.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: TIN
    New Today: 0
    New Yesterday: 0
    Overall: 695

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - More evidence that north pole melting is not GW

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 2:04 am Reply with quote



    A not so funny video attacking Al Gore's "propheteering" ... yes, a pun the accurately describes his dishonest and false prophet imagery meant to earn him over 100 million dollars already in his human global warming campaign.

    --
    Be careful, Bueschu, because you are not correct.

    It is overwhelmingly biased toward socialist ideology. If you think academia worldwide -- and by far, the most active/prolific scientific programs in the world are in the West, considering the vast money head and shoulders over Asian, African, and other nations -- is not biased, then you are exceptionally naive to academia in the West.

    Another example is the deeply entrenched socialist ideals on BOTH sides of the European political spectrum. It's only recently that the neoconservative movement imported the socialism to the Republican party in a political coup favored through connections with the allies of the Bush family rising to power for 3 terms, and a further 2 terms in influence as Bush Sr. in vice presidency, when the neoconservatives rose to prominence deeply against the views of Ronald Reagan.

    An example:

    Universities' Growing Liberal Bias Is Documented
    By ANNIE KARNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun | November 14, 2007

    Conservative professors must publish more than their liberal peers to be competitive for the same university jobs and promotions, according to new reports. At a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute today in Washington, D.C., researchers from across the country will present 18 papers that they say document the growing liberal bias in academia.

    "Universities are tilting to the left, and it starts at the student level and goes all the way through to the hiring level and even to the promotion level," the vice president and director of the National Research Initiative at AEI, Henry Olsen, said. "This is a real problem, not anecdote masquerading as fact."

    In departments such as sociology and anthropology, "progressive" and "liberal" professors outnumber "conservative" and "libertarian" faculty members by a margin of at least 20 to 1, according to a new study by a husband and wife research team from George Mason University and the Swedish Institute for Social Research. The findings are based on dozens of national surveys about faculty voter behavior, policy views, and voter registration.

    Some professors said a liberal bias is damaging the intellectual vitality of campus life, and they discourage conservative students from pursuing doctorate degrees in the humanities.

    "If my students show conservative bias, I steer them away from the academy," a professor of English at the University of Virginia, Paul Cantor, said. "They have no future — they will not get jobs. If they want to teach traditional works in a traditional matter, they have no future in an English department today."

    Mr. Cantor, who is spending a semester at Harvard University teaching a course on Shakespeare and politics, said English departments were more intellectually diverse 50 years ago than they are today. Professors today may have broadened their syllabi, but most of them interpret those texts through the uniform lenses of race, class, and gender, he said.

    "English departments have been homogenized in the name of diversity," Mr. Cantor said. "Precisely for the reason that liberals feel underrepresented and marginalized in the country, they relish the position in the academy where they're in the overwhelming majority."

    Using national surveys that measured political party registration and ideological self-designation of faculty at 183 randomly selected four-year colleges and universities, researchers concluded that ideology had about a third as much impact as merit in determining the career success of socially conservative university professors.

    The trend is worrisome to many conservative scholars. "It hurts academia," a professor of Political Science at Villanova University, Robert Maranto, said. "It limits the questions we academics ask and the phenomenon we study, limiting the ideas which undergraduates are exposed to during their college education."

    Some critics of the studies said it was misleading to assume that a professor's political ideology would translate into bias in the classroom or the departmental meeting, where tenure decisions are made.

    A professor of economics at George Mason University, Daniel Klein, said majority politics ultimately affects hiring decisions by the department.

    "It has become commonplace for boards and presidents to exercise little or no oversight of academic hiring," the president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Anne Neal, said. "If we are to reform the politically correct university, alumni and trustees must take notice and take action."

    The reports will be published next year by AEI in a book titled "Reforming the Politically Correct University."

    Here is an example of liberal media bias in America. Now keep in mind that over 95% of USA printed and broadcast media are owned by some 5 conglomerates dominated by liberals:



    Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
    By
    Meg Sullivan
    | 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM

    While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

    These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

    "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

    "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

    The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

    Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

    Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

    Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

    "A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

    Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

    Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

    The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

    "Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

    The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

    "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

    Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

    An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

    Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

    Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

    Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

    "One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

    Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

    "By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.Cool."

