Limbaugh- Bin laden Should Win Nobel Peace Prize.

[macfan881]

You know if Rush said this 2 years ago he'd be hanged by now we need a good Facepalm Smiley.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001290032

[rdowns]

Here you go. :D

http://www.tehprivates.com/images/smilies/DOH.gif

[paddy]

My first time hearing Rush Limbaugh.

Who believes him? As in, who actually thinks most of the crap he spouts is true?

[rdowns]

My first time hearing Rush Limbaugh.

Who believes him? As in, who actually thinks most of the crap he spouts is true?


He's got a large and very loyal audience. IIRC, he reaches 2 million a week.

[KingYaba]

CAIRO (AP) - Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.

In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.

He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHDH582.html

OK this is kind of funny.

[Sydde]

He's got a large and very loyal audience. IIRC, he reaches 2 million a week.

Next time you meet one and they start prattling on about him, say "Who? Don't know who you're talking about." See how they react to that.

Limbaugh and bin Laden, America's two worst enemies.

[freeny]

Yes, funny.

But I certainly expect any and all GOP members to refuse the prize if they are ever awarded it. Its obviously a worthless accomplishment, it will only tarnish their image.

[NT1440]

Limbaugh's logic (or lack of) goes like this:

Find a subject where someone "evil" (aka doesn't agree with rush) agrees with someone Rush doesn't like.

Ride that as somehow supporting evil.


I can't wait for him to bash Obama for agreeing with the Ft. Hood shooter that oxygen is a good thing for the American people.

[Eraserhead]

Who believes him? As in, who actually thinks most of the crap he spouts is true?

Probably the same 50% of America who don't believe in evolution :rolleyes:.

From Bin Laden's perspective climate change is an issue for his base, he gets to criticise "the West" who are mostly responsible, and the Republicans will try and connect Bin Laden and the Democrats thus dividing his main target (the US) even more.

Sounds like a win-win-win for him - even if the last point isn't intentional.

[Thomas Veil]

This is one of Rush's dumber ideas...and he's having more and more of them.

Used to be, he could make his twisted ideas sound at least semi-plausible. He has his own little mythos going about the Great Liberal Conspiracy, and even though he contradicts himself all the time, he's such a fast, glib talker that undiscerning listeners soak it in without stopping to question or fact check anything he says.

It also used to be that I'd listen to him on rare occasions just to see what new twists and turns his mythos would take. It'd upset me, but it's a foolish person who doesn't keep an eye on what the enemy is up to.

Lately, though, the few times I've listened to him, I've found myself busting out laughing. The lies are getting bigger and crazier, and he's gotten pretty lazy about trying to even appear to know what he's talking about. Today, for example, he didn't even appear to know that Reuters is owned and controlled outside the United States. I mean, come on. :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

I'm curious as to why anyone cares when Rush says something idiotic, but then I hear something like this:
He's got a large and very loyal audience. IIRC, he reaches 2 million a week.
And I weep mercilessly.

[Rt&Dzine]

I finally broke down and clicked on the link and listened to Limbaugh . . .

. . . what a blithering idiot!

[Counterfit]

Seriously, even ****ing Osama bin ****ing Laden recognizes that we're screwing up the planet. How willfully ignorant to you have to be to not see it?

[Iscariot]

Seriously, even ****ing Osama bin ****ing Laden recognizes that we're screwing up the planet. How willfully ignorant to you have to be to not see it?

There's a scale. I think it's somewhere between
http://alaskacommons.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/sarah-palin1.jpg
and
http://chasness.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/michael_crichton1.jpg

[Eraserhead]

Who's the second guy?

[Rt&Dzine]

Who's the second guy?

The photo is labeled Michael Crichton.

[xUKHCx]

Who's the second guy?

Look at the image address

http://chasness.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/michael_crichton1.jpg

Michael Crichton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton)

[Eraserhead]

Doh :o, thanks guys.

[Zombie Acorn]

CAIRO (AP) - Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.

In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.

He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHDH582.html

OK this is kind of funny.

More than funny, Bin Laden and the liberal agenda have collided.

[Eraserhead]

More than funny, Bin Laden and the liberal agenda have collided.

Climate change isn't an agenda, its real - however much our governments wish it wasn't.

[Zombie Acorn]

Climate change isn't an agenda, its real - however much our governments wish it wasn't.

Yes, the climate does change. The agenda part is that we are forcing the changes.

[.Andy]

Yes, the climate does change. The agenda part is that we are forcing the changes.
Funnily enough NASA whom you are apparently supporting in the moon landings thread is also in on this ridiculous "liberal agenda climate change conspiracy" you've constructed.

[Zombie Acorn]

Funnily enough NASA whom you are apparently supporting in the moon landings thread is also in on this ridiculous "liberal agenda climate change conspiracy" you've constructed.

Moon landing have what to do with climate change? I support quite a few people that believe in the non-sense.

[.Andy]

Moon landing have what to do with climate change? I support quite a few people that believe in the non-sense.
It's exactly the same agency. If NASA scientists will blatantly lie and tow the line on the liberal climate change conspiracy (which is just about the most idiotic thing I've ever read) I am surprised you support them getting your hard earned tax dollars. Surely these nefarious scientists can't be trusted and are just lying to maintain their income?

