Comments for "US satellite data shows global temps are FALLING"
November 26, 2007, 7:16 pmUS satellite data shows global temps are FALLING
Global warming is a crock
This statement is nothing new to me, since I've been saying it for so long. But it's taking the media a long time to realize it. Every time someone new pokes their head up out of the sand and sees the facts, it becomes a little saner world.
Still, it's amazing to me that the dedicated "we are destroying the planet" crowd is sinking deeper into delusionment, rather than becoming more enlightened.
Here's the latest, published in today's Telegraph (UK).
We are set on a course of 'planet saving' madness
By Christopher Booker
The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.
This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.
On the other hand, we had Gordon Brown last week, in his "first major speech on climate change", airily committing his own and future governments to achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - which is rather like prime minister Salisbury at the end of Queen Victoria's reign trying to commit Winston Churchill's government to achieving some wholly impossible goal in the middle of the Second World War.
Mr Brown's only concrete proposal for reaching this absurd target seems to be his plan to ban plastic bags, whatever they have to do with global warming (while his government also plans a near-doubling of flights out of Heathrow).
But of course he is no longer his own master in such fantasy exercises. Few people have yet really taken on board the mind-blowing scale of all the "planet-saving" measures to which we are now committed by the European Union.
By 2020 we will have to generate 20 per cent of our electricity from "renewables". At present the figure is four per cent (most of it generated by hydro-electric schemes and methane gas from landfill).
As Whitehall officials privately briefed ministers in August, there is no way Britain can begin to meet such a fanciful target (even if the Government manages to ram through another 30,000 largely useless wind turbines).
Another EU directive commits us to deriving 10 per cent of our transport fuel from "biofuels" by 2020. This would take up pretty well all the farmland we currently use to grow food (at a time when world grain prices have doubled in six months and we are already face a global food shortage).
Then by 2009, thanks to a mad gesture by Mr Blair and his EU colleagues last March, we also face the prospect of a total ban on incandescent light bulbs.
This compulsory switch to low-energy bulbs, apart from condemning us to live in uglier homes under eye-straining light, is in practice completely out of the question, because, according to our Government's own figures, more than half Britain's domestic light fittings cannot take them.
This year will be remembered for two things.
First, it was the year when the scientific data showed that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare.
Second, it was the year when the hysteria generated by all the bogus science behind this scare finally drove those who rule over us, including Gordon "Plastic Bags" Brown, wholly out of their wits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
Comments
1.
Comment by Tenaj - November 26, 2007, 7:30 pmThen why are the polar bears drowning from ice melting when they can swim for 8 hours and the penguins dying. And ice that once was solid for centuries you can now sail ships on the water - opening up a new passage.
2.
Comment by rcbbuckeye - November 26, 2007, 8:37 pmThe earth's temperature has changed up and down for ages. So now, we have all the "Chicken Littles" screaming the sky is falling, when there is no hard data suggesting it is because of the human race. Frankly, every time I see a picture of ice falling off a glacier somewhere, I wonder, was a photographer just happening by that glacier at the "perfect" time to capture the picture? I think those pictures are made to be more than what they are, to make a political point.
I am not quite ready to give up my car (actually pickup truck) and go back to horse and buggy to go back and forth to work. And I don't think that the world is willing to give up modern conveniences of life when there is nothing solid to prove global worming. Look at how the "Chicken Littles" live. They aren't giving up their mansions and jets.
One note about ethanol. All that scam has done is raise food prices. Oh and gas prices are still rather high, aren't they? That stuff is bad for your car's engine. You do not get better fuel mileage with it. It costs more energy to produce than the energy that it puts out, (how's that for cost efficiency). And yet, they cram it down our throats, because some Chicken Little says we need it. I'm tired of somebody telling me what I have to do, but by the way it will cost more money.
I am not quite ready to give up my car (actually pickup truck) and go back to horse and buggy to go back and forth to work. And I don't think that the world is willing to give up modern conveniences of life when there is nothing solid to prove global worming. Look at how the "Chicken Littles" live. They aren't giving up their mansions and jets.
