired water sucking Holcomb plant perhaps not being approved.
Hays never met a local issue they didnt want the REST of the state to pay for….
See for yourself. The mighty wurlitzer lives!
http://www.hdnews.net/
Oh but please, since Hays is SO trustworthy, let’s let THEM determine governor leadership’s water and energy policies.
After all, democrats cant win statewide in Kansas without kissing the pope’s uh, ring, in Hays…
Good morning, folks.
Sorry, Hank. You’re a decent guy and all, and I apologize for yelling at Nathan last night.
(but being told that “I lie about my service” Kansas is a better man than I is truly provocation).
But ksagnostic has it right.
Just because Kerry came back and said things about the military that many consider disparging or even lies does not mean he didn’t earn his medals.
Attack him for criticizing the Vietnam War and how it was fought?
Fair enough.
Attack him for slander and cowardice? Not fair.
This is especially galling since so many of his critics successfully weaseled out of service in Vietnam even though they claimed to “support” the war–
Rush LimbaughGeorge BushDick Cheney
to mention just three.
Oh and I see Bob Helm is leading the chorus of whining today. They must have reached “diminishing returns” hehehe on having Steve Miller carry the water on this atrocity.
You remember Miller? The one who recommended that ALL of western Kansas boycotte Lawrence after hearings were held there protesting the Holcomb plant?
Funny, but Lawrence doesnt seem to miss the HUGE numbers of boycotters from the west. Jesus WEPT! A little advise for Steve Miller? If you pull a gun on someone, please make sure it has bullets!
Heheheheh. I’m tellin’ ya, you just cant make this stuff up.
BTW, on Rush’s old TV show, I heard him say that he tried to enlist to fight in Vietnam but he was rejected for being in his words “too fat.”
He actually actively sought a deferment by citing a congential fissure in his butt-crack.
Now, that is courage under fire . . .
KSGrrl writes:
And WTF? Roberts is whining NOW about bipartisanship?
Yeah, no sh*t! I read that in today’s Eagle too.
First, Cal Thomas–the take-no-prisoners scourge of the left and now Roberts who responding to Dem requests for pre-war investigations with a cavalier “f-you.”
Hmmm . . .
Looks like the right-wing rats are fleeing the Bush Titanic and are hoping that the Dems throw them a line like they NEVER did when they had the power to do so.
And never mind that the Repubs with Roberts leading the pack are filibustering every bill the Dems float.
Remember how we needed a new Constitutional amendment to stop the filibuster when the Dems occasionally used it?
But now that the Republics use it for every bill . . . you hear no talk of that.
Worst. President. Ever.
Worst. Party. Ever.
No Junior, I’m sorry. Rush was referring to people on the left that never served in Iraq but went public with atrocities that they had seen or participated in while in Iraq.
The transcripts are clear. Anyone that believe different is a willing dupe of the worst political spinners on the left.
All you have is lies and spin. You can’t win!
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=rush-letter-for-charity
$40,400.00! Which side are you on? My side is having a blast!
Hank
He reminds me of germie who, when she’s been thoroughly discredited and proven to be an idiot, whines about civility?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | October 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Farmie the day that happens I will be glad to spar with you. Never ran from a fight. You libs think you can declare yourselves and that makes the other person wrong – Wrong!
Cut the name calling and bring on a logical argument.
Just interested Cap, did you serve in the military?
Nope.
My people fled Europe so they wouldn’t be forced to serve in the military.
Spank Mice,
Why did Rush alter the transcript?
By the way? The appelation “jr” is incorrect. It was applied to me by two 3rd rate bloggers. You had more than 2 years to come up with it on your own. You didn’t.
Dad was T R. I am J R. Initials wise. My fathers death would remove any sort of accuracy of referring to me as “junior”. It is in fact hurtful in that light.
In short? Treat others how you’d like to be treated.
I would say to Joe Williams that a dangerous class of people are those who claim to love liberty and freedom (those people are the libertarians) but approve of government planning, government entertainment (such as the downtown arena, Joe), government subsidized development (that would be TIF districts and financing, Joe), government subsidy to industry (that would be AirTran, Joe), etc.
You are in that class, Joe Williams. Please stop the delusional thinking that you are libertarian.
Nope.
My people fled Europe so they wouldn’t be forced to serve in the military.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 14, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Whole family of cowards.
Here’s Ksgrm accusing Chas of being WS Clark:
So far you [Chas] vouched for JR, Cap vouched for you – I see a conspiracy here. The fact that you call me Germie, vintage WS tells me a lot.
Posted by: ksgrm | October 12, 2007 at 04:12 PM
And here’s Ksgrm saying that it (after many angry posts accusing Chas. of being WS Clark) claiming that it was just a “joke”:
I wasn’t trying to get you [JR] to talk about WS and am dropping this entire line which I actually started in jest and it got out of control. I was putting Chas and CF on because they take themselves too seriously.
Posted by: ksgrm | October 12, 2007 at 05:48 PM
And here’s Ksgrm saying that she DIDN’T say she was “kidding” about her assertion that Chas was WS Clark:
Cap show me where I said that [that I was just kidding].
Posted by: ksgrm | October 13, 2007 at 02:15 PM
It must be great to be a RepubliCON. Words mean whatever you want them to mean. You never have to remember anything you said. You never have to use any actual evidence.
You are never wrong.
And you never have to ADMIT you were wrong.
Sock puppets anyone? Funny, mention the name of one and they appear.
Sockpuppetville (otherwise known as “the drawer”) must have been empty last night, given the number that appeared on last night’s open thread.
Walk on by is a great strategy if EVERYONE does it EVERY TIME!
I’m in if you guys are.
Yeah, Chesty. Cowards who died a thousand different was for what they believed in.
We weren’t afraid of dying so much as we were afraid of being forced TO KILL others, which last time I checked, is a direct violation of Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek.”
But no matter.
Those of you who believe that the Bible is “literally true” so the earth can only be 8,000 years old have no problem finessing the clear and unambiguous decree not to kill others . . .
Still waiting Cap for you to show me I accused Chas of being WS. You guys see a conspiracy behing every letter of the alphabet. Must me nerve racking to be you.
By the by Chas dishes it out harder than anyone on the blog. He told me last night it was because I asked him if he had green eyes. Which is it?
Why do you feel the need to defend him? Still waiting for him to tell me when he came on the blog.
Great plan, KGrrl.
But how do we know they’re sock puppets?
By the way Cap when you doctor my posts to prove your point it comes up flat. Nice try though.
Provisionally agreed to kfg.
I reserve the right to knock out of the park any grapefruits lobbed my direction though.: )
Maybe we should do this whole America thing by seniority.
After many years of research, and finally use of the internet, I have found when the Rs (my family) came to America.
Sept. 1737
Anybody got seniority on us?
You’re busted, ksgrm. And when did you start posting on the WEBlog?
Hell, I can’t even remember what YEAR I started posting here . . .
Discussion is closed. I didn’t post it to re-hash it. I posted it to show how duplicitous you are.
I believe I succeeded.
Case closed.
Nope, JR.
The first ancestors with my family name came over before the US had declared independence, but not as early as yours.
Typical of you Cap to think you control it all. I started sometime in 2006 but it wasn’t my prevarication that started the discussion. It was Chas’ when he gave Nathan as the reason he missed a meet-up and he wasn’t even posting at the time – at least not under Chas.