To highlight your hypocrisy yet again when there was questions over a couple of scientists from the CRU you were not only calling for the whole CRU to be investigated you were asking questions on whether they should be getting your tax dollars and trying to reject the whole field of climate change science.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's exactly the same agency. If NASA scientists will blatantly lie and tow the line on the liberal climate change conspiracy (which is just about the most idiotic thing I've ever read) I am surprised you support them getting your hard earned tax dollars. Surely these nefarious scientists can't be trusted and are just lying to maintain their income?

To highlight your hypocrisy yet again when there was questions over a couple of scientists from the CRU you were not only calling for the whole CRU to be investigated you were asking questions on whether they should be getting your tax dollars and trying to reject the whole field of climate change science.

And we have had yet another raw data skewing festival just recently, your human made climate change is crumbling and you look desperate.

CRU was obviously corrupted completely, their whole agenda was to investigate climate change, NASA does many other things for our country.

[.Andy]

And we have had yet another raw data skewing festival just recently, your human made climate change is crumbling and you look desperate.

CRU was obviously corrupted completely, their whole agenda was to investigate climate change, NASA does many other things for our country.
The CRU was in no way corrupt. That is a blatant lie. The few emails out of thousands were easily explained and the whole thing amounted to absolutely nothing. It was entirely political. Which I'm not surprised you are trying to continue and parrot.

The fact of the matter is that mans contribution to climate change is supported by NASA and all major scientific (physical and medical) bodies worldwide. There isn't a single major scientific institution that denies it. Your ability to reason and argue logically is on display for everyone - including such assertions that the hundreds and thousands of papers and data points on climate change is nothing but a liberal conspiracy. Your contribution and understanding of the issue is superficial and entirely political.

[Zombie Acorn]

The CRU was in no way corrupt. That is a blatant lie. The few emails out of thousands were easily explained and the whole thing amounted to absolutely nothing. It was entirely political. Which I'm not surprised you are trying to continue and parrot.

The fact of the matter is that mans contribution to climate change is supported by NASA and all major scientific (physical and medical) bodies worldwide. There isn't a single major scientific institution that denies it. Your ability to reason and argue logically is on display for everyone - including such assertions that the hundreds and thousands of papers and data points on climate change is nothing but a liberal conspiracy. Your contribution and understanding of the issue is superficial and entirely political.

Climate change isn't under question, its whether humans are the majority contributors. I am going to laugh in around 19 years time now.

[.Andy]

Climate change isn't under question, its whether humans are the majority contributors. I am going to laugh in around 19 years time now.
Which is a perfect example of your scientific illiteracy. If in 19 years the long-term trend and rate of change warming starts to decrease and/or more research shows the alternative you will be right. But you will be right by nothing more than a blind guess motivated by nothing but you political partisanship. Real scientific conclusions are based on the evidence.

Even if the trend starts to fall you'll have to take the word of exactly the same scientists and scientific bodies that you are rejecting as part of a massive liberal conspiracy now. A good illustration of you picking and choosing what you'll believe based on your politics.

[Sydde]

More than funny, Bin Laden and the liberal agenda have collided.

Do you understand "manipulation"? This is a very well calculated statement. First it puts in many minds, people who might not be predisposed to virulent hatred of bin Laden, that maybe he really is not such an evil guy. Meanwhile, as previously noted by Eraserhead, it is an effort to further widen the divide between the right and the left in the US. bin Laden (and/or his advisors) is very aware of the behavior patterns of the right wing: look how well G.W. Bush was manipulated into chewing up large pieces of the constitution while at the same time saying "they hate us for our freedom".

[Rt&Dzine]

More than funny, Bin Laden and the liberal agenda have collided.

It would be funny except that Limbaugh's audience takes all his schtick seriously. And the reality of the situation is that Bin laden has far more in common with the American right wing fundamentalists than with the liberals.

[Zombie Acorn]

Which is a perfect example of your scientific illiteracy. If in 19 years the long-term trend and rate of change warming starts to decrease and/or more research shows the alternative you will be right. But you will be right by nothing more than a blind guess motivated by nothing but you political partisanship. Real scientific conclusions are based on the evidence.

Even if the trend starts to fall you'll have to take the word of exactly the same scientists and scientific bodies that you are rejecting as part of a massive liberal conspiracy now. A good illustration of you picking and choosing what you'll believe based on your politics.

Your thoughts fail you, when the earth stays the same or cools I will not have to rely on any crack pot theories because it will be life as normal, as its supposed to be. You seem to forget that you are the one advocating that humans are the majority cause of change in climate, I made no such claims.

So no, I will not have to rely on any scientists because I never believed we were the major factor in climate change to start with.

[.Andy]

when the earth stays the same or cools
And again you can't tell if the world is entering a cooling trend or staying the same temperature without the input of scientists. Nor can you tell that the world goes through cyclical climate changes without scientists (something you apparently accept). The exact same scientists whose conclusions based on the current evidence you are outright rejecting because it isn't politically palatable.