One note about ethanol. All that scam has done is raise food prices. Oh and gas prices are still rather high, aren't they? That stuff is bad for your car's engine. You do not get better fuel mileage with it. It costs more energy to produce than the energy that it puts out, (how's that for cost efficiency). And yet, they cram it down our throats, because some Chicken Little says we need it. I'm tired of somebody telling me what I have to do, but by the way it will cost more money.
3.
Comment by Todd - November 26, 2007, 9:18 pm@Tenaj: Just like the entirety of global warming, the polar bear nonsense is also a crock. No, the polar bears aren't drowning. The penguins aren't dying off. In fact, if you were told the truth by the media, you would know that the polar bear population has INCREASED in recent years.
The ice that melts does so as a natural occurance. Did you know that as ice melts in one part of the continent, it is GROWING in another? The media (and Al Gore) don't tell you about all the places where the ice is increasing, because that would not be good for their thesis.
Here's another example: for a while, global warming nuts pointed to the loss of the snow on Mount Fuji in Japan as being caused by global warming. The media went around bustling with excitement of their new "evidence" of global warming, and Time, Newsweak (sic!) and the other rags started running stories about the death of our planet. But then the disappointing facts came out: the melting snow was caused by increased volcanic activity, causing the entire peak to warm. Did you hear about THAT? Probably not. Why would they post corrections, when that would destroy evidence of their nutty global warming?
Global warming is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
It is possible that global temperatures have increased, but it is also possible they have decreased. In fact, you can easily use statistics to show both cases. In either case, however, any change that has taken place is not caused by humans, and is not threatening our planet.
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense? As if conservatives want the planet in ruins.
Aren't you aware that if the planet melts down, we'll all die, not just the liberals?
Aren't you aware that liberals own just as much stock in oil companies as conservatives do, including Haliburton stock?
Aren't you aware that just about every scientific claim made in Al Gore's movie has been debunked?
How much evidence do you require about the global warming myth before you start to question it?
The ice that melts does so as a natural occurance. Did you know that as ice melts in one part of the continent, it is GROWING in another? The media (and Al Gore) don't tell you about all the places where the ice is increasing, because that would not be good for their thesis.
Here's another example: for a while, global warming nuts pointed to the loss of the snow on Mount Fuji in Japan as being caused by global warming. The media went around bustling with excitement of their new "evidence" of global warming, and Time, Newsweak (sic!) and the other rags started running stories about the death of our planet. But then the disappointing facts came out: the melting snow was caused by increased volcanic activity, causing the entire peak to warm. Did you hear about THAT? Probably not. Why would they post corrections, when that would destroy evidence of their nutty global warming?
Global warming is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
It is possible that global temperatures have increased, but it is also possible they have decreased. In fact, you can easily use statistics to show both cases. In either case, however, any change that has taken place is not caused by humans, and is not threatening our planet.
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense? As if conservatives want the planet in ruins.
Aren't you aware that if the planet melts down, we'll all die, not just the liberals?
Aren't you aware that liberals own just as much stock in oil companies as conservatives do, including Haliburton stock?
Aren't you aware that just about every scientific claim made in Al Gore's movie has been debunked?
How much evidence do you require about the global warming myth before you start to question it?
4.
Comment by four4me - November 26, 2007, 11:37 pmMany scientist have explained that global warming will eventually cause a deep freeze
5.
Comment by csfb - November 27, 2007, 12:38 amThere was global cooling in my part of the planet - here in sunny southern Califonia. Early this year, real snow blanketed the city, first time in 20 years.
6.
Comment by Todd - November 27, 2007, 12:53 am@csfb: Had that been unusually *warm* weather, it would be blamed on global warming. See the misinformation at work? Why aren't they questioning themselves with the unusual cold?
@four4me: Actually, I think the scientists just say that the Earth is constantly warming and cooling. It has more to do with the fluctuating output of the sun than anything else.
@four4me: Actually, I think the scientists just say that the Earth is constantly warming and cooling. It has more to do with the fluctuating output of the sun than anything else.
7.
Comment by jarasan - November 27, 2007, 7:27 amHow bout the woman who sterilized herself at the age of 27 (wasn't easy, hard to find a doctor to do it!) so she couldn't have children to cause more global warming? She is now 35, her husband gave her a congratulation card when she did it! WOW! What a guy! Bunch of nuts maybe they'll become extinct! I have a name for it "environmentalitis idiosis absurdus syndrome" EIAS.