You are right about one thing it is too beautiful outside and I have a picnic to get to before the bad weather hits.
“”"Leftist on the other hand are very intolerant and hateful. They don’t have a single friend that is different from them. They all hang around together. So they can’t fathom that Republicans and Democrats could even share the same lunch table or live next to each other.”"”
I guess that makes me a leftist. I do not socialize with people on the right nor would I ever break bread with them. I have better things to do on my weekends than putting on white robes and burning crosses. I do not even talk to the few Republicans at work very often either. I hang around places other Democrats hang around. That doesn’t make me comfortable with all leftist either. To be honest, some of them have elevators that don’t quite go to the top floor. I certainly harbour many differences with Jesse Jackson and other Democrats. But I could never hang around with people that hate and want to kill and oppress others.
That’s my impression of the right-wingers I know too, Kev.
They’re of two types–the vast majority are just simpletons who lack the critical thinking skills to weigh evidence and have just seized upon the right-wing world-view because it gives them order in the chaos and complexity of real life.
Rush Limbaugh is a good example. He’s really stupid under it all. That’s why he appeals to so many stupid people.
(I’ve met some left-wingers who are trapped by their own dogma too, but far fewer.
They are just as irrational and irritating, btw.)
Then there is the shrewd right-winger, the one who knows that the way he can profit most is by keeping the poor and middle-class believing that their lot in life is “natural and inevitable.” He’s the man who holds up the extremely rare success stories and says, “see, you can do it too!” and doesn’t need to say the correllary–”if you fail, it’s no one’s fault but your own and that’s why we don’t need to help you.”
Dick Cheney is in this camp.
He reminds me of germie who, when she’s been thoroughly discredited and proven to be an idiot, whines about civility?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | October 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM
=========================
Gee, I guess now KFG might be WS too??? Note the reference to germie… LOL
BTW, KsGrm… I have posted several times in the past few days when I started hanging around this Blog… It was about August, 2004… I was working in Sioux City, IA then… But keeping an eye out on things back here in the old Home Town…
JR — :-) — I think some of my ancesetors might have met yours when they arrived… :-)
Of course, that would be if your ancestors came in through Florida… See, they hadnt marched them all up on the Trail of Tears yet by that time… LOL
Dearest J R,
When I refer you as junior it is a play on your nic and a comment on your juvenile way of posting.
You fired the first intellectually vacant personal attack today:
“Ah ya gotta forgive Hank.
He suffers from Rush selective serviceman syndrome. Only service folk he agrees with are worthy of respect. Any body else is a phony soldier.
Posted by: J R | October 14, 2007 at 09:59 AM”So grow up. If you don’t like ‘junior’, quit being so juvenile. Hurtful?! And quit playing the victim, your self-serving posts are becoming tedious.
I still love ya, you make a big ol’ bad conservative look good!
Hank
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=rush-letter-for-charity
$41,000.00!
I bet $100.00 that it tops $100,000.00. Any takers? Loser donates to the charity; The Marine Corps – Law Enforcement Foundation.
http://www.mc-lef.org
Hank
Nothing juvenile about raising a legitimate issue there Hank.
If Rush Limbaugh was not ashamed or afraid of what he said, why did he alter the transcript? And for Armed Services radio no less.
He also compared an injured veteran who objected to his words to a suicide bomber.
And folks who can afford 100K for a letter?
Well we got some tax plans in the works for them: )
Thought this was interesting… In light of the fuss about Norman Hsu(who is definitely bad news)…
The Marine Corps – Law Enforcement Foundation, Inc. is also registered to participate in the Combined Federal Campaigns (CFC #2134). We are a 501(c)3 charity, IRS tax number 22-3357410.
DIRECTORS:
Rush LimbaughGen. Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of StaffEt Al
yikes
I’ll second that yikes, KFG :-)
Well Capn. you can take some solace in the fact that all (or at least the vast majority) of the gung ho military types on this thread and also in the larger majority of the population, have never killed anything more than a defensless animal, or some alcoholic beverage. Yet, they are the first to denounce the ‘phony soldiers’, who I would venture to guess, have been forced to take the life of a stranger in a war, for reasons of being there they never fully contemplated.Semper fifi.
Semper fifi.
Posted by: The Phantom | October 14, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Excuse me Phantom, please find some other insult than Semper fifi. That denigrates a proud tradition of some of the bravest soldiers this country has ever seen. The Marine Corps isn’t your enemy. Please don’t smear me or my brothers.
Well, what about the bet? It’s only $100.00.
And Rush on the board of directors? So what?
Rush has donated time and money to support our troops. More money than he makes public. That’s why it is particularly dispicable for an organization, funded by George Soros and founded by and for Hillary Clinton to attack him on a phony issue.
As for the left-wing nitwits that believe and support this far left attack on Rush, well, I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for their inability to enter a BLOG debate without a rational thought.
You won’t win. Truth in the long run wins out. That’s why Kerry is still the junior Senator from MA.
Hank
Walk on by is a great strategy if EVERYONE does it EVERY TIME!
I’m in if you guys are.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | October 14, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Count me in, but I guess I’ve been practicing what I preach for a while.
Walk on by doesn’t cut it, though. If you post “walk on by”, or “DNFTT”, that’s a response. If you want to have the desired effect, DO NOT RESPOND. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Give the egos a rest and just don’t say anything.
I’m going to make a bet here. I’m betting that Lib posters can’t ignore the “obnoxious one”. He’s a master at pushing your buttons, and I’m betting that the majority of Libs just don’t have what it takes to resist.
Show me who isn’t clay in the Puppet Master’s hands.
OK XXX. I’ll take that bet. What is my prize if I win? Your prize if I lose? Is there an end date to this? Like when Hillary is sworn in?
hehheheheheheehhehehehehe….
We can all try, XXX and KFG… Might have to lassoo my keyboard, but I WILL try!!
KFG, if I can do it, I want at least the recipe to one of those chicken dinners Tom is always bragging about… :-)
I will be happy with almost any Democrat being sworn in, and a Democrat Congress to go with him/her…
OK now how long before the Sock Puppet Ballet appears from the “Drawer”??
heeeeeeeee
No recipes, but I’ll cook for ya. I’ll even cook at your place :)
Hell, I’ll even throw in a dozen eggs. Uh, throw in, so to speak…
In fact, I’m frying chicken and making mashed potatoes (home grown yukon golds) and gravy for a couple of my friends. Even as we speak.
Uh oh. There goes the smoke alarm! As Ron White says, “that aint a timin’ devise”!
Sounds good to me, KFG!! I would look forward to that!!
WOW — Yummy!! And if yuou talk to Topm, tell him I said HI!!
Love Ron White — “I got drunk in a bar… They THREW me into public!!” LOL
Truth in the long run wins out.
Hank
No, it doesn’t. That’s total wishful thinking.
The only truth that “wins” is the one people perceive to be true.
Consider the following:
1. Who was more popular when he left office, Clinton or Reagan?
2. Who grew the size of gov’t spending more, Johnson or W. Bush?
3. True or false? W. had no idea that Iraq did not have WMD’s. All the intelligence warned that Iraq did have WMD’s. The Congress got the SAME INTELLIGENCE that the President did.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.html
Answers:
1. Clinton. “We’re hearing from lots of liberals, including Paul Krugman, that Clinton was more popular than Ronald Reagan according to the polls. This is true” says the National Review.