    The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

    "No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

    The results break new ground.

    "Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

    -UCLA-
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:27 pm Reply with quote

    Graviton wrote:

    Be careful, Bueschu, because you are not correct.

    It is overwhelmingly biased toward socialist ideology. If you think academia worldwide -- and by far, the most active/prolific scientific programs in the world are in the West, considering the vast money head and shoulders over Asian, African, and other nations -- is not biased, then you are exceptionally naive to academia in the West.

    Another example is the deeply entrenched socialist ideals on BOTH sides of the European political spectrum. It's only recently that the neoconservative movement imported the socialism to the Republican party in a political coup favored through connections with the allies of the Bush family rising to power for 3 terms, and a further 2 terms in influence as Bush Sr. in vice presidency, when the neoconservatives rose to prominence deeply against the views of Ronald Reagan.


    Ok, I begin to see your problem. You think that anything that is not 100% reaganist is automatically "socialist". It's a matter of definition in this case. I for example, find the Bush admin extremly conservative - also in terms of economy, because of its tax-gifts to the wealthy.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:48 pm Reply with quote

    This debate clearly indicates fairly radical differences in the understanding of the political concepts of left and right, liberal and conservative as viewed from European vs US perspectives.

    The concept of Bush somehow being a "socialist" is laughable from a European perspective. Massive tax cuts for the rich, an increase in repressive legislation, the initiation of foreign wars of occupation for colonial national gain, refusal to provide universal healthcare free at the point of use and so on are not indicative of "socialism" from a European political perspective. Unless one goes back to the 1930's that is. I can see how Bush could be perceived as a National Socialist (ie a Nazi) in terms of the policies spelled out above. Initially Hitler cozied up to the German aristocracy and corporate establishments because they were more scared of the Bolsheviks than him. Marx wrote "Das Capital" with Germany in mind, assuming a transition from a capitalist democracy to a socialist/communist one party state. Germany could have gone either way, communist or fascist (National Socialist).

    Bush is therefore certainly not a "socialist" from a modern European perspective in that he is not an Inter-National Socialist, which is the current accepted definition this side of the pond. Bush is fiercely Nationalist and opposed to any concept of Internationalism and is therefore not a European Socialist.

    However the NeoCons exhibit much of the "dark" aspects of totalitarian socialism as practised by the USSR eg see

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neo-con-explained.html


    "Now, it would be wrong to say that the neoconservatives had not undergone any kind of intellectual change. They became less enamored of formal socialism and more at home with mixed-economy capitalism. They grew to hate much of the egalitarian-left cultural agenda of Democratic Party special-interest groups. Many of them wrote treatises decrying the excesses of their ex-brethren.

    But the transformation was never complete, and the core of their ideology never changed: these people had then and have now a remarkable faith in the uses of state power, at home and abroad. Their intellectual formation in Straussianism convinced them of the centrality of the elite management of society by philosophers, and their background in Trotskyite organizing kept a ruthless political strategy as the operating mode.

    As David Gordon sums up Rothbard's early analysis: "As Strauss sees matters, classical and Christian natural law did not impose strict and absolute limits on state power; instead, all is left to the prudential judgment of the wise statesman." The younger generation absorbed this tendency as much as the old.

    Thus with neoconservatism, we have the statist aspects of the old conservatism minus the libertarian aspects that led the old conservatives to favor decentralist political institutions and free enterprise. Add to that the natural tendency of anyone in power to use the tools they have at their disposal. What we end up with is a danger to liberty as fierce as any ever posed by the left.

    But by the standard of loving Leviathan, today's neo-conservatism is worse than every brand of conservatism that preceded it. It is worse than Reaganism, which included some libertarian impulses, and worse than National-Review-style conservatism from the 1960s and 1950s. One expects pro-state affections from socialists, but the puzzle of neo-conservatism is how it could exist within a group of self-professed non-socialists who even claim to despise what the collectivist left has done to the world.

    Thus the great fallacy of neo-conservatism is the one that afflicts all non-libertarian ideologies: they believe that society can be managed by the state in both its political and economic life. They believe this to a lesser extent than some left socialists, but to a far greater extent than most thinkers on the right. "


    So we have to be clear about which sort of "socialism" we are taking about here, when we use the word....