8.
Comment by Tenaj - November 27, 2007, 9:15 amDENIAL of global warming is just ANOTHER Republican smokescreen to sidestep GREED.
9.
Comment by Todd - November 27, 2007, 10:13 am@Janet: you can keep spewing one-liners, because it makes it much clearer who owns the legitimate arguments and the facts. The fact that you want to lump 50% of the country into a "bad" bucket shows that you have abandoned the debate and shifted to name-calling and mud-slinging. That's what people do when they can't debate on the merits. If you want to talk about the facts I always love a good lively discussion, but if you're just going to call me names I'd prefer you didn't.
10.
Comment by four4me - November 27, 2007, 1:49 pmHere my view on this for many millions of years our planet and mother nature worked together to heat cool the planet. Now since the industrial age we have greatly offset mother natures ability to contend with itself in other words we as people have polluted it, continue to pollute it. We are deforesting many areas vital to mother natures inner workings. We are burning fossil fuels as fast as we can get them out of the ground. These two things alone are contributing greatly to mother natures inability to contend with it (not the natural order or process of what mother nature has done inherently since the beginning of time.) In other words we as people are putting things into the atmosphere that mother nature wouldn't do normally.
You don't have to be a scientist to see these thing at work. We have great city's which we have poured concrete in place of trees and forests. We have automotive products pumping out noxious fumes 24/7 365 days a year and will continue to do so for a long time to come. We have factories emitting noxious gases into the atmosphere 24/7 365 days a year. We have power plants and sub stations using fossil fuel to generate electricity. None of this was around 100 years ago billions of people weren't polluting the planet to the degree we are now. We are raping the planet of every usable resource. At some point people have to say isn't this affecting mother nature. Just because you cant or won't accept it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
You don't have to be a scientist to see these thing at work. We have great city's which we have poured concrete in place of trees and forests. We have automotive products pumping out noxious fumes 24/7 365 days a year and will continue to do so for a long time to come. We have factories emitting noxious gases into the atmosphere 24/7 365 days a year. We have power plants and sub stations using fossil fuel to generate electricity. None of this was around 100 years ago billions of people weren't polluting the planet to the degree we are now. We are raping the planet of every usable resource. At some point people have to say isn't this affecting mother nature. Just because you cant or won't accept it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
11.
Comment by jim695 - November 27, 2007, 2:48 pm
Global warming is the biggest non-event since Y2K.
Jim
Jim
12.
Comment by jarasan - November 27, 2007, 2:59 pmLets hope mother nature doesn't call in a couple of ringers to take care of the scourge of humanity, let me give you a couple of names, Krakatoa, Minatuba, Yellowstone, the Sun, an asteroid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
If it blows as it has regularly since before the dawn of the scrouge, we can expect a cooler climate for a couple of decades. Or, if Yellowstone:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Yellowstone/description_yellowstone.html
Now for you lottery players who believe that what has happened before will happen again, if Yellowstone blows we are done. And guess what? We are due.
Mother Nature does have a way of keeping things in check, problem is we don't stand a chance, it is not a fair fight. Mother Nature has time on its side, ask the trilobites, the dinosaurs, and any other mass extinction "victims" and they'll agree. And for putting things in perspective, we think, the planet is 4.5 BILLION years old! We are temporary. Mother nature really DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN about us, it is fallacy, in that Mother Nature has been made into a deity. Mother nature reminds me of the bear that goes to eat the nature lover and all of a sudden the nature lover gets religion and then the bear gives thanks for the meal he is about to receive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
If it blows as it has regularly since before the dawn of the scrouge, we can expect a cooler climate for a couple of decades. Or, if Yellowstone:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Yellowstone/description_yellowstone.html
Now for you lottery players who believe that what has happened before will happen again, if Yellowstone blows we are done. And guess what? We are due.
Mother Nature does have a way of keeping things in check, problem is we don't stand a chance, it is not a fair fight. Mother Nature has time on its side, ask the trilobites, the dinosaurs, and any other mass extinction "victims" and they'll agree. And for putting things in perspective, we think, the planet is 4.5 BILLION years old! We are temporary. Mother nature really DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN about us, it is fallacy, in that Mother Nature has been made into a deity. Mother nature reminds me of the bear that goes to eat the nature lover and all of a sudden the nature lover gets religion and then the bear gives thanks for the meal he is about to receive.