2. Bush. He increased gov’t spending by some 8 percent a year according to the Cato Institute. Johnson only increased it a little more than 4 percent a year.
3. Intelligence agencies provided Bush with a lot of information that Iraq did not have WMD’s. The Senate never got this information.
Those are only some of the things that people wrongly believe. We don’t know, as Rumsfeld said, what we don’t know about so much else of what happens in government.
Hank’s belief that “the truth will prevail” is more fantasy thinking from someone who freely distorts factual evidence to make it fit his views.
Hey Captain!
Obviously, my idea of the ‘long run’ is a little longer than yours!
For the short term, memory challenged, Who’s president? Bush or Kerry?
And, Media Matters be damned, I bet Rush goes to three hours on Armed Forces radio before he loses the hour he has now!
Hank
Rush portrayed that “charity” by making sure he included the name of “marines” in it… Looks like all it is, is a NeoCon fundraising gimmick… Probably for Rush’s choice for Repub. Pres.
If Bush was NOT President, I seriously doubt we would have had 9/11 OR be in Iraqi quagmire as we now are… Just my poinion!!
I see that Capn the “Sunday School Teacher” (cough) has been at it all day long. :)
Ok, so what do I win?
What do you want to win, KFG?? LOL
Hey kfg or anoyne.
Should I unplug my computer if it storms?
It’s on a surge protector.
Might be a good idea if we start to get lightning, JR… I normally do that here…
I normally just unplug the surge protector, actually…
I found on a site about protecting your computer.
It says unplug computer and modem. So that is whan I will do if it gets nasty. THnks the response.
Yes, and leave it unplugged. In fact, take some cutters and clip off the end of your plug. :)
JR, it depends on the quality of your surge protector. If you paid $9.95 for it, by all means unplug when there’s a lot of lightning. If you have one of the nice ones that goes for $45-$65, You’ll have more serious problems (like lightning setting the house on fire) than worrying about a computer.
Just looking out the window, I don’t see anything to worry about.
I agree XXX I see nothing serious outside either…
Gee, seems like Kansas really wants to get JR off the Blog LOL
How ridiculous of a suggestion…
Seems like it was a false alarm.
I unplugged it. A site I found said unplug modem too.
I paid like 30 bucks for my surge protector. If there’s ever lightning, I’ll just unplug it. no sense temoting fate. Fate doesn’t like when I tempt it.
For the record, I only teach Sunday school once a month . . .
Walk On By
What do I want to win? Besides the lottery? Or a new tractor?
Ummmm…. whatchya offering if I win? Heheh. I’ll still cook. How about if you win, I’ll travel down there, and if I win, you travel out here?
The road goes both ways. Really. Tom seems to be the only person who realizes this. :)
Damn, I didnt think fast enough. I should have asked for volunteers to clean the chicken coops.
Oh well. Next bet. *WEG*
For the record, I only teach Sunday school once a month . . .
Walk On By
Posted by: CaptainAmerica | October 14, 2007 at 05:31 PM
The rest of the Sundays, he doesn’t even bother to go to Church.
What a fine example.
JR, I guess everyone weighed in already, but my attitude, like yours, is better safe than sorry. I lost my Apple laptop to a lightning related surge, even with a new surge protector. Something about the wiring in my house requires a full house surge protector. Or some such.
Now you see why I use a chef’s knife and or a shovel for most jobs. Technology isnt my thing.
Gotta go check my deep dish brownies. Even the dog is groaning with food overload…
When you see him walking down the streetAnd you chance to meet
Walk on by DOO doo doo dah DOO DOO
Walk on by DOO doo doo dah DOO DOO
The only sure way to protect computers, modems, etc from a close lightning hit is to unplug them.
Also, most surge protectors use metal oxide varistors (MOV) which are weakened or destroyed by surges.
Better quality protectors have a “protection working” light that shows if the MOVs are okay.
If your protector doesn’t have that light, and may have been hit by a surge(s) consider replacing it.
Unplug computers, etc when going on vacation, and when weather may become severe while you’re not there.
How about if you win, I’ll travel down there, and if I win, you travel out here?=======================
Sounds good KFG!!
Well, back to see the end of this Dallas game… Looks like Dallas might have lost this one…
So Libs, are you going to let the Capn to continue his rant of “”I was / was not injured in the line of duty” Kansas?”
So much tripe about Libs accuse me of trolling and making remarks when the Capn and J R and others are even worse.
Posted by: Kansas | October 14, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Kansas, WHERE are your Congress and the Justice Dept sources re the Sierra Club and levee failures???
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/dont_count_on_f.html#comment-70787152
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_28.html#comment-71041282
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/sicko-offers-gl.html#comment-74527572
And thank you for posting the levee lie again above.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-926.html#comment-84210900
It proves that you ignore facts, and have ZERO credibility.
“I was / was not injured in combat” Kansas is starting to melt down, folks!
Check the spam posts.
Maybe we can send him back to Mississippi!
Dr. Gray nails it. Global warming. It’s all about the money.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
Ummmm Kansas…
You have posted on the Blog that you were injured in line of duty….
You have also posted that you were injured not in the line of duty…
Just pick one, and stay with it… Thats the only thing I think anybody is concerned about..
No Chas, I never wrote that. Capn is making stuff up or someone trolled me.
Like I said before, they don’t issue medical retirement to those who were not injured on active duty and on duty. I have a military ID card that says permanent on it and a VA Form for the causes for my injuries.
You know why the Capn keeps repeating the statement, so why don’t you take him on.
That is if you have the moral courage to do it.
Stop complaining about me as a troll, when the Capn is worst one here as he hararasses everyone here and has the worst profane mouth on the blog.
Oh and Chas, as you constantly state, it is none of your business.
Or are you going to be a hypocrite?
Outlander,
Thanks for the laughs.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
“[Gray] said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.”
Gray is an “outsider”, because his work is not scientific.
‘Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
“Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s State of Fear has “the absolute ring of truth.” It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.
…The problem is Gray’s failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. “
cosmos GW alarmist claims are about to fall flat are their collective faces when co2 in the atmosphere reaches equilibrium in absorption lifetime and that with oceans.
All scientists know that co2 increase lags hundreds of years behind temperature change. This is part of normal climate change.
Cosmos what about the statistics he cited about the storm incidences being less than were earlier predicted by GWers? I have given lots of thought to your arguments. Have even adjusted my lifestyle in several ways. Still not convinced that on Gores part it is anything but a hoax.
“Cosmos what about the statistics he cited about the storm incidences being less than were earlier predicted by GWers?”
Posted by ksgrm
The # of tropical storms? Global warming science is still uncertain about whether the # will rise or fall.
It’s the increased intensity, due to warmer sea surface temperatures (SST) that’s the problem.
Kerry Emanuel did a “power dissipation index” study.http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html
Very warm SST’s caused Katrina to quickly strengthen to Cat 5.
And oceans will continue to warm, so the problem may be worse in the future.
Also, warmer air holds more moisture, so heavier rainfall from tropical storms is possible. Note the heavy flooding Erin caused this year, from Texas up through Ohio region.
cosmos calls me a liar for a report I post here by the Black Environmental Group of Louisiana. I’m not the one who wrote the report, I just posted it.
