Sarah vs Hillary: the Brutal Battle

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:

If I were King of America, I would pull troops out of Afghanistan.

Okay, pull them out, or give them the reserves that they need. But doing what Obama is doing simply puts them in harms way. I think this is a direct reflection of his youth and inexperience, as opposed to his extreme liberalism.

I personally do not think Obama is left; he is way too concerned about being bipartisan to be a left winger.

I’m he has tried (or is trying) to push several wacky left wing ideas into law. By doing this he has not only alienated the republicans in Congress, but also the more conservative “blue dog” democrats. Now, which Obama are you talking about? Is that Harry Obama who lives on Elm Street?

I personally see health care reform as a good thing for all. Right now American companies are paying for health care and trying to compete on a World market where other players Government take care of health care.

I have drank no Kool-Aid, I personally thought you to be above the flat head mentality in these forums.

Yea, that was sort of harsh, sorry about that.

As far as Health Care I have not heard one of the boys club complain about the trillion dollars spent in Iraq. And I would say it is probably more than that. Bush was notorious about not including all aspects of the cost to make the price more palatable

But what does one have to do with the other? I was and am against the war in Iraq. I didn’t like it for many reasons. Now on to health care, how does one turn the economy around by raising taxes in the form of cap and trade and health care on businesses who are able to hire people and lower the unemployment rate thus helping the economy. Please explain.

The thing that Health care and the war in Iraq have in common, for sake of this conversation, is cost. There is no apology needed

As far as cap and trade, there are a lot of scientists that claim that we are causing global warming and if we do not do something we are basically going to hell. I understand that at one time the best minds in the world thought the earth was flat. I know we have a bunch of Republicans that think science is evil. If I were to come down on a side it would be on Science�??�?�¢??s

have not seen a copy of the bill; I doubt that I would read it unless I were paid to do so. (Like being a Congressman). I do hope they get it right.

Get it right like they did the stimulus package that just had to be rushed through? The only way to get it right is to scrap it, it’s a bad idea. In the latest poll 67% of people are happy with their current health insurance. While we both know things could be better what’s the rush on pushing for this thing so hard? Is it good for the nation or simply politics as usual. We know the answer to that one don’t we?

We are back to dealing with forces, that are not easily grasped. Right now one of the stimulus programs giving a tax break to first time home buyers is a very good kick in the pants to the Real Estate market (I believe). I have my doubts about the Auto bail out. But I do see what he tried to accomplish. And I do not think we can call it a failure yet. I think the forces we do not talk much about are that some say this could have rivaled the Great Depression. You are entitled to think what you like, but that could have been averted due to the stimulus

Health Insurance has gone up one hundred and thirty one percent since Nineteen ninety nine. Do you think it is ok for an Ins. Company does quit covering some one that has an illness? Do you think it is ok they refuse to cover some one? I doubt that sixty seven percent of the people have health Insurance right now.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

You still have the Birthers, and the people that think Obama is a Nazi (white supremist) He is a Racist, He is the epitome of evil. How can an objective person give these people any creditability?

And during the Bush administration there were many lefties who thought that Bush was “trading blood for oil” and gaining personal wealth from the Iraq war. the list of conspiracies that Bush was supposed to have been involved in were never ending, all nonsense. I can still remember the many loony posts on this board regarding such things. There will always be a minority on both sides that take things to an extreme. This should not reflect on either party at large.

Bush had critics, but it did not start until Late into Bush�??�?�¢??s second term. I also think a lot of it was justified. I think that most people including most critics of Bush thought Cindy Sheehan was a nut job. The difference with Obama was they never gave him a chance; it was negative right off the bat. They all acting like Cindy Sheehan .I personally think it is a racial issue. I know you will disagree.

Bush and Cheney both , i am sure profited from the Iraq war

I tried to answer line by line . It may not work

Good grief, Pitt. Learn how the [qoute] and [/qoute] thing works for crying out loud. You’ve been here long enough to understand it.

If you could explain it to me I would sincerely appreciate it

Just use [qoute] and [/qoute] but spell it correctly (quote).[/quote]

I will give it a try Thank you

82

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You will have to show me where (A LOT) of Scientist say Global Warming is a crock. I can defiantly show you a lot that say it is real.