I will not have to rely on any crack pot theories
So now not only are all the major scienific institutions in the world engaged in a massive liberal conspiracy they are also crackpots :rolleyes:

So no, I will not have to rely on any scientists because I never believed we were the major factor in climate change to start with.
Yes you've established this position based on absolutely no evidence or logic and are at odds with all major scientific institutions in the world. It's obvious (and has been since day 1) that your contribution to climate change debate is picking and choosing based on nothing but your politics. And frankly your claims are getting more and more irrational and extreme.

[Zombie Acorn]

And again you can't tell if the world is entering a cooling trend or staying the same temperature without the input of scientists. Nor can you tell that the world goes through cyclical climate changes without scientists (something you apparently accept). The exact same scientists whose conclusions based on the current evidence you are outright rejecting because it isn't politically palatable.

I can get a computer to show the trends by compiling raw data from sensors. We shouldn't need scientists to compile data, the only thing that would benefit is an agenda to skew the data.

[.Andy]

I can get a computer to show the trends by compiling raw data from sensors.
I am sure you can. Which is exactly what happens in science. When data is published it is made available in the public domain. All you have to do is approach the respective scientists to recreate it yourself. For example all you have to do is register with GIS and you can get the data you need (http://www.gisclimatechange.org/).

We shouldn't need scientists to compile data
You've overlooked that scientists need to design, maintain, and collect the data from stations. They don't magically exist on their own. You are absolutely free to invest the time and money to set up your own however and bust this worldwide "scientific liberal conspiracy by crackpots" wide open.....

the only thing that would benefit is an agenda to skew the data.
More conspiracy theory nonsense.

[Zombie Acorn]

I am sure you can. Which is exactly what happens in science. When data is published it is made available in the public domain. All you have to do is approach the respective scientists to recreate it yourself. For example all you have to do is register with GIS and you can get the data you need (http://www.gisclimatechange.org/).

The data just tells me what I already believe though, the climate changes.


You've overlooked that scientists need to design, maintain, and collect the data from stations. They don't magically exist on their own. You are absolutely free to invest the time and money to set up your own however and bust this worldwide "scientific liberal conspiracy by crackpots" wide open.....

Not really, the equipment just needs to be setup, networked, and given a large storage facility, I just recently setup temp sensors for a robotics project, I am not a scientist. Its not like we have to invent temperature sensors.

[.Andy]

The data just tells me what I already believe though, the climate changes.
Which you "already knew" based on what scientists have established. You have most certainly not been able to detect the long-term trends, the rate of change, or the cyclical effects in your lifetime. These are the same scientists whose conclusions you are rejecting as engaging in a worldwide liberal conspiracy theory because of your political ideology. Your position is absolutely untenable.

Not really, the equipment just needs to be setup, networked, and given a large storage facility, I just recently setup temp sensors for a robotics project, I am not a scientist. Its not like we have to invent temperature sensors.
This is getting more and more ridiculous.

[NT1440]

Not really, the equipment just needs to be setup, networked, and given a large storage facility, I just recently setup temp sensors for a robotics project, I am not a scientist. Its not like we have to invent temperature sensors.

And all you get is current data, congrats, its useless given the scope of time we're looking at.

[Zombie Acorn]

And all you get is current data, congrats, its useless given the scope of time we're looking at.

How long have we had accurate temperature sensors that were compiled in a network system as we have today? Not very long. 20 years should be plenty of time to see what our temperatures are doing compared to previous years without manipulation.

[NT1440]

How long have we had accurate temperature sensors that were compiled in a network system as we have today? Not very long. 20 years should be plenty of time to see what our temperatures are doing compared to previous years without manipulation.

Your ignorance on the subject is beyond astounding. You cannot form a theory on that little evidence. We have data going back thousands (even tens of thousands of years) that contribute to these studies.

[Zombie Acorn]

Your ignorance on the subject is beyond astounding. You cannot form a theory on that little evidence. We have data going back thousands (even tens of thousands of years) that contribute to these studies.

If this is truly crisis its surely enough time. The world is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before.

[Eraserhead]

The world is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before.

Well exactly.

[Zombie Acorn]

Well exactly.

We should see continued warming with human CO2 being the major cause of climate change.

[.Andy]

We should see continued warming with human CO2 being the major cause of climate change.
Which we are. At an unprecedented rate.

[Zombie Acorn]

Which we are. At an unprecedented rate.

Well then the trend will continue then and in 20 years I won't get to laugh. I am fairly certain we will not be able to bring CO2 levels to pre-industrialization era levels anyways so if you are right we are screwed regardless.

[.Andy]

Well then the trend will continue then and in 20 years I won't get to laugh.
Which is what has been projected within a range. As I explained above any laughing you will or won't do will be based on a blind guess motivated your political ideology. If by some very small miracle the scientific evidence changes and you guess right there really would be no reason to feel vindicated. And the changes will be reported by the same climate scientists whose conclusions you reject now as crackpots participating in a worldwide liberal conspiracy.

