Global Warming now officially bullshit
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
Popeye is a liberal fag who reads huffingpost, listens to NPR(for teh ghey buttsecks programming) and thinks we should eventually do something to protect the environment.
Can you list examples of when the Democrats actually crusaded for the little guy?
Please don't list any examples where it was used as a front to push yet another agenda serving big business.
The reality of it is no party can gain power by serving the weak.
Their transition from barbarians to civilized people was facilitated by central government.
Finally a coherent response.
To the OP for future political posts don't cite politicized presenters. Find the source of the data and go from there. Quoting glenn beck or anything fox news will get you nothing but naysayers from the left and circle jerkers from the right.
so people really sit down on their couches and tune in to watch this A-hole? That is something I just can't seem to get my head around and that raises a big Y on my chalk board..
I definitely think Fox is biased but I think the other networks are biased as well leaning towards the left.
I think Glenn Beck is nuts but I find him very entertaining.
I like him because he's probably the only guy that speaks out against Obama's radical associations.
Anita Dunn the white house communications director says she turns to Mao Zedong for inspiration. I think that's news worthy while CNN and the liberal media does not.
Stories like Van Jones, CNN and MSNBC chose to sweep under the rug. Fox reports these stories
I don't want my tax dollars going to organizations like Acorn, who participate in massive voter fraud. I'm glad that fox reported on the organization and stopped federal funding.
Glenn Beck is probably the only one speaking about net neutrality a concerted effort to get the government to control the internet.
If Glenn Beck didn't sensationalize and spin shit, he'd be out of a job.
The guy is definitely not an idiot. A lot of people forget he's a commentator sharing his opinion and not a reporter.
I think Glenn Beck is nuts but I find him very entertaining.
I like him because he's probably the only guy that speaks out against Obama's radical associations.
Anita Dunn the white house communications director says she turns to Mao Zedong for inspiration. I think that's news worthy while CNN and the liberal media does not.
Stories like Van Jones, CNN and MSNBC chose to sweep under the rug. Fox reports these stories
I don't want my tax dollars going to organizations like Acorn, who participate in massive voter fraud. I'm glad that fox reported on the organization and stopped federal funding.
Glenn Beck is probably the only one speaking about net neutrality a concerted effort to get the government to control the internet.
If Glenn Beck didn't sensationalize and spin shit, he'd be out of a job.
The guy is definitely not an idiot. A lot of people forget he's a commentator sharing his opinion and not a reporter.
Here are some "little guy" issues... you big guy.
More rights in areas like abortion, capital punishment, drugs, homosexuality, censorship and euthanasia.
Universal health care, that's definitely not a big business favorite.
The civil rights movement in general (business could care less) in the 60s with Kennedy and Johnson. Which explains the strong African American vote.
Democrats favor a higher minimum wage (big business really loves that one).
Democrats oppose tax cuts and incentives to oil companies instead favoring domestic renewable energy development. (Big business, no like)
They oppose any cutting of social services (now thats how they get power by serving the weak) ie: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare/entitlement programs.
Unrelated to the little guy or big business interests is the War in Afghanistan. (We actually care about going after the bad guys that caused us harm) You can say Obama is "dithering" around in Afghanistan, but the truth is he is doing a helluva lot more over there than Bush did. (at least in terms of number of troops)
We favor free-trade agreements (which allies itself with big business) although I bet a lot of Fox viewers are scared of Nafta like it's Nambla.
Pretty much since the inception of the Democratic party, the party has favored laborers, labor unions, farmers, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. The party of the people (little guy) .... duh.
I'm sure you think the whole government is just one big facade and everyone is working for the same powerful interests. I'm sure that's true to an extent, but in reality it's just not true overall. Give our founding fathers some credit unless you think they failed and it is one big facade.
Most of these things are definitely little guy issues that the Democratic party gives voice to. Anyway, there's your (I'm sure incomplete) list.
You clearly didn't watch the video or discover who Richard Lindzen is and the data he produced. Glenn Beck has virtually nothing to do with this topic aside from the fact that his guest was presenting Lindzen's research. You might want to actually know what you're talking about before sharing your opinion next time.
Another dozen replies to this thread, some rambling, some ranting about cable news - none actually addressing Lindzen's data. But that's not particularly surprising, since his data can't really be disproven.