That’s because all you do is listen to the mainstream liberal media. I’d say over 31 thousand is ALOT wouldn’t you? Here you go:

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128269.asp

At the end of the article on Global Warming, it wanted me to sign their petition , would that make me thirty one thousand and one scientists to sign their petition

Intellect is worth something and when some one uses it does not necessarily make them politically correct. I personally think that term is hung on any thing that some one can not grasp.

You’re not even close! There’s another phrase for it called “Group Think”. If you stray from what the group wants you to say or think you are an outcast.

All these things you say will happen if Health Care reform passes, where did you get that info? Is that Rush Limbaugh�??�??�?�¢??s speculation? (EYE ROLL :slight_smile:

I thought you were a more serious contender, you’re a very big disappointment. Tell me where does all of this money come from to pay for those who cannot afford health care? Do you think it falls from the sky? When taxes go up on small business, small business stops expanding and hiring and unemployment goes up. For every single thing the government GIVES you it comes from someone else’s pocket. You don’t understand that? No seriously, come on.

I know you are alittle older and probably remember Viet Nam Vets that were jacked around when they tried to get treatment from being sprayed with Agent Orange

That had nothing to do with the healthcare issue as it stands today, sorry.

Another thing Sicko covered was patients that could not pay their bills being dumped on Skid Row because the Hospital figured they would at least get a bed.

I highly recommend seeing the movie. I know he is the left�??�??�?�¢??s Glen Beck.

I don’t watch propaganda sorry. By the way please point out something of substance that Glenn Beck has lied about.

I am sorry discussing Bush and Cheney�??�??�?�¢??s profit from the war makes you ill, it made a lot of people ill.

I will leave to you to show me that Bush and Cheney were not big investors of Halliburton, KBR and Black water, tell me so and I will consider it

I asked you to show me how they profited and you cannot do it. When you run for office your assets are placed in a blind account in other words you have no idea what you own or do not own.

Don’t post back unless you have some solid evidence that Bush and Cheney profited from the war in Iran. I’m tired of the fringe making such an outlandish claim with zero substantiation.

Post back with the proof, otherwise give it a rest.

[/quote]

At the end of the article on Global Warming, it wanted me to sign their petition , would that make me thirty one thousand and one scientists to sign their petition

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I read your article on Global warming, I found it interesting and could not discredit in any way, like I say my mind is not made up on that particular subject.[/quote]

Someone is right and someone is wrong on this (like most other) topic. I submit to you that the global warming farce is brought to you by a bunch of politically correct egg heads for a myriad of reasons. Glad you found the article interesting. There are over 32,000 (and growing) scientists who think that there is no man made global warming, I tend to agree.

[quote]
You term Group think is most evident in these forums , the GROUP is Republican with a strong Libertarian streak, and a couple right wing Wackos, Most of them agree on Abortion, Anti Poor, and that any body that does not see things the way the group dictates is to be ridiculed and deemed not as intelligent as the GROUP. I see it differently, I see the GROUP as being incapable (for the most part) of original thought[/quote]

I was speaking about the politically correct, not this forum. There are credible scientists who have taken a brave stand against the nonsense of global warming. However, there are other topics where those who stand outside the politically correct dare not say a word. You won’t hear about them on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or any of the other mainstream media outlets.

[quote]Oh please, do not be disappointed :slight_smile: Right now we are in a major recession, and there is no way to break even. (Ask Any State).The last two Presidents that balanced the budget did not do so by cutting expenditures. They did it by creating the environment that creates a robust economy.

The only President I ever saw treat the economy any other way than you would run a business was George W Bush , even his Dad knew if you increase spending you have to increase taxes.[/quote]

GH Bush was a domestic policy failure as President. But keep this in mind your hero Obama has raised the national debt more in just 10 months than the previous 5 Presidents {b]COMBINED[/b]. Why oh why does he think it’s a good idea to spend money in this fashion? How much longer can this country spend at these rates before the inevitable happens? On top of all of this he wants to have national health care, cost- 950 BILLION! This is a seriously bad President who lacks not only judgement, but experience and a strong knowledge of history. Have you been watching the value of the dollar tumble? We are in terrible economic shape and all he can do is think of more ways to spend money. It’s mind blowing, it is.