[Zombie Acorn]

Which is what has been projected within a range. As I explained above any laughing you will or won't do will be based on a blind guess motivated your political ideology. If by some very small miracle the scientific evidence changes and you guess right there really would be no reason to feel vindicated. And the changes will be reported by the same climate scientists whose conclusions you reject now as crackpots participating in a worldwide liberal conspiracy.

There will be every reason to feel vindicated. Also its not a blind guess, its skepticism, again you are the one presenting this theory nothing says I have to acknowledge it. If humans aren't the major contributors to climate change my world doesn't change a bit, yours does.

[.Andy]

There will be every reason to feel vindicated. Also its not a blind guess, its skepticism
Nonsense your position is absolutely a blind guess. The only reasoning you can extend is that the current scientific consensus is a worldwide liberal conspiracy by crackpots. That is blatant denial. Skepticism implies some insight into the science and intelligent questioning which you've failed to demonstrate over numerous threads. Scientists are motivated by their skepticism. You are motivated by nothing more than your politics.

If humans aren't causing climate change my world doesn't change a bit, yours does.
Not at all. In science the most prudent course of action is based on the best, current scientific evidence - my world will always be the same. If the evidence changes so does the course of action.

A position such as yours where you reject the current science as an elaborate conspiracy in favour of politically palatable arbitrary speculation about the future is absolutely untenable. Making claims about being vindicated in the future is nothing more than reveling in ignorance.

[Zombie Acorn]

Nonsense your position is absolutely a blind guess. The only reasoning you can extend is that the current scientific consensus is a worldwide liberal conspiracy by crackpots. That is blatant denial. Skepticism implies some insight into the science and intelligent questioning which you've failed to demonstrate over numerous threads. Scientists are motivated by their skepticism. You are motivated by nothing more than your politics.


Not at all. In science the most prudent course of action is based on the best, current scientific evidence - my world will always be the same. If the evidence changes so does the course of action.

A position such as yours where you reject the current science as an elaborate conspiracy in favour of politically palatable arbitrary speculation about the future is absolutely untenable. Making claims about being vindicated in the future is nothing more than reveling in ignorance.

There is no political agenda here, I don't see climate as a political thing except when the liberals are trying to push it to gain more control over my life.

Again, its not a guess, I have no reason to guess at anything because nothign has changed for me besides some people crowing in the corner that the world is going to end due to human induced global warming.

[.Andy]

There is no political agenda here, I don't see climate as a political thing except when the liberals are trying to push it to gain more control over my life.
The irony is hilarious.

Also a reminder that you thnk the current science is a worldwide conspiracy of crackpot scientists to push a liberal agenda.

Again, its not a guess,You speculating that the world will stay the same temperature or cool in the next "19" or "20" years so you can have the last laugh and feel vindicated is an absolute guess. It is based on zero reasoning.

I have no reason to guess at anything because nothign has changed for me besides some people crowing in the corner that the world is going to end due to human induced global warming.
Which is a terrible strawman. Nobody is claiming the world is going to end from human-induced global warming.

[Zombie Acorn]

The irony is hilarious.

Also a reminder that you thnk the current science is a worldwide conspiracy of crackpot scientists to push a liberal agenda.

Did that scientist at the CRU who got caught with emails about manipulating data ever get his job back?

You speculating that the world will stay the same temperature or cool in the next "19" or "20" years so you can have the last laugh and feel vindicated is an absolute guess. It is based on zero reasoning.

No, I just don't believe humans are the major contributors to climate change. If the temps don't rise when we are pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere I will laugh though, simply for the fact that I have been told so many times I have to believe this theory or else.


Which is a terrible strawman. Nobody is claiming the world is going to end from human-induced global warming.

Nobody? You sure about that?

[NT1440]

No, I just don't believe humans are the major contributors to climate change.



Nobody? You sure about that?

Based on what Zombie, thats what he's getting at. You don't believe based one what?

As for nobody saying that, the only ones that are saying it are just as uninformed as you are. The world will not end, it will just change and become much harder for those nations that will not be able to adapt. Coastal regions will see their land eroding, and for some reason you never want to consider the massive impact global temperatures will have on the crops in many/most regions. The natural balance we have now is slipping away, I don't see us planning enough for when what we rely on won't be able to yield as much. You seem to think we are worried about bigger storms and killer monsoons or something. What I and many who actually think critically are worried about is the impact we are causing on our vital food supplies in this country and around the world.

I'm worried about massive famines and water shortages, not an abnormally powerful hurricane. THESE are the far reaching effects that should frighten you, because it will directly impact all of us in the only way you've shown to care about in these forums, your wallet.

[bobber205]

Did that scientist at the CRU who got caught with emails about manipulating data ever get his job back?



No, I just don't believe humans are the major contributors to climate change. If the temps don't rise when we are pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere I will laugh though, simply for the fact that I have been told so many times I have to believe this theory or else.




Nobody? You sure about that?

You've been told that torture is a good way to get info out of people or else but you're more than happy to believe that. You're more scared of terrorism (which is understandable) than a far off event like climate change.

[.Andy]

Did that scientist at the CRU who got caught with emails about manipulating data ever get his job back? No scientist got caught manipulating data. You've either been misinformed or are being dishonest. The fact that I've personally explained the situation ad nauseum in a thread you participated in makes me think it is the latter.