13.
Comment by csfb - November 27, 2007, 3:45 pmThe UFO's - yes, those "unidentified flying objects". They probably are out to get us.
14.
Comment by Tenaj - November 27, 2007, 4:31 pmI didn't call you a name. I said Republican not Republican's. Just because you'll the website administrator that doesn't mean that you can make us shut up when we don't agree with you politically. I haven't broken any rules. Be fair.
You made this statement:
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense?
____________________________________________________________________________
I switched out some words on that statement you made.
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only Republican media and organizations that are in denial of global warming.
Mighty funny you don't call "chicken little" name calling. Be fair Todd.
You made this statement:
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense?
____________________________________________________________________________
I switched out some words on that statement you made.
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only Republican media and organizations that are in denial of global warming.
Mighty funny you don't call "chicken little" name calling. Be fair Todd.
15.
Comment by jarasan - November 27, 2007, 5:53 pmTenaj your referral to the republican media is another red herring unfounded fact that you state as fact. Please tell us the names of the republicans at NASA JPL that have been studying ocean currents
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/ipy-20071113.html
Or the republicans here at this site:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
I think your firewall needs some adjustments. And what does global warming have to do with politics? Bush believes in it, incredible, you and W agree on something. So you do you think Bush is still an idiot?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/ipy-20071113.html
Or the republicans here at this site:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
I think your firewall needs some adjustments. And what does global warming have to do with politics? Bush believes in it, incredible, you and W agree on something. So you do you think Bush is still an idiot?
16.
Comment by Todd - November 27, 2007, 6:21 pm@Tenaj: I am fair to a fault. "Chicken Little" is not name-calling. It perfectly describes the manner by which global warming fanatics are behaving. Don't you know the story of Chicken Little??
Your use of the word "Republican" is designed to lump every Republican together, and say they are all greedy. There is no way to misinterpret that.
Also, it is indeed meant as a way to slam my arguments, by saying that it is a "Republican" argument. Perhaps you intended to say that I am a Republican, and that makes me greedy. Whichever specific posture is meant is designed as a slam, so I would indeed label that "name-calling".
Also, falling back on the "woe is me" of "I am being shut down by the webmaster" is ludicrous. I have not shut you down in any way. You have been free to spout nonsense like "the polar bears are drowning and the penguins are dying" as much as you like. I think the actual problem is that my arguments are compelling, and you want me to stop. I pointed out that the polar bear population is increasing, and you have no answer to that.
Lastly, this article was published by a very liberal media source, the Telegraph in the UK. It is not just "Republican media" (whatever that is -- I didn't realize Republicans owned any news media sources) that are starting to recognize the sham called global warming.
What will you do once everyone finally realizes it's a sham? Do you have a fall-back plan yet? Will Hillary Clinton stop global warming if we elect her? (*snicker*)
Your use of the word "Republican" is designed to lump every Republican together, and say they are all greedy. There is no way to misinterpret that.
Also, it is indeed meant as a way to slam my arguments, by saying that it is a "Republican" argument. Perhaps you intended to say that I am a Republican, and that makes me greedy. Whichever specific posture is meant is designed as a slam, so I would indeed label that "name-calling".
Also, falling back on the "woe is me" of "I am being shut down by the webmaster" is ludicrous. I have not shut you down in any way. You have been free to spout nonsense like "the polar bears are drowning and the penguins are dying" as much as you like. I think the actual problem is that my arguments are compelling, and you want me to stop. I pointed out that the polar bear population is increasing, and you have no answer to that.
Lastly, this article was published by a very liberal media source, the Telegraph in the UK. It is not just "Republican media" (whatever that is -- I didn't realize Republicans owned any news media sources) that are starting to recognize the sham called global warming.
What will you do once everyone finally realizes it's a sham? Do you have a fall-back plan yet? Will Hillary Clinton stop global warming if we elect her? (*snicker*)
17.
Comment by Tenaj - November 27, 2007, 6:28 pmTodd I was just stating what you said but replaced the wording with Republican where you had Liberal and Denial where you had support.