There are many people who think that the health care system needs to be improved, I am one of those people. But, there are very few republicans who actually believe that we should throw out the best health care system in the world for a government run mess. Why not fix what we have? What’s the rush for government control? As I’ve said when the government gives you something the money to do it does not fall from the sky it comes out of hard working Americans pocketbooks. It’s bad for the economy, bad for the democratic party (voters will punish them) and ultimately bad for the very people it’s supposed to help as they will lose rights. National heath care is a tremendously BAD idea and I pray it be defeated in the senate.

Thank God for a free press, you can be an idiot and still be heard. But, you said he was a liar and you have NOT proven that. I do not believe him to be a liar, a showman Yes.

Ten thousand people saying that they spoke to martians does not make it so. You and other left wingers can say what you want, and you do with ZERO proof, or in this case even a scintilla of evidence. This is what venomous creatures like Michael Moore has brought us. A society that deems it alright to destroy a persons reputation with ZERO PROOF, just because you disagree with them on policy matters. They call it the politics of personal destruction, and you are participating in it.

It seems okay in your eyes to pound republicans with every dam lie you can think of, it’s even cool in some circles. The good part is you never ever have to back it up, just say it enough times and it becomes truth at least with fringe types and some young people who don’t know any better . It is ignorant to think that Cheney or Bush prospered because of Iraq, and it’s also cruel to continue to beat a drum that does not now and never did have any merit. This is shameful on your part and no doubt one reason why more good Americans do not get involved in politics, people like you casting ridiculous unfounded assertions. Things that you just know must be true because you’ve heard it from scum like Michael Moore or moveon.org, and why not you disagree with their policy anyway they must be evil, since you and yours are so very virtuous. This more than any other part of current American politics makes me sick.

84

Somehow I have a hard time believing there are even more than 32,000 people in the US holding PhD’s in climatology. I’ll believe that number when I see more details. If that number though includes anyone who holds a PhD in some science, or a PhD in anything, or maybe just an MS or MA, or heck, anyone who will sign the damn petition, it’s meaningless.

85

By quickly scanning these pdf’s it doesn’t even look like there are 32,000 Phd’s in physics or geosciences that have graduated in the last 30 years. I have a hard time thinking climatology has graduated more PhD’s than these, and that’s just people who have graduated with a PhD, not working scientists.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/awf06/awf06.pdf

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/agu.pdf

I found these here: http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/emptrends.html

87

I merely assumed the stat in question was with regard to American scientists. As it turns out, I was right. See for yourself:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

The website claims:

31,478 “American Scientists” has signed the petition, including 9,029 “with PhDs”.

Unfortunately, not only does having a BS in ANY field of science officially qualify you as a “scientist” for this petition, but some of the signers supposedly have degrees far removed from anything related to global warming, like MD’s!

The website says so itself:

[quote]
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.[/quote]

Even by the websites own admission, only about 4,000 of these people even have a degree in an area remotely related to climatology, and not even all of these have PhD’s!

[quote]
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.[/quote]

The website makes some truly astonishing attempts to justify why, say, someone with a BS in mathematics is, in its own words, [quote]qualif[ied] to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement.[/quote], see for yourself:

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Finally, if all of this wasn’t bullshit enough, it doesn’t even look like they try to verify the credentials of those who submit signatures. Perhaps there is a part of the website where they discuss how they verify signatures, but I didn’t see it.

To summarize, claiming that “31,000 American scientists signed a petition rejecting man made global warming” is a VERY misleading statement, since (i) the term “American scientist” implies that the signers have relevant backgrounds, when in fact by there own admission only about 4,000 of the people even have ANY formal training in relevant areas (and much fewer probably have PhD’s) and (ii) they don’t even verify the signatures!

So, please, explain to me how this petition is relevant at all, or good for anything other than propaganda?

88

ps, I was myself going to try and verify some of the names on the petition, but on the list of names they don’t give academic affiliations. I would be interested though if someone with a background in climatology would sift through the list for any real names.

In other words, the list just lost more credibility if it won’t at least give academic affiliations.

What would be interesting is a list of either faculty or post-doc researchers actively listed at accredited research universities or institutions who would sign such a petition. A petition with unverified signatures from people with BS’s in mathematics or biology or MD’s, people who can’t even read the damn professional literature on global warming let alone evaluate it, is a joke.

89

pss,

Regarding all attacks on claims of there being a “consensus” on global warming, this petition if nothing else affirms that. Given the number of working PhD’s in physics and geoscience, I’ve venture as a VERY rough guess that the number of people with PhD’s in an area relevant to global warming is around 10-20k. Given that in this petition there are probably at best a few hundred PhD’s in related areas that have signed it, I’d call that “consensus”. If only 200 out of the 10k+ people with PhD’s related to this area disagree, I’d call that consensus.