No, I just don't believe humans are the major contributors to climate change.Science isn't a matter of believe. It's a matter of drawing conclusions from the best current evidence. And you are desperately and transparently trying to discredit the evidence by trying to discredit the scientists who produce said data. Unfortunately the fictional construction of a worldwide scientific conspiracy of multiple disciplines all pushing a liberal agenda is hilariously terrible.

If the temps don't rise when we are pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere I will laugh though, simply for the fact that I have been told so many times I have to believe this theory or else.Personally I couldn't care less if you believe it or not. I just enjoy pointing out you fallacious reasoning. But again to feel vindicated when your position turns out to be correct even though you have absolutely no reasoning should provide little solace. What you are really saying (which comes as no surprise) here is that you enjoy being a contrarian.

Nobody? You sure about that?
It is most certainly not a scientific position. And something I've not put forward to you or anyone in this thread or any other.

[NT1440]

You've been told that torture is a good way to get info out of people or else but you're more than happy to believe that. You're more scared of terrorism (which is understandable) than a far off event like climate change.

It's got to suck to live in such pants pissing fear that you have no sense of whats right or wrong anymore. Do whatever you want, just make sure that you have an American flag waving in front of you, its the ultimate get out of jail free card.:rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

It's got to suck to live in such pants pissing fear that you have no sense of whats right or wrong anymore. Do whatever you want, just make sure that you have an American flag waving in front of you, its the ultimate get out of jail free card.:rolleyes:

I don't live in fear at all, I think the whole thing is pretty funny actually, up until the point that I start losing my freedoms because of some political agenda to link a natural happening to our increased CO2 release.

[Zombie Acorn]

No scientist got caught manipulating data. You've either been misinformed or are being dishonest. The fact that I've personally explained the situation ad nauseum in a thread you participated in makes me think it is the latter.

Never caught being the key word. They did catch some emails though.

Science isn't a matter of believe. It's a matter of drawing conclusions from the best current evidence. And you are desperately and transparently trying to discredit the evidence by trying to discredit the scientists who produce said data. Unfortunately the fictional construction of a worldwide scientific conspiracy of multiple disciplines all pushing a liberal agenda is hilariously terrible.

On the contrary, you see the evidence that has a chance of being wrong anywhere between 10-40% depending on the conclusion being drawn and assuming the conclusions drawn are not politically driven and you decide to drastically change the way I live to suit your agenda. So it is a matter of belief, you are filling the gap, I am not willing to do that.

[NT1440]

Never caught being the key word. They did catch some emails though.



On the contrary, you see the evidence that has a chance of being wrong anywhere between 10-40% depending on the conclusion being drawn and assuming the conclusions drawn are not politically driven and you decide to drastically change the way I live to suit your agenda. So it is a matter of belief, you are filling the gap, I am not willing to do that.

You and your pathetic percentage games. :rolleyes:

In what ways are your life going to drastically change Zombie? Please list them out and provide evidence, not your assumptions. This should be fun.

[Zombie Acorn]

You and your pathetic percentage games. :rolleyes:

In what ways are your life going to drastically change Zombie? Please list them out and provide evidence, not your assumptions. This should be fun.

I said "want to" referring to a future burden being placed on me. Cap & trade is just around the corner.

[NT1440]

I said "want to" referring to a future burden being placed on me. Cap & trade is just around the corner.
Again, tell me what "drastic" changes are in your future Zombie. Tell me

When your done, also show how you reached these conclusions, hopefully they'll be based on something other than your talking point ideology (hint, it won't be).

[.Andy]

Never caught being the key word. They did catch some emails though
There were no emails about manipulating data. Nor was there ever shown any data that was manipulated.

On the contrary, you see the evidence that has a chance of being wrong anywhere between 10-40% depending on the conclusion being drawn
Elaborate on these numbers. What are you referring to?

and assuming the conclusions drawn are not politically driven
More conspiracy theory nonsense.

and you decide to drastically change the way I live to suit your agenda.
Another strawman. I am not deciding to change the way you live whatsoever. That is the political process. It has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific evidence besides being based on it. You are confusing the two and therefore see attacking (poorly) the science and scientists as a means to undermine any political process. And your evoking of a scientific conspiracy theory is hilariously terrible.

So it is a matter of belief, you are filling the gap, I am not willing to do that.
Your conclusion is erroneous. There is no need for belief. There are rational conclusions to draw from the data. And then there worldwide conspiracy theories involving multiple disciplines of science to push a liberal agenda.

[Zombie Acorn]

Again, tell me what "drastic" changes are in your future Zombie. Tell me

When your done, also show how you reached these conclusions, hopefully they'll be based on something other than your talking point ideology (hint, it won't be).

Cap & trade will raise prices on everything, my energy bill, and more. This will be particularly damaging to the poor who may be struggling to eat right now. I consider that to be drastic changes.

[NT1440]

Cap & trade will raise prices on everything, my energy bill, and more. This will be particularly damaging to the poor who may be struggling to eat right now. I consider that to be drastic changes.