Since then, cosmos has called me a liar which has been months ago. I figured that cosmos must be a very bigoted racist for calling the people who made that report who happen to be Black liars. They are scientists, cosmos is not.
The only motivation and reason for him to call them liars is that cosmos is a racist since he has no scientific training.
Notice how cosmos comes and posts off topic in threads to attack me.
He is not only a racist but he is a stalker as well.
Why don’t the Libs take him on for it?
Kansas, that’s one of Cosmos approaches if you post a link to anything he doesn’t like.
He assigns authorship to the poster, instead of to the linked story itself.
Very annoying technique, but then, Cosmos repeated global warming posts are annoying, and probably turning people against the GW supporters.
Very annoying technique, but then, Cosmos repeated global warming posts are annoying, and probably turning people against the GW supporters.
Very annoying technique, but then, Cosmos repeated global warming posts are annoying, and probably turning people against the GW supporters.
Very annoying technique, but then, Cosmos repeated global warming posts are annoying, and probably turning people against the GW supporters.
Cosmos is a one trick pony.
All he can do is post links…
Actually try to talk to him about Global Warming? You get links.
Why bother…
cosmos is not a scientist nor has scientific training. That is the reason he has to use hyperlinks to op ed pieces and blog sites. cosmos does not understand the science of what he posts, so he uses political and ad hominem attacks on those who have different views.
cosmos is a political hack, nothing more.
Nathan,
I you actually read the links I’ve provided, you might realize that the credible scientists are right about human-caused global warming.
Max,
Want to count the # of links, and space taken up, by your Clinton posts?
And thanks for the ad hominem attacks.
Cosmos,
We have gone down this road before…
You refuse to be reasonable about this.
Everything anyone posts you simple label as a hack, liar, or fraud.
There is no point.
I’ll ask you the same question I did before:
Do you believe that there is a credible peer reviewd scientist who doesn’t agree with the concensus on Global warming?
Simple question, Yes or No?
Too Much Hot AirGlobal warming is agitating our minds, particularly after the report of the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Four issues are under debate. Is the earth warming in an unprecedented manner, hitherto never seen in history? Are industrialisation and higher lifestyles responsible for this warming? Which countries and regions are the highest emitters of global greenhouse gases? And, can massive technological breakthroughs curtail future emissions to acceptable levels?
Instead of having a dispassionate debate, global warming has suddenly taken on an alarmist hue. Dissenting views are looked upon with suspicion or disdain. Doomsday ayatollahs are nothing new to human history.
In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that population will outrun food supply, bringing famine, pestilence and death to a large proportion of the human civilisation.
History proved Malthus wrong because he failed to include the ingenuity of the ultimate resource, the human mind. Similarly, top scientists and social leaders met in Rome in the late 60s and formed the Club of Rome. Their sponsored study by Dennis Meadows, Limits to Growth, predicted that economic growth will eat up our natural resources rapidly and create catastrophic conditions. It never happened and Club of Rome itself has long disowned Meadows’ work.
We must not fall prey to extremist positions. A large number of scientists disagree with the view that a climate catastrophe is looming and that economic development and industrialisation are the cause of it.
In a letter to the Canadian prime minister, 60 of the world’s leading climate scientists wrote, “Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’”. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard- Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics concluded that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period.
A period of extreme climate was the mediaeval warming period between 800-1300 BCE; the Little Ice Age of 1300-1900 BCE occurred worldwide, much before industrial emission of greenhouse gases. Using data from NOAA and Goddard Space Flight Centre, WSI-Intellicase Meteorologists conclude that the “coverage of ice in the Arctic has been virtually unchanged since 1979, while ice in the Antarctic regions has actually increased”. According to Richard S Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, “We don’t have any evidence that global warming is a serious problem”.
Against the so-called ’scientific consensus’ drawn from Naomi Oreskes’s study of 928 articles, all of which suggest that greenhouse gas pollution has caused most of the warming of the last 50 years, Benny Peiser, who drew on 12,000 articles on climate change, concluded that the vast majority of abstracts do not even mention human activity as a cause of climate change.
Of course, we need to know who emits maximum of harmful carbons into the atmosphere. The US topped the list in 1999 with 5.60 tonnes of emission per person, Russia followed with 2.72, EU 2.40, Japan 2.40, China 0.53 and India close to 0.25 tonnes per person. The developed world has to be aggressive in controlling carbon emission, while we too must do our bit for our own sake.
The IPCC’s own Working Group III Report lists a range of greenhouse gas mitigation technologies which are commercially available today, and more would fructify by 2030. Such technological breakthroughs in energy supply include fuel switching from coal to gas, nuclear power, hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy. By 2030, we would have commercialised tidal and wave energy too, says IPCC.
In transport, hybrid vehicles, cleaner diesel vehicles and biofuels are already in use. We are aware that coal will be available for 200-450 years, and here the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is so relevant. IGCC is used in two plants in the US, where carbon dioxide is extracted out of the coal and sequestered deep into the ground while hydrogen gas and steam powers the turbines to produce electricity.
India, with its huge coal reserves, can benefit from IGCC or from other alternatives, including underground coal gasification. We need a strong technology partnership with the West. The M2M (methane to market) partnership between FICCI and Environmental Protection Agency of the US is a humble example of emerging possibilities.
Imagine the impact of large-scale adoption of solar thermal power plants, the first of which goes on stream in Spain (PS10) in Seville by the year end. It will produce 11 megawatts, powering 6,000 homes and preventing 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emission. Developing countries along the equator, which are expected to face the brunt of global warming, could become global leaders in energy production with a solar energy breakthrough.
It is little known that India has at least 31 per cent of world’s thorium (RAR category). Given the keen interest of many countries, including India, in fast-breeder reactors using thorium, India could become a supplier of nuclear fuel rather than a recipient. Switching significantly to nuclear power with our own fuel source would put us in the big league on clean power production.
Let us not be swept away by the alarmists in the global warming debate. We must take a cool and hard look at global technology partnerships and engineer tectonic shifts to beat the Malthusian and Club of Rome syndrome.
he will post in any thread on this blog totally off topic global warming issues.
Posted by: Kansas
I’ve noticed that Kansas. I think he did a little scientific research using an 8th grade science textbook. He also has a vast amount of time to search the net for democrat sponsored crap the tree huggers put out. Calls it “pure science”.
At any rate, I’m just trying to get landscaping business going, and take advantage of the GW changes which WILL promote my business eventually.
Because – whether man caused it or not, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can stop the changes which are always occuring globally.
I have a source for date palms, coconut palms, and vast experience from landscaping in the Phoenix suburbs to put to good use.
If we are going to cook – why not look good while doing so?
“Do you believe that there is a credible peer reviewd scientist who doesn’t agree with the concensus on Global warming?
Simple question, Yes or No?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 14, 2007 at 08:28 PM
That’s the wrong question. It should be:
“Are there any credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with the consensus of anthropogenic global warming?
Answer: No.
Cosmos,
So how do you expect to have a conversation with anyone on Global Warming when you refuse to acknowledge that there are credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming?
Just as you would say it was absurd for me to say there were no scientists who are credible and peer reviewed that agree with the concensus on anthropogenic global warming, you are absurd for thinking the opposite.
That is why I can’t take you seriously or even try to have a discussion with you.
You are unreasonable.
“Are there any credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with the consensus of anthropogenic global warming?
