Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You're going to hell, its 6,000 years old if you have any respect for the bible.
I must have missed that part...
You're going to hell, its 6,000 years old if you have any respect for the bible.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry, but it's the oil business lobby that promotes the very viewpoint you have of ANY environmental scientist that dares to point out the flaws of "staying the course" with regards to our energy needs.
Case in point....the oil industry screamed bloody murder for YEARS when they were told to just clean up their acts regarding environmental impact. The Exxon Valdez disaster could have been avoided HAD EXXON MERELY INSTALLED ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT AND/OR PAID LOCAL CITIZENS TO MAN AN OBSERVATION POST IN THE AREA. Corporations went to court saying, "oh yeah, well PROVE that it was emissions from my plant that contributed to killing that lake with acid rain, and THEN I'll apply cleaner emission standards".
Yes, you have had controversy over 1 (ONE) group of scientist and their information (the jury is STILL out on that, despite all the supposition and conjecture and foregone conclusions).
The "drill baby drill" attitude isn't cutting it, because if we as a nation CONTINUE ON THE SAME PATH of energy consumption, even the fabled Anwar drilling would result in less supply than the amount of years, damage to the area and time/money to extract the oil.
There are alternatives...but people are selfish and greedy.
wow... you created a nice little strawman there.... you quite apparently did not read a word I wrote.
Try again.
Then try to answer these...
1) Do we have ANY control over environmental regulations for oil rigs/drills etc... in foreign countries? If so... how does that control compared to the same apparatus HERE in the US (or off our coasts)?
2) IF we were to drill here, does it keep the JOBS here in the US? Does it keep the money HERE in the US?
3) IF we allow the oil companies to drill our own reserves, do we or do we not control the percentage of the sale we receive in tax revenues?
4) WHERE in anything that I have written on the topic did I ever mention 'staying the course'??????
You see, your problem is hacks like you don't actually STOP and THINK about the problems and thus are incapable of coming to logical steps to correct said problems. Instead, you blindly follow a bunch of fear mongering flat earthers because they tell you 'big oil is bad... trust us no matter what shit we try to feed you'
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What you are doing is trying to directly link one particular accusation of fraudulent practice leveled at ONE group as the rule of thumb for ALL the material provided in the link.....and THAT is totally erroneous on your part.
Since (to my knowledge)there has been no RULING that EVERY SCIENTIST and scientific group are guilty of the charge, and that group in question has NOT been found "guilty", your assertion falls flat.
Now, that being said, what is in the material presented in the link can you logically and/or factually prove wrong?
actually, it is not leveled at 'just one group' but several.
Obviously the email scandal points to the collaboration between many different groups to suppress opposing views.
The IPCC has come out twice in the last month to admit their report contained assessments based on bullshit and not on SCIENCE.
Hansen at Goddard also fights every FOIA request he gets.
So pretending it is only 'one' group is absurd.
Even if it were 'just one'... it is ONE of the THREE main sources the fear mongers use to support their flat earth theories.
Yeah,yeah...its ok......I'm starting to realize you're not big on reading comprehension.....
Thought I'd BOLD and UNDERLINE the pertinent part to help you....
Maybe its a little over your head..
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Essentially, you just avoid the FACT that Cypress provided UNDENIABLE PROOF that the source USFreedom uses DOES NOT support his or your assertions.
Once again, the one case you keep referring to has YET to be officially ruled as you say...and it's ONLY ONE GROUP involved in decades of research by scientist all over the world.
1) Nothing I stated had anything to do with USFreedoms source...
2) once again you pretend it is just ONE organization coming under scrutiny. It is NOT just one. You would know this if you actually paid attention to the issue.
Watch it Super.....next TC will declare grass really is green and point out you're a willfully ignorant neocon and you need to read his links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated.....its kinda standard procedure for him/it.
Hey, Dixie, nice new avatar, asshole!!![]()
You forgot the thing about "reviewing the chronology of the posts" ...that's important too!