Besides, even though these numbers are just rough guesses, they’re guesses about people who hold PhD’s. Just because someone holds a PhD in climatology doesn’t mean they actually follow the debate and the literature. Tons of PhD’s sit on their ass and just teach classes without seriously following the literature. So as I said, the real interesting numbers would be a list of active researchers, faculty or post-docs at research universities or other research institutions.

Somehow I have a feeling no anti-global warming follower will carry out that survey. They’d prefer to set up informal polls online and ask any idiot whose stepped into a university what they think.

90

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
$83 trillion in debt will make all this moot, though. The interest on the debt is approaching the total income tax receipts.

We either pay this with paper napkin money, or declare bankruptcy. Either one will cause a depression unlike anything we’ve seen before.

Luckily, unlike 1929, we have a huge military. This military will simply take over and establish a military state.

Capitalism was destroyed by giving the vote to everyone. Only property owners should be allowed to vote, and giving benefits out of the public treasury should have been banned. Ah well, maybe next time…

I would love to hear what those old guys that fought the first and Second World War would think about the statement that Democracy has ruined Capitalism. Damn that is almost Un-American[/quote]

It is? People will always vote for demagogues who promise them ‘free’ stuff. Where do those scum get the goodies to give away? By draining the capitalists, of course. Obama and company are doing that now. Open your eyes.

91

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

Somehow I have a feeling no anti-global warming follower will carry out that survey. They’d prefer to set up informal polls online and ask any idiot whose stepped into a university what they think. [/quote]

“This just in: In the August 2009 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, MITâ??s Richard Lindzen and Yang-Sang Choi cast doubt on the IPCC climate models by revealing that â??climate sensitivityâ?? to things like CO2 is far lower than previously thought, therefore that carbon dioxide likely has negligible effect on the climate. If true, the entire global warming edifice crumbles.”

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x23532458/The-Right-View-MIT-s-Lindzen-CO2-has-little-effect-on-climate

The whole crock was made up to destroy America. The evil scum couldn’t destroy us with Communism or Fascism, so they infected us with the worship of ‘need’ (Socialism) to bankrupt us, and then this pseudo-science, to destroy our industries.

Devils…all devils…

92

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

Somehow I have a feeling no anti-global warming follower will carry out that survey. They’d prefer to set up informal polls online and ask any idiot whose stepped into a university what they think.

“This just in: In the August 2009 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, MITâ??s Richard Lindzen and Yang-Sang Choi cast doubt on the IPCC climate models by revealing that â??climate sensitivityâ?? to things like CO2 is far lower than previously thought, therefore that carbon dioxide likely has negligible effect on the climate. If true, the entire global warming edifice crumbles.”

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x23532458/The-Right-View-MIT-s-Lindzen-CO2-has-little-effect-on-climate

The whole crock was made up to destroy America. The evil scum couldn’t destroy us with Communism or Fascism, so they infected us with the worship of ‘need’ (Socialism) to bankrupt us, and then this pseudo-science, to destroy our industries.

Devils…all devils…

[/quote]

First, I have no idea what an article has to do with my point–that this petition fact people keep throwing around is BS, or what it has to do with actually conducting a REAL survey of researchers.

Second, I assume you are posting this as “proof” that real researchers–hey, the guy’s from MIT–don’t agree with man-made global warming. Well, no one ever denied that there is controversy among climatologists over the details of global warming. Of course there is. The question is just in what way the published article you are referring to fits into this controversy. Just become some popular news article–which seems very biased–claims that this published article throws all of global warming into doubt doesn’t mean it does or mean that’s how the authors intended their own piece to be taken. Even if it did, one would need the whole context and have knowledge of the debate itself in order to judge what impact the article should have (Just become someone says something doesn’t mean they’re right). The point is that this sort of desperate, “ah ha! I’ve found an article that sounds critical of global warming” bullshit is silly. It’s just as silly as letting people with MD’s and BS’s in math vote on whether they think global warming is a myth.

When will people just admit they have no clue what they’re talking about?

ps, don’t you have a BS in math HH, or just a BA in eduction? Maybe you can sign the anti-global warming petition too. I don’t have a BS in math, but I had minors in math and physics, maybe that’s enough formal training in climatology for me to sign the petition too.