Again, please cite your sources. You don't trust your precious corporations to find a way to milk that system dry? I've already read a very interesting report in MIT's Technology Review that shows that unless actually enforced (like that will happen in this country) cap & trade is just going to boil down to a feel good plan that will allow companies to just buy more credits to pollute more. In doing so many companies will just buy way more credits than the need and sell them off to others for huge profit. It won't be the system itself that may or may not lead to higher prices, it will be the manipulation of it.

[.Andy]

The sudden concern for the plight of the poor is heartwarming to see.

[Zombie Acorn]

Again, please cite your sources. You don't trust your precious corporations to find a way to milk that system dry? I've already read a very interesting report in MIT's Technology Review that shows that unless actually enforced (like that will happen in this country) cap & trade is just going to boil down to a feel good plan that will allow companies to just buy more credits to pollute more. In doing so many companies will just buy way more credits than the need and sell them off to others for huge profit. It won't be the system itself that may or may not lead to higher prices, it will be the manipulation of it.

Ermm no. The whole concept of making corporations pay for units of CO2 to pollute will drive prices up, if they manipulate the system after that then its even more the governments fault for putting such a stupid system in place.

We just had an article about a huge amount of people not eating sufficiently last year and you want to raise prices on them by imposing some artificial system to supplement a theory that is going to be proven false? Not on my watch.

[.Andy]

supplement a theory that is going to be proven false? Not on my watch.
As I said - blind guess. Despite you protest to the contrary, you've now progressed to a blind assertion. Your position is getting more and more irrational.

And now you've appointed yourself a watchman for the dietary requirments of the poor :D!

[NT1440]

Ermm no. The whole concept of making corporations pay for units of CO2 to pollute will drive prices up, if they manipulate the system after that then its even more the governments fault for putting such a stupid system in place.

We just had an article about a huge amount of people not eating sufficiently last year and you want to raise prices on them by imposing some artificial system to supplement a theory that is going to be proven false? Not on my watch.

My god, its like talking to a wall. You have no objectivity at all when it comes to these kinds of subjects.

As for the first underlined, I guess it was a mistake by your definition that this country is capitalistic, after all, its been horrendously manipulated time and time again. Heres a little life lesson for you, NO SYSTEM OF ANY KIND IS FREE FROM BEING ABLE TO BE MANIPULATED.

[.Andy]

My god, its like talking to a wall. You have no objectivity at all when it comes to these kinds of subjects.
It is wonderful fun to watch spiralling out of control though :D!

[NT1440]

It is wonderful fun to watch spiralling out of control though :D!

The twists, turns, backpeddling, double talk, self contradictions, shifting of the goalposts, etc. I''m surprised he hasn't just argued at himself at this point.

I'd love to see how he can explain away his rationale that those who break under waterboarding and get PTSD are just weak. I'd love to see him have a discussion with a troop suffering from it at a VA hospital, that should be fun, if not eye opening at the least.

[Zombie Acorn]

It is wonderful fun to watch spiralling out of control though :D!

I think so too.

[.Andy]

I think so too.
At least you can still laugh at yourself :). You can't be charged with lacking a sense of humour!

[bobber205]

My god, its like talking to a wall. You have no objectivity at all when it comes to these kinds of subjects.

As for the first underlined, I guess it was a mistake by your definition that this country is capitalistic, after all, its been horrendously manipulated time and time again. Heres a little life lesson for you, NO SYSTEM OF ANY KIND IS FREE FROM BEING ABLE TO BE MANIPULATED.

He is afraid he will have slightly less money than he has now if these changes come about. He's becoming as bad as InTheNet which is sad but ZA has proven himself to be a decent debater and moderate on issues in the past.

[Zombie Acorn]

He is afraid he will have slightly less money than he has now if these changes come about. He's becoming as bad as InTheNet which is sad but ZA has proven himself to be a decent debater and moderate on issues in the past.

I have never wavered on these issues. I do not want poor people dieing in the streets so that we can have a feel good system in place to thwart a non-crisis.

Assuming global warming was real, there is nothing we can do anyways, as I said before we can't return to pre-industrialized emissions.

So the real question is, how bad do you want to fight global warming? Enough to not have anything that uses electricity/return to riding horses/etc?

[leekohler]

Climate change isn't under question, its whether humans are the majority contributors. I am going to laugh in around 19 years time now.

So....we should continue to pollute the planet as much as possible? WTF?

[Zombie Acorn]

So....we should continue to pollute the planet as much as possible? WTF?

No, I am an advocate for green tech.

[NT1440]

I have never wavered on these issues. I do not want poor people dieing in the streets so that we can have a feel good system in place to thwart a non-crisis.

Assuming global warming was real, there is nothing we can do anyways, as I said before we can't return to pre-industrialized emissions.

So the real question is, how bad do you want to fight global warming? Enough to not have anything that uses electricity/return to riding horses/etc?

You're right that we can't return to pre industrial levels, but we CAN think about our processes going forth. If you'll actually look into it, I really suggest reading "The Sacred Balance" by David Suzuki if you get a chance, its definitely an eye opener and has many great ideas (such as local homegrown energy where every home produces at least 25% of its energy needs, but in a realistic sense). Please don't take this as just offhand advice, it is really a great book.