Answer: No.
Posted by: cosmos | October 14, 2007 at 08:41 PM
cosmos is not a scientist. cosmos has no scientific training. cosmos is not qualified to say who is or isn’t qualified.
cosmos is a political hack.
Don’t worry; nuclear winter is the antidote to global warming.
“… when you refuse to acknowledge that there are credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 14, 2007 at 08:45 PM
Sorry, I don’t know of any who are actually doing active climate work, and publishing in credible journals.
So enlighten me… their names, and recent papers?
Cosmos,
You just got done telling me that there were none.
Now all of a sudden you are acting like you just don’t know of any…
So which is it cosmos:
Are there any credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming or do you just not know of any?
cosmos is an environmental terrorist, he is being closely monitored.
I’m sure you are not planning destruction of the new coal power plants in Kansas are you Cosmos?
I know you would prefer wind power, but the people in the Flint Hills of Kansas have strongly rejected windmills clogging up their environment.
I truly hope you are not planning drastic measures to stop the advancement of power for the state?
Cosmos,
Better yet, answer this one:
If a peer reviewed scientist disagrees with anthropogenic global warming would you ever find him credible?
cosmos doesn’t even have residence in Kansas, he just comes here to influence local politics as any political hack would.
“Are there any credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming or do you just not know of any?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 14, 2007 at 09:07 PM
I’ve looked before, but didn’t see any listed, so I answered “No”.
If you know of some, please list their names and recent papers.
And Nathan, science is about the science, not the scientist, and/or their opinions.
cosmos doesn’t even have residence in Kansas, he just comes here to influence local politics as any political hack would.
Posted by: Kansas | October 14, 2007 at 09:17 PM
===========================
It’s OK that Mr. Max comes from somewhere other than Kansas, but not OK for Mr. Cosmos to come from outside the state? Do you own this Blog, Mr. Kansas??
Well, I see the Blog is descending into the realm of name calling once again… Maybe one of these days, WE will just turn it off… Maybe we would all be better for it…
Good Night; Good Luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
Cosmos,
If that was true, then why do you spend so much of your time trying to discredit the scientist instead of what they say?
What about my other question:
If a peer reviewed scientist disagrees with anthropogenic global warming would you ever find him credible?
max comes here to give his opinion.
cosmos comes here to force his political ideology down people’s throat and then tries to discredit them.
That’s a huge difference.
cosmos is an environmental terrorist.
Sugar=liberal democrat. One who supports the view of the liberals and tree-huggers on this blog beyond what is reasonable or good sense.
Sugar is a regular on this blog, however, chose a new NIC to post this piece of crap under.
This will be revealed in the “last of days” of the blog.
“If that was true, then why do you spend so much of your time trying to discredit the scientist instead of what they say?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 14, 2007 at 09:29 PM
Because their work is neither credible science, nor peer-reviewed. And I have discredited “what they say”.
“If a peer reviewed scientist disagrees with anthropogenic global warming would you ever find him credible?”
That’s an irrelevant question, because there don’t seem to be any.
Those who embrace the metally impaired troll “kansas” do so at risk to their credibility.
Warning from JR – do not associate with Kansas or else!
(JR is one of the WE Editors – look out!)
Because their work is neither credible science, nor peer-reviewed. And I have discredited “what they say”.
“If a peer reviewed scientist disagrees with anthropogenic global warming would you ever find him credible?”
That’s an irrelevant question, because there don’t seem to be any.
Posted by: cosmos | October 14, 2007 at 09:46 PM
cosmos is not a scientist.
cosmos is not qualified to say what a creditable scientist is or isn’t.
cosmos is an environmental terrorist.
Cosmos,
The reason you won’t answer that question is why it is pointless to talk to you.
Anyone who says anything which is contrary to your belief in anthropogenic global warming you will simply go after them as a liar, hack, or fraud.
It is all you have ever done.
It will be all you continue to do.
So discussing anything with you is pointless.
Cosmos is one of the best informed and well posted contributors that this forum has.
“kansas” on the other hand, is a menatlly impaired tenegade and blog terrorist. He has actually demanded that posters leave in order that he relieve the blog of himself.
And that is all the attention he gets from me.
Warning from JR – do not associate with Kansas or else!
(JR is one of the WE Editors – look out!)
Posted by: Pat Herron |
You know somfin, Pat, I believe you are correct.
Why else post the silly and stupid information that J R got a FREE computer from a “regular” on this blog?
Why else post the stupid “friends” information about the “regulars”?
I can’t wait until the OWNERS of the Eagle get all this shit in their CEO’s mailbox!
Nathan,
No… I wont answer that question because it’s irrelevant.
It’s like if all gun experts rated a gun “x” as an excellent firearm.
Would you find a person, who didn’t exist, who said that same gun “x” was junk, credible?
And that is all the attention he gets from me.
Posted by: J R
So who the heck do you think U are J R? Gods gift to blogging?
I’ve been sooo impressed with you and your blogging abilities since you’ve shown up here. Your contributions are phenomenal.
I truly do not know how this blog survived without you.
You are like Gods gift.
Everyone should bow when they hear your name.
Cosmos,
You don’t believe in science at all.
You believe in anthropogenic global warming and anyone who doesn’t be damned.
That is not science.
Science welcomes debate and questions.
Science is not about ramming something down everyones throats like you do.
And I bet you Nathan, treat every one of Cosmo’s links…
just as I do yours.
Nathan,
The peer-review process is the WAY science is “debated”, You seem to want to remove peer-review, so your opinion will be valid.
Climate science has been studied and “debated” since the 1800’s.
There’s been a HUGE amount of climate science research, and “debate” since the 1970’s.
The scientific “debate” is over. All that’s left is the non-peer reviewed attempts to cause confusion, and delay.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.So we have a smaller fraction.But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”
But Karlen clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,” Karl»n concludes.The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”
Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. “For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,” says Karl»nDr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”
Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to CivilizationThere is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of the way in which people have been taught to view nature, political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists. How did this happen and where are we headed if climate change hysteria continues unchecked?Skewed View of NatureWestern education automatically assumes a ‘uniformitarian’ view of the World, a concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a consequence, sudden or extreme changes are considered abnormal by most of society. Yet even a cursory examination of climate records reveals variations in centuries past that are far faster and more severe than anything we are experiencing today.
Humans are naturally selective in what we notice. For instance, selectivity occurs when, after being introduced to someone, you seem to meet them frequently. They were always there, but just not part of your “noticing.” Similarly, the media and the public have started to “notice” extreme weather, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc. more because alarmists tell us that an increase in such events is a precursor to the coming ‘climate crisis’. Since people are on the lookout for such trends they seem to be accelerating even though recent quantitative studies demonstrate they are not (NRSP ‘allied scientist’ Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown this clearly in his studies for the Alberta government, for example).
Phenomena such as severe weather events are now often presented as unusual or unique: it was the highest or lowest temperature, rainfall, etc., ‘ever.’ What is referred to is the barely century-old instrumental data-based official weather record, an inadequate sample of the Earth’s five billion year history. Long term geologic records indicate much greater and more rapid changes occurred long before civilizations started.