Yes, what does global warming have to do with politics? You were the one who started talking about how interesting it was that liberals.
Well here's what you said.
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense?
So answer your own question.
Yes, what does global warming have to do with politics? You were the one who started talking about how interesting it was that liberals.
Well here's what you said.
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense?
So answer your own question.
18.
Comment by Tenaj - November 27, 2007, 6:42 pmSorry Todd that was last post was meant for jararan.
Todd, you make me laugh. My reply to you is "Um huh"
Todd, you make me laugh. My reply to you is "Um huh"
19.
Comment by jarasan - November 27, 2007, 6:45 pmLiberal doesn't mean democrat, just like conservative doesn't mean republican.
Here is another one: Hurricane season ends Friday, the forecasters were wrong again! For the third year in row, they severely over-estimated the number of hurricanes expected forecast. Weren't the oceans getting so warm that super-global-warming-induced hurricanes would destroy the world?
P.S. I asked about politics and Global Warming.
Here is another one: Hurricane season ends Friday, the forecasters were wrong again! For the third year in row, they severely over-estimated the number of hurricanes expected forecast. Weren't the oceans getting so warm that super-global-warming-induced hurricanes would destroy the world?
P.S. I asked about politics and Global Warming.
20.
Comment by reddog - November 27, 2007, 6:48 pmTodd, I have been against this Global warming b.s. for some time now. Al Gore and his cronies have fooled alot of people . The Peace Prize he recieved was a joke.
It's no use trying to talk common sense on this subject.
It's no use trying to talk common sense on this subject.
21.
Comment by rcbbuckeye - November 27, 2007, 7:39 pmI apologize for using the term "Chicken Little". I didn't realize it would offend anyone, which was not my intention. I used that term because that is what all this global warming rant from Al Gore and friends reminds me of. My final point remains that many of the ones crying global warming and wanting everyone to change their lifestyle can't be bothered to changed their own lifestyle. Think of a certain presidential candidate who built a 25,000 sq ft mansion.
22.
Comment by Tenaj - November 27, 2007, 8:23 pmDon't apologize rcbbuckeye, you didn't offend anyone. Certainly not me. You'll entitled to your opinion. None of those things describe me. I think it's funny that some people are denying global warming when Al Gore has already received accolades and it's already been proven true.
And someone else's lifestyle does not make global warming true or false.
And someone else's lifestyle does not make global warming true or false.
23.
Comment by Todd - November 28, 2007, 8:10 am@Tenaj: You keep comparing "Republicans" with "liberals". They do not compare. I say liberals because I mean people with a liberal philosophy, not "Democrats" or "Republicans". I wish you would stop saying a political party all does one thing or feels one thing.
24.
Comment by four4me - November 28, 2007, 10:22 amso what do you call a demopublican Lol ha ha ha ha ha ha
25.
Comment by Tenaj - November 28, 2007, 10:36 amTodd it's as simple as this: For the most part
Democrat = Liberal = NOT REPUBLICAN
Republican = Conservative = not liberal, not Democrat
Todd said: I wish you would stop saying a political party all does one thing or feels one thing.
To Todd: Why do you wish I stop doing something that you do? When you say Liberal - you mean not Republican or conservative. No fancy definition is needed for liberal, they are Democrats for the most part.
So when you say that liberal doesn't mean Democrat or Republican, I say HA! It's just a Republican democratic way of saying "nonsense Democrat" Show me a REAL Republican with a liberal philosophy.
Don't forget you said this:
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense?
And I think it's interesting that it's mostly Republicans who refute it.
Democrat = Liberal = NOT REPUBLICAN
Republican = Conservative = not liberal, not Democrat
Todd said: I wish you would stop saying a political party all does one thing or feels one thing.
To Todd: Why do you wish I stop doing something that you do? When you say Liberal - you mean not Republican or conservative. No fancy definition is needed for liberal, they are Democrats for the most part.
So when you say that liberal doesn't mean Democrat or Republican, I say HA! It's just a Republican democratic way of saying "nonsense Democrat" Show me a REAL Republican with a liberal philosophy.
Don't forget you said this:
Don't you find it interesting that it is basically only liberal media and organizations that support this global warming nonsense?