93

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
ps, don’t you have a BS in math HH, or just a BA in eduction? Maybe you can sign the anti-global warming petition too. I don’t have a BS in math, but I had minors in math and physics, maybe that’s enough formal training in climatology for me to sign the petition too. [/quote]

I know an anti-industrial revolution when I see it.

94

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[/quote]

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Global Warming - Climate Change - Forecasting - The New York Times… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

95

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Somehow I have a hard time believing there are even more than 32,000 people in the US holding PhD’s in climatology. I’ll believe that number when I see more details. If that number though includes anyone who holds a PhD in some science, or a PhD in anything, or maybe just an MS or MA, or heck, anyone who will sign the damn petition, it’s meaningless. [/quote]

Yes, it must be meaningless, it doesn’t beat the constant dogmatic drum of the politically correct and besides Al Gore said so.

Thanks for the laugh.

96

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Global Warming - Climate Change - Forecasting - The New York Times… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131[/quote]

A cursory browsing of some of those links makes me think they would be just as easy to take apart as the “31,000 scientist fact” I just took apart (But hey, 31,000 vs 200, what’s the difference?). For example, a quick google search of some of the “PhD’s” on the program given in that first link brings up that they don’t actually hold positions as faculty or researchers anywhere (Yes yes, I saw the guy from MIT). And despite what you or petition people may think, I don’t think that anyone with a degree has an informed opinion about global warming.

The real point is a bunch of popular articles quoting other would-be anti-global warming reports are just as irrelevant as Al Gore’s stupid books. Besides, I never even gave an argument for global warming above. I’m not qualified to do that, and I know it. What I did was question some of the bullshit stats being thrown around here. Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side.

97

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Global Warming - Climate Change - Forecasting - The New York Times… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131[/quote]

Everyone please ignore the above it’s meaningless since it hasn’t been on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or any of the other liberal media.

98

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side. [/quote]

Really now, how closely have you looked at Al Gores nonsense? Have you looked at your side with as critical an eye, or did you just tip your head back and swallow?

“A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth”

Lenin

99

[quote]ZEB wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Somehow I have a hard time believing there are even more than 32,000 people in the US holding PhD’s in climatology. I’ll believe that number when I see more details. If that number though includes anyone who holds a PhD in some science, or a PhD in anything, or maybe just an MS or MA, or heck, anyone who will sign the damn petition, it’s meaningless.

Yes, it must be meaningless, it doesn’t beat the constant dogmatic drum of the politically correct and besides Al Gore said so.

Thanks for the laugh. [/quote]

Um, did you read the rest of the stuff I posted about this petition? No, it isn’t meaningless because it doesn’t beat the constant dogmatic drum of the politically correct, it’s meaningless because by the petition’s organizers own admission anyone with a degree, whether it’s a degree in mathematics or whatever, can sign the petition, and then they don’t even verify the signatures! Even by the organizers own admission, there are perhaps 2-300 people who signed the petition with a PhD in an area closely related in climatology. But even that number, if true, is too, for many of those people won’t actually be researchers or people who actually are qualified to evaluate or even know the research.

So, really, would you like to actually just admit this “31,000” thing is complete bullshit and that you got excited because you saw a stat you liked, or are you going to keep ignoring substantive things I’ve said?

100

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Global Warming - Climate Change - Forecasting - The New York Times… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

A cursory browsing of some of those links makes me think they would be just as easy to take apart as the “31,000 scientist fact” I just took apart (But hey, 31,000 vs 200, what’s the difference?). For example, a quick google search of some of the “PhD’s” on the program given in that first link brings up that they don’t actually hold positions as faculty or researchers anywhere (Yes yes, I saw the guy from MIT). And despite what you or petition people may think, I don’t think that anyone with a degree has an informed opinion about global warming.

The real point is a bunch of popular articles quoting other would-be anti-global warming reports are just as irrelevant as Al Gore’s stupid books. Besides, I never even gave an argument for global warming above. I’m not qualified to do that, and I know it. What I did was question some of the bullshit stats being thrown around here. Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side. [/quote]

You mean other than the fact that first link, pages 7-28 are lists of the scientists, professors, researchers, faculty, est. est. est. The freaking book is basically a list of scientists with credentials. You obviously never even looked at it and made up what you wanted to believe about it.