    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:51 pm Reply with quote

    A misunderstanding here among others is in defining GW Bush, who is being exploited by hardline neoconservative socialists pretending to be Reaganites, who are really nothing of the same as Ronald Reagan in thinking.

    GW Bush his self is not anywhere near the socialist that neocons driving the Republican party, yet neocons are very much international socialists willing to cut taxes in a political move to save far more political aims directed at extending Israeli foreign policy as their first priority. Bush is the very naive pawn of more calculating forces pushing socialism into US conservatism thinking, started by his father's connections under Reagan.

    Notice that GW Bush's father, GHW Bush, was careful not to call his views socialist, so as not to offend US thinking at that time. He used the euphemism of calling it "compassionate conservativism," the all-caretaker (therefore socialist) system of big government overmanaging US society.

    More American socialism is rising in many ways according to international understandings. An example is in the facts that these neocons believe in enormously big government with vast economic and political control. Neocons also support human global warming policies to use its theatrics as a political dodge for more economic control in government.

    Also be aware that neoconservativism has its roots in Trostkyist international socialism. Also, German Nazi and personal lawyer for Hitler, Carl Schmitt, architect of Hitler establishing the legal basis under which the Third Reich tried to justify slave labor, was Leo Strauss' most important influence before Strauss moved to USA to import this idea into his graduate students who became the foundation for the rise of neoconservativism in the Reagan's counter-Soviet success years of the late 1980s and early '90s.

    The basic point is that national and international socialism are really no different in basic ideas other than national socialism assumes a self-superior, ultranationalistic angle to socialism, rather than a worldwide mission of lower classes taking control. Both are ardent believers in social Darwinism, yet with different approaches.

    Another issue is that conservativism in Europe is certainly socialist, hugely unlike traditional, classic/"paleo" American conservatives, which are now struggling to bring back traditional principles to conservative politics: lack of interventionism worldwide, bringing back minimal yet effective, unbloated national government, greatly slashing national spending, lack of militarism and related preemptive strike policies hallmark to Israeli policies, and much more.

    Keep in mind that the greatest penetration of socialism into European population was Otto von Bismarck in the 1850s Germany, years during Germany's first unification, deeply hated by Bismarck in bringing down deeply aristocratic Prussia's Junker (pronounced as YOON'-kehr) controlled state to equal level of government with commoners, where taking off jackets and smoking in front of aristocrats were seen as highly offensive acts. Notice the tide of Bismarck being forced to embrace and establish socialism ahead of appointing a liberal Minister-President under his role as Chancellor, to grab political credit away from the liberals of his time.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:58 am Reply with quote

    I agree with ff. Bushs tax-policy and cuts in health care are clearly anti-socialist. An overblown military budget (and subsequent militarism) alone aren't socialist per se either. Even "super-conservative" Reagan relied heavily on the use of military force.

    Quote:
    Both are ardent believers in social Darwinism, yet with different approaches.


    And radical Reaganists aren't? They promote total egoism: Think about yourself; forget the rest. If the others can't prevail in an ultra-capitalist society, simply let them perish, because that's part of "natural" selection - social darwinism at its best in my opinion.
    Ultimately, every ideology can be redicalized to the point of social darwinism: If you're not part of the right class (socialism à la USSR), the right race (ultra-nationalism) or the haves (Reaganist capitalism), you are being excluded from society. And don't get me started about being part of the right religion...
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:05 pm Reply with quote

    bueschu wrote:
    I agree with ff. Bushs tax-policy and cuts in health care are clearly anti-socialist. An overblown military budget (and subsequent militarism) alone aren't socialist per se either. Even "super-conservative" Reagan relied heavily on the use of military force.

    Quote:
    Both are ardent believers in social Darwinism, yet with different approaches.


    And radical Reaganists aren't? They promote total egoism: Think about yourself; forget the rest. If the others can't prevail in an ultra-capitalist society, simply let them perish, because that's part of "natural" selection - social darwinism at its best in my opinion.
    Ultimately, every ideology can be redicalized to the point of social darwinism: If you're not part of the right class (socialism à la USSR), the right race (ultra-nationalism) or the haves (Reaganist capitalism), you are being excluded from society. And don't get me started about being part of the right religion...