So many times, I, like others, will naturally read the thread in arbitrarily random order, so I guess I must miss out on TC's brilliance. But he says, reading the thread in 'chronological order' is pertinent to understanding his idiocy. I guess that's why I can't ever make sense out of it?
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because I read ALL the available material, pro and con, and then come to a rational and logical conclusion. Also, I don't use an incorrect prediction that's over 30 years old and has LONG since been proven wrong by the current environmental scientists (as it was disagreed by others 30 years ago) as a final determiner.
And if your conclusion is incorrect, then what??
Huge Climate Story…. Honesty.
Did anyone else just hear the “bump-bump” of the Jones bus running right over the infamous Hockey Stick?
Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the Climategate scandal, has for the first time admitted that the Medieval Warm Period could have been warmer than the present day, flying directly in the face of the stupid Hocleystick Graph that caused so much of the Climate panic in the first place. From the BBC report, titled “Climate data ‘not well organised“:
Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics – a decision he says he regretted.
But Professor Jones said he had not cheated the data, or unfairly influenced the scientific process.
He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
Here is why that is important. If there was a warmer Medieval Warm Period, then the current warming could be more likely due to natural variation, instead of CO2 and man-made. as the models don’t account for this earlier warmer condition. At the very least, the “certainty” and of doom and gloom warming predictions is overstated, as the world may have been warmer and the world didn’t end.
![]()
These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.
Yes, in fact, it does. Thank you Dr. Jones for finally being honest. I sincerely wish it didn’t have to come to this point where your life is in turmoil. Let this be a cautionary tale to others. Just be honest and open, and this kind of thing would be avoided.
...But hard-core warmists, intent on skepticizing the skeptics, invariably ask: “why would the media go along with this poppycock?”
Yes, why are the media so invested in the warming notion, given the countervailing evidence, the fact that the last climate theory (the global cooling scare of the 1970s) was so quickly disproven, and that it is self-evident that CO2, that most persecuted of molecules, is essential for life… for plant life. (When an elephant sighs, a tree smiles.)
Well, the BBC, a prime proponents of warming theory, or AGW, has heavily invested its pension fund in the theory, and thus have had a major non-Scientific reason for their bias. As revealed this weekend in The Express [6]:
The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe.
The IIGCC is an interesting group. As their website explains [7]:
The IIGCC is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4 trillion.
Wait… I hate to be a skeptic, but did they just say… “Four Trillion Euros”?
They did.
The Chairman of IIGCC investment group is Peter Dunscombe, who also happens to be the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.
Cui bono, my friend, cui bono?
1. Why do you think I said you AVOIDED what Cypress pointed out? Essentially, it negates your further assertions on an important point.
2. Once again, you promote the false notion that only 1 or 3 groups are responsible for the ALL the information regarding proof of global warming...an absurd notion given the international scope of the issue and the multitude of scientists envolved. And the ONE group you're so hyped about has NOT gone through any final legal conclusions yet. For you to carry on as if it's a done deal is just incorrect.
Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!
do ya think he finally realizes that the stars and bars kinda highlights his deep seated racism?
1) Again, that article did NOTHING to refute what I had stated
2) The three leading bodies behind global warming research are who? If you think all the scientific bodies 'studying' global warming are ALL compiling the raw data, then I believe you are sorely misinformed. The majority base their 'findings' on the data compiled by Goddard, the NOAA and the CRU. Please feel free and provide me with the other groups you think are compiling the raw data if you think I am wrong.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes, interesting.....now all one has to do is find a medevil period that matches the artificial amounts of CO2 and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere for the last century by industry, and with the range of global deforestation and urbanization of our major land masses, and then you can rest easy that global warming is all a dastardly hoax in order for the socialist communist to rule the world!
Go to site. Read what Jones said.![]()
Is it any wonder that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel privately called liberal activists "f---ing retarded."....Hes right...there is consensus....the debate is over....