And I think it's interesting that it's mostly Republicans who refute it.
26.
Comment by Todd - November 28, 2007, 12:34 pmPlease don't tell me what I mean. When I say liberal, I mean liberal, not Democrat. Yes, there are lots of liberal Democrats, but there are plenty of liberal Republicans too, a fact that makes the party worse-off.
You keep equating party with philosophy, and I just gotta tell you that you are off-base. However, there are plenty of other people who make that same mistake -- it's not just you.
Liberals support global warming because either (a) other liberals (like the mainstream media) convcinced them that global warming is actually happening, or (b) because they are one of the fringe groups that gain power from environmental issues.
You are making your strenuous arguments based on other people's say-so. Wouldn't that make you question the source? *I* have questioned both sides, and weighed them without bias, because I happen to care about the planet, and not some political agenda or politician's power. I have found that logic dictates that global warming is a crock, and the data is now starting to become an avalanche of facts.
Like I aked before, what will you do once everyone finally realizes it's a sham? Do you have a fall-back plan yet? Will Hillary Clinton stop global warming if we elect her?
You keep equating party with philosophy, and I just gotta tell you that you are off-base. However, there are plenty of other people who make that same mistake -- it's not just you.
Liberals support global warming because either (a) other liberals (like the mainstream media) convcinced them that global warming is actually happening, or (b) because they are one of the fringe groups that gain power from environmental issues.
You are making your strenuous arguments based on other people's say-so. Wouldn't that make you question the source? *I* have questioned both sides, and weighed them without bias, because I happen to care about the planet, and not some political agenda or politician's power. I have found that logic dictates that global warming is a crock, and the data is now starting to become an avalanche of facts.
Like I aked before, what will you do once everyone finally realizes it's a sham? Do you have a fall-back plan yet? Will Hillary Clinton stop global warming if we elect her?
27.
Comment by Tenaj - November 28, 2007, 2:37 pmTodd said: You are making your strenuous arguments based on other people's say-so.
To Todd: That is so very insulting, and condescending. I do not base my opinions on propaganda. I base them on as closest I can get to fact. Everything that is moved out of it's original state loses something, especially ideas and concepts and can be presented to mean something entirely different with a convincing argument. But your insults are laughable because they just confirm what I already know.
Aren't you using other people's say so? Are you a scientist? Are you an expert on global warming? Have you seen everything you're speaking of first hand, studied and tested it for years and have written papers and books on it and been rewarded for it. I shall say not. If I listened to you I will be basing information on other people's say so. You've heard the old adage, I'm from Missouri, well I'm from Museum.
I worked in a fine art's Museum, education for over 15 years and there is one thing I know is the notion of "authenticity" and most importantly considering the source of anything, whether it's an article, art (which is everything), politics (regardless of what kind), books, whatever because most media is slanted. I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything (except pick 3 lottery) because the first thing anyone should know it that they know nothing.
You just can't tell me anything, Todd, regardless of how well you present it or how convincing you might sound to others because I'm considering when, where, who, the history, who started it, how long did it last, WHAT WAS THE INFLUENCE, who's benefited from it, who doesn't, what came from it, what are the dates and WHY, etc. etc. So stop trying to educated me on what political parties are and aren't. I know the differences and I know what people mean when they turn a phase.
You can put definitions to what you want and I have the right to put definitions to what I want because THIS IS POLITICS. That is allowed in politics. That is why so many bad people get elected and good people don't. It ain't nothing written in stone except the facts and what's fact to some are lies to others. People views are their's and it's the politicians’ duty to sway it.
Todd said: You keep equating party with philosophy
I'm not going to come right out and call you a liar. I never used the word philosophy until you used it trying to explain away how you use the term "Liberal." The only philosophy I like is Zen and I don't use philosophy in the same sentence with political party. But you did though.
To Todd: That is so very insulting, and condescending. I do not base my opinions on propaganda. I base them on as closest I can get to fact. Everything that is moved out of it's original state loses something, especially ideas and concepts and can be presented to mean something entirely different with a convincing argument. But your insults are laughable because they just confirm what I already know.
Aren't you using other people's say so? Are you a scientist? Are you an expert on global warming? Have you seen everything you're speaking of first hand, studied and tested it for years and have written papers and books on it and been rewarded for it. I shall say not. If I listened to you I will be basing information on other people's say so. You've heard the old adage, I'm from Missouri, well I'm from Museum.