[Zombie Acorn]

You're right that we can't return to pre industrial levels, but we CAN think about our processes going forth. If you'll actually look into it, I really suggest reading "The Sacred Balance" by David Suzuki if you get a chance, its definitely an eye opener and has many great ideas (such as local homegrown energy where every home produces at least 25% of its energy needs, but in a realistic sense). Please don't take this as just offhand advice, it is really a great book.

I will check it out, the problem is that I am not against green tech though, I just don't like human climate change. I am a big advocate of solar power.

[NT1440]

I will check it out, the problem is that I am not against green tech though, I just don't like human climate change. I am a big advocate of solar power.

But what leg do you have to stand on other than your assumptions based on nothing but, your own assumptions?

[Zombie Acorn]

But what leg do you have to stand on other than your assumptions based on nothing but, your own assumptions?

I don't have to have a leg to stand on being in the dissenting crowd, I am not asking you to believe anything. The IPCC reports show conclusionary (yes I just made that up) gaps of anywhere from 10-40% depending on which topic they were assessing. Thats not good enough for me to reshape and harm our economy in the short term. If Obama wants to put money into green technology I am all for it, but a carbon credit system is an immediate punishment on an economy and the poor.

[NT1440]

I don't have to have a leg to stand on being in the dissenting crowd, I am not asking you to believe anything. The IPCC reports show conclusionary (yes I just made that up) gaps of anywhere from 10-40% depending on which topic they were assessing.

First, what is with this number game of yours, you seem to be willing to accept way lower percentages if it aligns with your personal thinking (AKA 0% but its your idea so it stands).

Second, where do you even get these percentages from?:confused:

[63dot]

This is one of Rush's dumber ideas...and he's having more and more of them.



The weirder he gets, to the more listeners pro and con, he is likely to attract.

He is a master at getting attention, and in his case bad news is good news. If a unknown radio guy got caught on drug charges, he may lose a job. But with Rush, it makes him more controversial, more edgy, and makes people hang on his every word to see if he's still high or if he truly recovered from drug abuse.

Howard Stern (another doozie) got progressively more strange and more offensive, and his financial position is stronger than when he was on regular, foul word banned, radio. When he was right there on the morning commute, there was nothing as shocking as what he does today. Howard is richer, and so is Rush.

It's shock jock radio, folks.

[Eraserhead]

(such as local homegrown energy where every home produces at least 25% of its energy needs, but in a realistic sense).

How do they do that efficiently? Solar is expensive, and localised wind is very inefficient.

[.Andy]

First, what is with this number game of yours, you seem to be willing to accept way lower percentages if it aligns with your personal thinking (AKA 0% but its your so it stands).

Second, where do you even get these percentages from?:confused:
It's just more scientific illiterature nonsense. In their synthesis reports the IPCC includes the terms "very likely" (>90% likelihood) and "likely" (>66% likelihood) to summarize the evidence on a range of issues. For instance anthropogenic climate change is given "very likely" status whereas the extinction of some species is given "likely" status. Absolute basic statistics when dealing with probabilities. Somehow ZA has taken these figures and perverted them into being FUD-termed "gaps". >90% likelihood has become a "10% gap" and >66% likelihood has become a "40% gap". The numerous basic maths failures there should be evident to anyone. Bear in mind this individual also claims that he could quite easily compile and determine climate trends from weather station and satellite data etc.....

It is just another desperate attempt to try and find some traction. As you point out he claims that only when we are "more certain" should we embark on "drastic measures" that will "ruin the economy". It's the same fallacious claim that he has made in previous threads. It's mixing the political with the science, and more gravely trying to position the goalposts where they cannot be reached when dealing with probability. (edit: here is the previous thread where he came up with this percentage claim - the page is worth a read!). (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8601852&highlight=Ipcc+likely#post8601852) It should be noted however that ZA can assert with 100% certainty that anthropogenic warming is "going to be proven false" :rolleyes:.

It is also a hilarious change in argumentative direction from someone who in this single thread has asserted that climate change science is a worldwide conspiracy to push a liberal agenda. He keeps flipping between claiming that it is all rubbish and the data is fake to accepting the data but trying to position the data as inconclusive.

[IntheNet]

He is a master at getting attention...

True; but that is his job and his ratings attest to his magnificence...

Just this week he served as a judge at The Miss America Pageant (http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/30/rush-limbaugh-miss-america-dancing-video/), one of his many roles in addition to his radio show. While you may dislike his views and fault him for his beliefs, you cannot take away from his ratings which are skyrocketing. More important, the left has nobody even close to size of his following. I listened to his words in person last year at the CPAC and met him (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html); he is a genuine American and devotee of the conservative cause. It was an honor to meet him and realize how many follow his guidance.

[Rt&Dzine]

True; but that is his job and his ratings attest to his magnificence...

Just this week he served as a judge at The Miss America Pageant (http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/30/rush-limbaugh-miss-america-dancing-video/), one of his many roles in addition to his radio show. While you may dislike his views and fault him for his beliefs, you cannot take away from his ratings which are skyrocketing. More important, the left has nobody even close to size of his following. I listened to his words in person last year at the CPAC and met him (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html); he is a genuine American and devotee of the conservative cause. It was an honor to meet him and realize how many follow his guidance.