Besides the public’s lack of awareness of our planet’s dynamic climate history, a difficulty in comprehending long time frames has made them susceptible to the propaganda of Al Gore and David Suzuki. Echoing Suzuki’s myth of nature’s “gentle rhythms”, then Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 4, 2005, “Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon.” Dion’s total ignorance of the issue is revealed by simply noting one historical fact – half of North America was under a vast ice sheet just 22,000 years ago.
Political Exploitation of ScienceThe exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians inCanada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to “stop climate change.” They can’t show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. ‘Believe’ is the key word here, not ‘think’.
Even the United States, previously one of the last bastions of common sense in climate wars, is being swept up in this dangerous movement. Besides the rise of ex-Vice President Al Gore to the status of climate change ’superstar’, rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in the U.S. Senate now that an environmental extremist, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has taken over as Chair of the powerful Committee on Environment and Public Works. Exposing her extraordinary naiveté Boxer maintains, “The American people have the will to slow, stop, and reverse global warming, and they sent a new cast of characters to Washington, and people are really hopeful that this new Congress will be able to do it.” Claiming Gore as her hero, Boxer has even initiated an “online thank you card to Al Gore… — thanking him for everything he has done to stop global warming!” To date, it has attracted over 77,000 endorsers.
Along with Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, Boxer is promoting the ludicrously titled “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act”, also referred to as the” Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309″. The phrase ‘global warming pollution’ is wildly inappropriate but is used repeatedly by Gore, Boxer and others in the hopes that the public will look upon their actions as honest attempts to help the environment by reducing pollution. In reality, the major target of the act, Gore’s crusade and other futile attempts to ’stop climate change’ (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) is carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas essential to life and in no way a pollutant. Using the sweeping and more threatening sounding term “greenhouse gases” (of which CO2 is only one), environmental alarmists clearly hope the public don’t wake up to the fact that they are really speaking mostly about the benign gas CO2. While many politicians know very well that CO2 emission reduction is pointless and will have little if any impact on climate, some truly don’t know the difference between CO2 and pollution – witness the Boxer-like statement of Canadian Liberal MP Joe Volpe before entering the House of Commons to vote in favour of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto in 2002, “For all intents and purposes, there isn’t anybody that I know that doesn’t want cleaner air and a cleaner environment, so why would you vote no?”
Divorcing themselves entirely from science, political opportunists proceed to claim the moral high ground by appealing to our natural instinct to protect children. Combining such sentiments with religiosity and an adolescent ‘we can do anything’ approach, they end up with assertions so removed from the real world as to be laughable, were the consequences not so serious.
“Just as we lift our children up to feed them, and we hold them close to comfort them, and to protect them from any manner of harm, just as we would never, ever leave them trapped in a locked car in the hot sun, we must protect them from global warming.” Boxer told an April 14, 2007 National Press Club audience. “The ancient religious writings say, “See to it that you do not destroy my world for there is no one to repair it after you.” Today for us, it should be simple. Working Together we can reverse Global Warming! We must lead on this issue, not follow; its our job. I truly believe when we do our job, our country and our families will be better and stronger and the world will be safer.”
Of course we have no chance of “reversing global warming” (and why would we want to? Global cooling is far more dangerous and climate is never constant). Boxer’s rhetoric is simply an appeal to emotion over rational thought. Such an unscientific stance is bad for society and, ultimately, bad for the environment as well, but political spin doctors seem to have concluded that it still attracts many voters. As the public learn more about the issue, this will eventually backfire politically. This is why groups like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project focus so strongly on public education. Once a majority of the public recognize that many of the assertions of Boxer, Gore, Dion and Volpe have no basis in reality, politicians will have little choice but to radically alter their approach – either that or be voted out of office in disgrace.
Besides ignorance and political opportunism, what is driving this movement?The principle target in all this is fossil-fueled based energy sources. Boxer summed it up neatly in her introduction to the June 28 Senate committee hearing, “reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming.”
Besides vote-seeking politicians, who else would want to dismantle our fossil fuel-based economy? Some beneficiaries of such an agenda are obvious – alternative energy providers are already reaping financial windfalls from the scare. Nuclear power companies stand to make significant gains as well, provided they are not shut down entirely by environmentalists who oppose them even more fiercely than they do fossil fuel corporations. Many scientists and engineers who support nuclear power for its real benefits understand how today’s climate scare is largely groundless and so do not boost nuclear power as a means to avert a climate crisis.
However, some spokespeople are not so careful. John Ritch, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, uses language even more extreme than Gore and Suzuki. At the October 2006 Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney, Australia, Ritch said,
“The fact of this planetary crisis should no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic: increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.
If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people – and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.”NRSP scientists immediately sent Ritch solid evidence that his assertions were out of touch with modern climate science and expressed the hope that his “remarks are greatly tuned to a more realistic stance if the topic is brought up again in the future.” NRSP continued, “Nuclear power clearly has important benefits to mankind but “stopping global climate catastrophe” is surely not one of them. [We] fear we undermine the whole effort when such extreme arguments are presented.”
Ritch did not respond. Instead NRSP was answered by Jonathan Cobb, the association’s “climate change advisor”, who dismissed our concerns saying, “I can assure you that Mr Ritch pays close attention to the scientific discussion on climate change and he will continue to accurately report the overwhelming scientific consensus.” That a climate change advisor would simply brush aside evidence that his employer had little need of his services is perhaps not surprising. However, that Ritch continues to use precisely the same language as above in his most recent speeches (June 2007) is inexcusable.
The specter of industry-caused “climate chaos” – a ridiculous term used by Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May – ultimately leading to the ‘destruction of the planet’ is a perfect vehicle for people who want to radically alter, or even dismantle, western civilization. Chief among these is Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office. His comment, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” speaks volumes about what is really going on in the minds of some environmentalists.
Industry runs on energy, but you cannot directly attack the energy source because this would alienate the vast majority of the public who benefit from industrialization. The easiest way is to show that the byproducts of industrial activity are causing a planetary collapse. Even though untrue, this claim provides another popular moral high ground for activists. Demanding carbon dioxide reductions provided the vehicle and the United Nations supposedly provided the science for the theory that human addition of CO2 would lead to uncontrolled global warming. The theory quickly became fact, and the scientific method of testing, and accepting or rejecting, was effectively thwarted. Scientists who tried to pursue a normal scientific approach to the issue were quickly branded as pawns of the energy sector.
There are negative side-effects of industrialization of course, but eliminating industry also eliminates its exceptionally beneficial impacts on quality of life. Besides ignoring the natural evolution of the human species, in the extreme, today’s climate alarmism is decidedly anti-human. Human progress is seen, not as a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration.
The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today’s climate crusade as their primary raison d’être:
Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): “They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value – to me – than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line – about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”, p. 115): “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”
Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a ‘bioethicist’ at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be “speciests”.
And of course the macabre “ Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ” is apparently alive and well with its “volunteer” class members agreeing that, “All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens.” Asserting that “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health”, the group’s motto is “May we live long and die out.”
In the extraordinary book “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, “Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Let’s hope that Mackay’s pessimism is no longer quite so applicable in a world where instantaneous and inexpensive mass communications is a fact of life – certainly society cannot afford to continue to sleep at the switch while eco-activists rapidly come to dominate governments. Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation. That will be the sad legacy of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.
Cosmos was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.Cosmos: “Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!”
Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.Henny Penny: “Where are you going, Cosmos?”Cosmos: “Oh, help! The sky is falling!”Henny Penny: “How do you know?”Cosmos: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Henny Penny: “This is terrible, just terrible! We’d better hurry up.”Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.Ducky Lucky: “Where are you going, Cosmos and Henny Penny?”Cosmos & Henny Penny: “The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We’re going to tell the king!”Ducky Lucky: “How do you know?”Cosmos: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head.”Ducky Lucky: “Oh dear, oh dear! We’d better run!”Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.Goosey Loosey “Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”Cosmos: “We’re running for our lives!”Henny Penny: “The sky is falling!”Ducky Lucky: “And we’re running to tell the king!”Goosey Loosey: “How do you know the sky is falling?”Cosmos: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Goosey Loosey: “Goodness! Then I’d better run with you.”Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..Turkey Lurkey: “Hello there, Cosmos, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?”Cosmos: “Help! Help!”Henny Penny: “We’re running for our lives!”Ducky Lucky: “The sky is falling!”Goosey Loosey: “And we’re running to tell the king!”Turkey Lurkey: “How do you know the sky is falling?”Cosmos: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Turkey Lurkey: “Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I’d better run with you.”Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.Foxy Loxy: “Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?”Cosmos, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) “Help! Help!” It’s not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we’re running to tell the king!”Foxy Loxy: “How do you know the sky is falling?”Cosmos: “I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”Foxy Loxy: “I see. Well then, follow me, and I’ll show you the way to the king.”Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Cosmos, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling….
Scroooollloooooverrrrr
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income
_______________________
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away” — you may be interested in the following:————————Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.————————-Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.————————-Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking”deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.————————-Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
This is MY FAVORITE:
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!————————-
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so!!
But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. Forward this to others so that they can be informed of the truth.
“THE ONLY THING NEEDED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING” EDMUND BURKE
He’s here all night folks.
That’s why his wife left him and took his kid.
“Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical…”
Posted by: Scientists reject politics | October 14, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Nooo…. scientists REJECT scientists who do not support their claims by publishing papers through the peer review process.
‘RM (Bob) CarterStudies Rock Layers’http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter
“Carter “not a credible source” on climate change
In response to claims made by Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncovered no evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that “if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.” “
Cosmos
Don’t trade shots with him.
Let him rant….alone.
I’m getting it all in a capture file.
Again, the non-scientist cosmos states scientists are not credible.
cosmos is not even qualified to hold the books of a person like Carter less say he not a credible source.
cosmos is a kook, a political hack and an environmental terrorist.
cosmos is not qualified to say who is or isn’t credible.
cosmos is not a scientist.
Cosmos
Don’t trade shots with him.
Let him rant….alone.
I’m getting it all in a capture file.
Posted by: J R | October 14, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Who would that be J R? It’s an anonymous blog.
Go ahead and turn it in and I’ll turn in all the Capn’s and cosmos post that were posted off topic strictly for the purpose of ad hominem.
You Libs don’t practice what you preach.
Wow, can you say “capture file” boys and girls?
JR’s techy skills are very impressive!
“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.”
Posted by: Science does not align with Gore | October 14, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Why “few listen” to Dr. Ball, except for the very gullible.
The University of Winnipeg did not have a “climatology” department when Ball was there.
He retired 11 years ago, and has not published any climate papers since then.
‘Ball Bails on Johnson Lawsuit’14 Jun 07http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit
“But Calgary Herald satisfied itself as to the accuracy of Dan Johnson’s letter, and rose in defence. In a Statement of Defence filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Herald dismissed Ball’s “credibility and credentials as an expert on the issue of global warming,” saying: “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
In the face of this rebuff, and of the earlier Statement of Defence filed by Dan Johnson, Ball discontinued his lawsuit.”
See also,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
Cosmos,
Save it for tomorrow.
You’ve done nothing when you’ve bested a fool.
More orders from JR.
(He runs the blog)
How’s it feel you Libs to all be under the direction of JR?
Puppets.
J R
One more, just for fun…
Dr. Graeme Pearman,http://www.dar.csiro.au/profile/pearman.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html
“A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. “If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process,” Dr Pearman said. “That is what the rest of us have to do.” He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook. “
Among the bills flagrantly signed into law by the subversive Swarzenegger in Californicatia is SBSB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative sodomy choices.Under this new law, the now obsolete terms “mother” and “father” and “husband” and “wife” will be banned from public schools, unless sodomy is also advocated every time the terms are used, and boys who happen to feel like being a girl on any given day will have free access to girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such pro-sodomy indoctrination through “anti-harassment” training, using taxpayer funded propaganda. A parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of “harassment,” and a student whobelieves people are born either male or female could be reported as a “harasser” by a male teacher who wears women’s clothes. Also signed was AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of sodomite sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches. Exemptions for churches and religious organizations and private day cares and hospitals under these new laws, if any, are obviously going to be quickly nullified by leftist, activist judges. Home schooling might soon be the only decent option left inCalifornicatia, if that, other than moving out of the state.Concerned parents fear a possible horrifying nationwide impact on public schools, a.k.a. sodomy indoctrination centers for kids (SICK), prompting the long-anticipated mass exodus from public school systems by Christians and conservatives, particularly when new textbooks and required reading lists are nextissued.Now’s the time to be demanding those school vouchers, so that parents can choose to direct the tax money allocated for their children’s education into private and religious schools and home schools which are exempt from such immoral mandates as SB777 – at least, outside of Californicatia.Kansas will get the pro-sodomy mandate, too, unless Bilious Sebelius can be ousted from office before the end of this year.
cosmos refuses to discuss the science of Global Warming with me because he is not a scientist. cosmos does not know science. cosmos only knows op ed pieces and hyper links to blogs.
cosmos has yet to put a peer reviewed report on the blog. If cosmos would put a peer reviewed report one would find there are no statements in those reports that says man made warming is an absolutely certainty.
The absolutely certainty statements are made by non-scientist administrators who see that “funneled” research funds get to cooperating scientists. Those who speak out against get discredited. There are several World respected scientists that have left the IPCC panel on Climate change because of this. They refused to mix politics and science.
cosmos is a political hack who is only interested in discrediting scientists who have alternate views.
cosmos is not a scientist. cosmos has no scientific training.
I’m getting it all in a capture file.
Posted by: J R
For a guy who got a hand me down computer, and pretends to spell incorrectly, you sure are sophisticated on capturing files.
How much does the Eagle pay you to work nights? Double time?
You are a communist. The Eagle is the Pravda of the west.
Kansas will get the pro-sodomy mandate, too, unless Bilious Sebelius can be ousted from office before the end of this year.
Posted by: parkay | October 14, 2007 at 10:48 PM
How are you? Let’s stop this.
More orders from JR.
(He runs the blog)
How’s it feel you Libs to all be under the direction of JR?
Puppets.
Posted by: Pat Herron | October 14, 2007 at 10:46 PM
What’s really amazing is the Eagle will remove whatever posts J R feels are not supporting the democrat position.
I don’t know how the people who work for the Eagle can continue to call themselves “reporters” or “editors”.
They really are not working for a free and open press. Only those views which SUPPORT global warming being the result of man are allowed.
Nothing else may be posted which is CONTRA to the WEBLOG (cosmos) view.
Animal Rights Groups to Offer Legal Aid to Owners of Pets Thrown Off Bridge
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301699,00.html
Terrible story. Reminds me of something similar that happened to me, but I’ll have to tell that another night maybe. Going to be now.