    Reagan was FAR from ultraconservative, but it's very easy for out of touch Europeans to exaggerate this point, especially younger ones who don't remember or are now ideologs of the revision of history. Bueschu, you ignore the large popularity Reagan had among BOTH liberals and conservatives, but there are always a few sources that contradict others on which others rely to try to demonize Reagan with the current revisionism also taken by the first wave invasion of neocons during the GHW Bush administration, then completed under his son's administration, from 2000 until the falling of graces with the Iraq War.

    It's a huge mistake to not separate neonconservatives from Reaganite, classic conservatives. There is enormous proof of this struggle of classic conservatives to try to retake Republican party back into control, away from the socialist neoconservatives.

    By the way, a strong military is not anti-socialist! FDR, who started massive socialist policies in the 1930s New Deal to fight the Depression, also believed in a strong military. JF Kennedy also was an ardent supporter of a strong military, yet he was known for being among USA's most liberal presidents.

    Also, Bush is strong on healthcare, but not necessarily free for all care (which free for all defies reality). He instituted the drug benefit program that is ruining USA's finances because drug benefits to all retirees cannot be afforded in USA, and it must go. Yet Bush has the high priority of his obsessions on the Iraq War and War on Terror, and he supports these to buy loyalty from aging Americans.

    I am simply amazed how many in this world are not aware of what is going on in USA, yet have such strong opinions that just aren't accurate, informed, or seem otherwise clouded by ideology by the new phenomenon of tuning your news to far-flung snippet news that ignores far too many balancing facts.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:10 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Reagan was FAR from ultraconservative, but it's very easy for out of touch Europeans to exaggerate this point, especially younger ones who don't remember or are now ideologs of the revision of history. Bueschu, you ignore the large popularity Reagan had among BOTH liberals and conservatives, but there are always a few sources that contradict others on which others rely to try to demonize Reagan with the current revisionism also taken by the first wave invasion of neocons during the GHW Bush administration, then completed under his son's administration, from 2000 until the falling of graces with the Iraq War.
    By the way, a strong military is not anti-socialist! FDR, who started massive socialist policies in the 1930s New Deal to fight the Depression, also believed in a strong military. JF Kennedy also was an ardent supporter of a strong military, yet he was known for being among USA's most liberal presidents.


    Are you even reading my posts? Did I ever say that Reagan was unpopular in the US? Or that a strong military is automatically anti-socialist? And if Reagan isn't ultraconservative, then who is? If you're so in touch, you might want to share your answer with a young revisionist barbarian from "olde" Europe. Confused
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:00 am Reply with quote

    Oct 06, 2008

    New Detailed Analysis of Global Temperature Data Does Not Support Significant Role for CO2

    By Jennifer Marohasy, Politics and Environmental Blog

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, mainly carbon dioxide. This conclusion is based on output from global climate computer models known as General Circulation Models (GCM). David Douglass and John Christy, in a paper recently accepted for publication and already available on the internet, have come to a different conclusion. By considering observed, as opposed to modelled, temperature changes and at different latitude bands they conclude that:

    1. El Nino and La Nina effects in the tropics have a more significant affect on global temperature anomalies than carbon dioxide, in particular it was an El Nino event that drove the 1998 global temperature maximum.

    2. Variations in global temperatures since 1978 have mostly been due to climate effects in the northern hemisphere (northern extratropics) and these effects cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide.

    3. Carbon dioxide has contributed a small amount to an increase in global temperatures but without what is commonly referred to as feed-back.

    David Douglas and John Christy are practicing climate scientists from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, and Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, respectively. Their paper entitled ‘Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth’, was recently accepted for publication in Energy and Environment.