This is tied to the above post.
Global warming is now officially bullshit, which is why you now see its former supporters rushing to claim there never really was any such thing as global warming - it was always 'climate shift'. That way, when it gets hot, it's 'climate shift', and when it gets cold, its 'climate shift'. Notice HarveyJ's post was full of hot air and righteous indignation and devoid of a single fact.
He made the same mistake the ignorant poster above made, not even watching the data and instead railing mindlessly against 'cable news stations' being used as primary news sources. It's embarrassing sometimes to watch this hollow outrage.
Whether it's global warming or climate shift, the main building block is always the same; notably, that we are harming our planet through the burning of fossil fuels. One of the main fossil fuels demonized by certain parties has been carbon dioxide, and this has been occurring for years - BASED off of data like the UN's fallacious models. And now somebody steps forward to say, I've been collecting ACTUAL data for several decades and they're proving the models wrong, and they don't miss a beat but just attempt to fit this into their paradigm? That speaks to some type of ingrained ideology to me.
'Climate shift' blames carbon dioxide as well, using the same rationality that was disproven by Lindzen. Notice how they are afraid to address this - they just continue supporting their 'climate shift' theory with an almost religious fervor, displaying an embarrassing lack of knowledge of the major underpinnings of their orthodox beliefs.
Bottom line - stay on topic, talk about Lindzen's research or carbon credits or carbon dioxide or something relevant. Cable news or Fox or Beck has absolutely nothing to do with this, and some here just look like programmed people manifesting Pavlovian conditioning in their dazed rush to condemn something that is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
Global warming is now officially bullshit, which is why you now see its former supporters rushing to claim there never really was any such thing as global warming - it was always 'climate shift'. That way, when it gets hot, it's 'climate shift', and when it gets cold, its 'climate shift'. Notice HarveyJ's post was full of hot air and righteous indignation and devoid of a single fact.
He made the same mistake the ignorant poster above made, not even watching the data and instead railing mindlessly against 'cable news stations' being used as primary news sources. It's embarrassing sometimes to watch this hollow outrage.
Whether it's global warming or climate shift, the main building block is always the same; notably, that we are harming our planet through the burning of fossil fuels. One of the main fossil fuels demonized by certain parties has been carbon dioxide, and this has been occurring for years - BASED off of data like the UN's fallacious models. And now somebody steps forward to say, I've been collecting ACTUAL data for several decades and they're proving the models wrong, and they don't miss a beat but just attempt to fit this into their paradigm? That speaks to some type of ingrained ideology to me.
'Climate shift' blames carbon dioxide as well, using the same rationality that was disproven by Lindzen. Notice how they are afraid to address this - they just continue supporting their 'climate shift' theory with an almost religious fervor, displaying an embarrassing lack of knowledge of the major underpinnings of their orthodox beliefs.
Bottom line - stay on topic, talk about Lindzen's research or carbon credits or carbon dioxide or something relevant. Cable news or Fox or Beck has absolutely nothing to do with this, and some here just look like programmed people manifesting Pavlovian conditioning in their dazed rush to condemn something that is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
The transition from barbarians (tribal) was at least due to the creation of the state (government).
Government is good. We need some form of government, only anarchists would disagree. Do we want to go back to tribal?
The problem is when government gets too big. (this implies less is better... but still how small?)
The argument is about how big do we want it?
**stolen** "Due to the factor of human nature, greed, etc. the state is best maintained between states of greater government and less government."
If you'd look at the paper, you would see that it's actually two guys and they are using data from 1984-1999 that came from government agencies. Lindzen and Choi are focusing in on a piece of the puzzle from a certain angle.
Again, the paper in no way claims to have disproven or proven anything. Nobody with a basic understanding of science is going to honestly say that a 14 page paper is providing the definitive answer on a complex topic.
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An argument that makes the whole global warming debate moot. Pretty popular video, 2.5 million views, you may have seen it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ"]The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ"]The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]
Such ignorance. Anarchy does not in any way mean "tribal".
Humans are not greedy by nature. We are naturally inclined to survive and will do what the situation requires us to do. Sometimes that means being greedy, sometimes it means being generous.
I saw a documentary about a rather odd topic in relation to global warming. It's the opposite, and it's called global dimming. It was stated that it was more dangerous than what we think of global warming.