It’s eleven o’clock bloggers and another day closer to victory.
A few messages for our friends.
//2 //2
??9 ??9
Gee Minnie, I would like to hear your story, if you’d like or it would help.
Another time perhaps?
Parkay….are you actually Haggert? I picture Parkay hiding in the closet, praying that the gay thoughts go away.
Victory? JR is so full of crap.
JR couldn’t win a tricycle race.
Say Mike,
3x-0x
That should work.
Never was good at math Pat, you know that!
Pat or Mike which is it?
Nevermind. I know! : )
They’ve been reported to HS.
A-Q linkage.
Shouldn’t take long.
(some reposts)
“I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Do you mean Avery and Singer’s piece??? Then you’re believing scientists on OTHER issues.
Dansgaard-Oeschger events do not = global warming. They were a redistribution of heat.http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
And scientists agree that there WERE correlations between solar activity and Earths temperatures in the PAST. That correlation ENDED about 30 years ago, when solar dropped, but temperatures rose sharply.
See graph, and links to 11 scientific studies athttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
Another graph here,’Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?’http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=10
Nathan, instead of attacking me for pointing out the falsehoods in the Avery/Singer piece, try instead to prove that I’m wrong about their falsehoods.
Nathan,
If there WERE any credible peer-reviewed scientists who opposed the human-caused global warming consensus, WHY would Avery use deceptions???
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are not global warming.http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
Past D-O events do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Dr. Hans Oeschger is NOT a GW “skeptic”http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
“The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change to a range with more absorbable negative consequences.”
And past solar and temperature correlations do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Avery takes scientists who studied D-O events, and past solar, and then says:”Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,…”
That is not logical. WHY doesn’t Avery give a number, and list their names?
Because the number is ZERO. If there WERE any credible scientists, Avery would list their names.
Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
Nathan,
INSTEAD of making false personal attacks on me, WHY don’t you prove that people like Avery and Singer are honest, and scientifically accurate???
You cannot, because they are not.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer
Cosmos,
I have not even begun to interject anyones names into this discussion.
Talking with you about Global Warming is pointless.
You will not talk, you will only post links, and you refuse to be reasonable.
Perhaps if you ASKED him to talk Nathan. YOU know, instead of dismissing him out of hand?
I don’t do that to you.
JR,
Forgive me. While you were away from the blog I tried to talk to cosmos.
We are past that stage.
“I have not even begun to interject anyones names into this discussion.”
Posted by: Nathan | October 15, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Nathan, did you make this post? Yes, or no?
“I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:03 PM
If that’s your post, then WHO are the “HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’”???
You seem to have made a claim, and I’m just asking for details.
Well,
I afford you much Nathan.
I cannot see or say and have admitted so on what has gone on while I’ve been away.
I find no fault with cosmos. And I do my research.
Maybe you bring your preconceptions Nathan?
Cosmos,
You are cherry picking a post from a conversation long dead.
I have no desire to discuss this with you anymore.
You have already shown that you will not be reasonable.
There is no point.
I again tried to ask you some very simple questions tonight to test how reasonable you are, you refused to answer.
Do it again for me Nathan.
I mised it.
Surely your words stand the test of time?
Do what for you JR?
Hey, JR.
I did that bone-dig on JM-Kansas I was telling you about.
They are totally the same guy.
He is so busted.
I don’t have time to post it all now, but tomorrow, the web of deceit will be torn asunder, muhahaha.
Hitting the hay . . .
CapnA
I missed your interaction with Cosmos Nathan.
Why not try again?
I’d like to see that.
‘You are cherry picking a post from a conversation long dead.”
Posted by: Nathan | October 15, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Explain how I “cherry picked” YOUR post from a month ago?
“I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Did you make a another post like, “I beleive the THOUSANDS of credible peer reviewed scientists…”
Or maybe “I beleive the ZERO credible peer reviewed scientists…”?
Nathan made his “HUNDREDS” post, but he is too weak, and too chicken to defend it.
Like I didn’t know that Capn.
I’ll get with you. “kansas” has gotta go.
If Kansas has gotta go so does Capnamerica and several other posters too.
Already been in contact with Phillip Brownlee. The Capn is on extremely thing ice. One more foul up and he’s gone.
Me Nathan?
Who else?
I’m gonna afford that Nathan is being trolled.
JR,
Where did I say you?
I only named capnamerica.
Add WS Clark to that list too.
J R,
Nathan doesn’t want “interaction”.
He cannot support his claim, so he attacks me, and runs away. Like he did a month ago.
I’ve stood for you Nathan.
I’ve stood for your dad too.We can disagree. I’ve NEVER been for kicking posters. You know that.
But “kansas” though he nay be with you. He is outta control. He has to go.
JR,
How is he out of control?
He doesn’t do anything any worse than many other posters here.
I don’t agree with some of the things he says or does, but if you are going to call for his removal then you better look at your side of the fence too.
Ok Nathan
Steven is already gone.
“kansas” demanded him, me, and Capn, as sacrifice.
My side of things is so SICK of the crap that they just want it solved anyway anyhow I myself volunteered to go.
Well the disease “kansas: is still here. And if hs stays, I stay.
Prove your dedication to an open forum Nathan. Ask Steven to return. Deonounce “kansas”.
JR,
The forum is already open. Steven can return anytime he wants.
All you have to do is post J R. All Capn has to do is post. All cosmos is has to do is post.
But when you start messing with me, I will fight back.
You will never win and Capn has no power on the blog. He tried this crap before several times and always failed.
He will fail again.
You Libs are puzzies and cry babies.
Afraid of anonymous poster. I find that laughable what wimps you are.
Little gossip girls is what you are, emailing each other, stroking each others ego – sad.
Just post and you will be left alone and stop attacking me – it’s a simple concept.
As much as I might hope he does?
Why would he?
It is not a force from the left that causes the problems here. It is a troll of the right.
Many have tried to help that diseased sick person.
Given this forum, all we can do is ask you to police your own, just as we do ours.
You and Steven have sparred since I do not remember when Nathan.
Ask Steven to come back.
He only left because his own were sick of the fighting that YOUR own made.
I’m only sick to J R, because you can’t get me – although all of you have tried.
You call me sick, deranged, etc. That right there is enough to get you banned. You do it daily and several times a day.
You’re the one that should be banned J R . The moment you came back you caused trouble.
Brownlee would love to see you stay gone.
I’m very sure XXX is regretting he gave you that computer. He probably wants it back. Be a man and give the computer back to XXX.
Sponging off the good will of others to cause misery to others is taking advantage of XXX’s good name.
You screwed XXX over J R with your conduct. You should do the right thing and leave.
No dice asshole.
My friend told me to ignore you and so I will.
And you might think on that things ate not always what they seem: )
Rant all night. I’ve made others do it before.: )
Why would I ask Steven to come back?
He has said more vulgar things to me than I have ever seen Kansas say to anyone else.
Keep pretending like the left is all perfect here…
Would you children quit fighting? You all take yourselves WAY too seriously….none of you are the center of the world and no one really gives a poop what you think anyway.
Mary,
JR seems to think that once again he is the self appointed blog king.
I am merely pointing out the absurdity of it.
hello every one I am new n got a tiny quest. about your software.
where could I add a skype chat username to a profile?
thank you ahead of time