    A regular at this blog, Cohenite, comments on the Douglass-Christy paper in a fairly technical note already posted at the community webpage of this blog, and entitled ‘Temperature Trends and Carbon Dioxide’, suggests that there is no evidence for a contribution from carbon dioxide to global temperatures and that the role of the sun has been underestimated. Read more here.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 4:17 am Reply with quote

    ghost331 wrote:
    When Woods does return

    When Woods does return, his 2010 golfing résumé will include a T-4 at the Masters, a missed cut at the Quail Hollow Championship and a WD at the Players Championship. Knowing what we know now about his injury, the showing golf clubs for sale at Augusta seems even more impressive than at first blush. That wild week in Georgia appears to be more the exception than the rule, though.Ishiner



    Stupid shit. GTFO
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 6:49 am Reply with quote

    This shows nearly the entire political basis of the global climate change scam, in the words of former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan's top advisor (and STILL among the top, most influential advisors in the United Nations):

    "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

    - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
    Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992

    I can find a litany of records on these criminal minds running the UN, pushing for global government.

    Obama is entirely into this same concept, and exactly why budgets explode under those murderous progressives.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:04 pm Reply with quote

    Phew, fortunately, denialists in contrast are all completely normal... NOT! Very Happy

    Self-proclaimed Lord Cristopher Monckton, one of the UKs chief agw-deniers and inventor of the HIV-cure (after he proposed in 1987 to lock up all those infected with the virus) calling his adversaries "hitler youth". Rolling Eyes

    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:19 pm Reply with quote

    This one is a particular delight too: James Delingpole, denialist columnist and blogger (I wonder why they all come from the UK) comparing greens to roaches: Inside the seething green roach pit where they EAT their own.
    In case you want to hear more from this master of subtlety, try the combo "Delingpole" and "Alex Jones" on youtube. Jones is a (in-)famous american conspiracy-crackpot. It's no miracle that Delingpole is feeling quite at home on his show. Delingpoles primary targets are once more people generally concerned with the environment; this time refered to as "virmin" and other nice expressions dervied straight from His Führers language-school. But hey, he's a agw-denier, so I guess it's perfectly fine for him and his lot to use that kind of language...
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 5:47 pm Reply with quote

    bueschu wrote:
    Phew, fortunately, denialists in contrast are all completely normal... NOT! Very Happy

    Self-proclaimed Lord Cristopher Monckton, one of the UKs chief agw-deniers and inventor of the HIV-cure (after he proposed in 1987 to lock up all those infected with the virus) calling his adversaries "hitler youth". Rolling Eyes




    ======

    This is more desperation from you. I suggest you improve your research and attempt to be honest.

    This is totally skewed of Monckton. He was legitimately able to call his self a member of the House of Lords until a 1999 House of Lords Act that changed all that for those living who inherited lordship titles, who were earlier able to sit in the House of Lords.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

    This also has no power whatsoever to counteract the admitted political aims of top members of the human global warming fraud, as stated above:

    Quote:
    This shows nearly the entire political basis of the global climate change scam, in the words of former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan's top advisor (and STILL among the top, most influential advisors in the United Nations):

    "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

    - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
    Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:30 am Reply with quote

    Quote:
    This is more desperation from you. I suggest you improve your research and attempt to be honest.

    This is totally skewed of Monckton. He was legitimately able to call his self a member of the House of Lords until a 1999 House of Lords Act that changed all that for those living who inherited lordship titles, who were earlier able to sit in the House of Lords.


    Err... That means I'm right, right? Or am I misreading your "skewed" somehow?
    It certainly seems that Monckton used the title Lord inappropriately, just as a (slightly altered) version of the british parliaments symbol on his documents. He gave the false impression that he is/was a member of the House of Lords - although he never was one, not even before 1999. So, neither dishonesty, nor desperation from my part, as far as I can see.

    Quote:
    This also has no power whatsoever to counteract the admitted political aims of top members of the human global warming fraud, as stated above:


    Yep, that's true. It doesn't undo your post. I just wanted to remind you that it's far more often the denialists who talk complete rubbish. And I don't even have to rely on single sentences taken out of contex from long forgotten magazine-articles to prove that - or to look back as far as 1992.
    Besides, once more you put the cart before the horse: GW isn't a problem because of Strong, Gore or whatever else politician/campaigner you name. It's a problem because science says so. And it has done so for around fifty years now.

    ----------

    Why the thread-change anyway? Let's continue on the SCAM-thread. We've almost reached 10000 views there. Razz
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.15 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::