I worked in a fine art's Museum, education for over 15 years and there is one thing I know is the notion of "authenticity" and most importantly considering the source of anything, whether it's an article, art (which is everything), politics (regardless of what kind), books, whatever because most media is slanted. I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything (except pick 3 lottery) because the first thing anyone should know it that they know nothing.
You just can't tell me anything, Todd, regardless of how well you present it or how convincing you might sound to others because I'm considering when, where, who, the history, who started it, how long did it last, WHAT WAS THE INFLUENCE, who's benefited from it, who doesn't, what came from it, what are the dates and WHY, etc. etc. So stop trying to educated me on what political parties are and aren't. I know the differences and I know what people mean when they turn a phase.
You can put definitions to what you want and I have the right to put definitions to what I want because THIS IS POLITICS. That is allowed in politics. That is why so many bad people get elected and good people don't. It ain't nothing written in stone except the facts and what's fact to some are lies to others. People views are their's and it's the politicians’ duty to sway it.
Todd said: You keep equating party with philosophy
I'm not going to come right out and call you a liar. I never used the word philosophy until you used it trying to explain away how you use the term "Liberal." The only philosophy I like is Zen and I don't use philosophy in the same sentence with political party. But you did though.
28.
Comment by Todd - November 28, 2007, 3:02 pmWhatever. It's obvious that you are upset. I don't think I'm saying anything new or outrageous. Based on what you're saying, I just think I have more knowledge in the areas of politics and global warming, but hey, I guess you feel the same way. That is called an impasse, and I wish you well in life.
29.
Comment by Tenaj - November 28, 2007, 7:23 pmThe power of suggestion is powerful and you are quiet crafty at it Todd. I haven't said anything that gives the impression that I'm upset. Another lie. It works well for you. Not upset folks. Don't believe it.
But believe that it's the media's job to sway your opinion. Just consider the source first. The presidential election is coming up and we will hear lies that sound like the truth. Don't allow yourself to be saddled with unimportant issues that are only there as a smokescreen.
I don't feel for one second that I know much about politics or global warming, but I know what's important and necessary for the American people and their families to live healthy lives and I can spot the tricks of politicians and their followers with the sun in my eyes.
But believe that it's the media's job to sway your opinion. Just consider the source first. The presidential election is coming up and we will hear lies that sound like the truth. Don't allow yourself to be saddled with unimportant issues that are only there as a smokescreen.
I don't feel for one second that I know much about politics or global warming, but I know what's important and necessary for the American people and their families to live healthy lives and I can spot the tricks of politicians and their followers with the sun in my eyes.
30.
Comment by jarasan - November 28, 2007, 9:20 pmPower of suggestion = Intellectual honesty coupled with learning.
This discussion is good because it is typed and written, therefore a permanent record. Tenaj, you have yet to present a single fact to refute any of the evidence that global warming is a hoax. Tenaj, your rhetoric is blithe, off topic, and unsubstantiated. Could you please present some empirical evidence that humanity is responsible for climate change (global warming). Is that possible?
For eg.: Tell us where (link) the study is which proves that humanity has a greater effect on climate than the sun.
I'll give another eg.: Tell us where (link) the study which proves that global warming creates more and greater hurricanes.
Or just tell us how global warming has changed your life. Thanks.
This discussion is good because it is typed and written, therefore a permanent record. Tenaj, you have yet to present a single fact to refute any of the evidence that global warming is a hoax. Tenaj, your rhetoric is blithe, off topic, and unsubstantiated. Could you please present some empirical evidence that humanity is responsible for climate change (global warming). Is that possible?
For eg.: Tell us where (link) the study is which proves that humanity has a greater effect on climate than the sun.
I'll give another eg.: Tell us where (link) the study which proves that global warming creates more and greater hurricanes.
Or just tell us how global warming has changed your life. Thanks.
31.
Comment by Todd - November 29, 2007, 6:31 am@Tenaj: I do not lie. Not nice. Would you like me to enter you blog and post that you are lying? I'd appreciate if you would not muddy up my blog with nasty comments.
You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.
Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.