I'll grant you that he's a media genius. But he's not a good American. And as far as a beauty contestant judge . . . slightly ironic since he's a misogynist.

[Desertrat]

Sure must be a lot of regular listeners here, to have credibility for alleging the man's faults. :D Ah, well, just part of those 20 million daily listeners, I guess.

Gotta give Ol' Rush credit, though: He can make a jesting remark and it sends folks into pages of Internet bombast. Just as bombastic as El Rushbo, really. :D:D

It doesn't matter one iota if the change in the climate is for warming or for cooling: The various legislative proposals for dealing with warming will indeed have serious negative impacts on our economy.

Look: The demographers allege a population increase here to some 360 million by the year 2050. Check the US Census for our population at the time of the Kyoto Accords. Consider the CO2 emissions limits of the Accords. Our economy and our physical standard of living are functions of energy use and CO2 emissions.

So the immediate question is that of jobs for a helluva lot more people and their getting to them--and you can't ignore the amount of individual capital investment in their residential locations. TANSTAAFL.

Ergo, Rush is correct in his larger-frame picture, regardless of any details, bombast or snark.

One of the oldest games in town: "I don't like the message! Shoot the messenger!" :D:D:D

[Eraserhead]

Gotta give Ol' Rush credit, though: He can make a jesting remark and it sends folks into pages of Internet bombast. Just as bombastic as El Rushbo, really. :D:D

Connecting Osama Bin Laden to the Democratic party is incredibly irresponsible.

Our economy and our physical standard of living are functions of energy use and CO2 emissions.

Actually energy use per dollar created goes down significantly as a country develops.

Ergo, Rush is correct in his larger-frame picture, regardless of any details, bombast or snark.

What that the Democratic party is connected to Osama Bin Laden?

One of the oldest games in town: "I don't like the message! Shoot the messenger!" :D:D:D

I think its the message that's most at fault here. Rush could just have decided to let this go - and Osama Bin Laden wouldn't have won a victory to divide American further.

[Rt&Dzine]

I think its the message that's most at fault here. Rush could just have decided to let this go - and Osama Bin Laden wouldn't have won a victory to divide American further.

Hmmm . . . interesting. Rush and Osama have the same agenda. They're on the same team! :D

[Eraserhead]

Hmmm . . . interesting. Rush and Osama have the same agenda. They're on the same team! :D

If Rush wants to divide America then that makes him very un-patriotic.

[gibbz]

It is also a hilarious change in argumentative direction from someone who in this single thread has asserted that climate change science is a worldwide conspiracy to push a liberal agenda. He keeps flipping between claiming that it is all rubbish and the data is fake to accepting the data but trying to position the data as inconclusive.

I think it is also clear that ZA has a hard time differentiating from science and policy. Warming is occurring and humans are (in a some substantial manner) responsible for the current trend. This is inarguable.

If ZA would like to dispute this, I await an intelligent argument against any of the robust science contained in the IPCC reports that extends beyond the ignorant dislike of terms like "very likely" (which by the way are a necessity in attribution studies). My bet is there won't be said argument.

If people wish to argue policy, then fine. But to tie in a dislike of policy to the science is silly.

FWIW, NASA recently reported (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html) that 2009 was the 2nd warmest year on record and the past decade was the warmest such period on record.
“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

I guess we liberal scientists just made this up too.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's just more scientific illiterature nonsense. In their synthesis reports the IPCC includes the terms "very likely" (>90% likelihood) and "likely" (>66% likelihood) to summarize the evidence on a range of issues. For instance anthropogenic climate change is given "very likely" status whereas the extinction of some species is given "likely" status. Absolute basic statistics when dealing with probabilities. Somehow ZA has taken these figures and perverted them into being FUD-termed "gaps". >90% likelihood has become a "10% gap" and >66% likelihood has become a "40% gap". The numerous basic maths failures there should be evident to anyone. Bear in mind this individual also claims that he could quite easily compile and determine climate trends from weather station and satellite data etc.....


If something has a 90% chance of happening, what is the chance that it won't happen? If you are 90% sure something is going to happen, does that not leave a 10% gap of uncertainty?

Also it would be quite easy to set up and compile data from different stations. The sensors are already developed, all we need to use is standard networking technology and data storage. All technology needed is readily available, a program to log temperature data would not be hard to create at all.

[Zombie Acorn]

I think it is also clear that ZA has a hard time differentiating from science and policy. Warming is occurring and humans are (in a some substantial manner) responsible for the current trend. This is inarguable.

If ZA would like to dispute this, I await an intelligent argument against any of the robust science contained in the IPCC reports that extends beyond the ignorant dislike of terms like "very likely" (which by the way are a necessity in attribution studies). My bet is there won't be said argument.

If people wish to argue policy, then fine. But to tie in a dislike of policy to the science is silly.

FWIW, NASA recently reported (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html) that 2009 was the 2nd warmest year on record and the past decade was the warmest such period on record.


I guess we liberal scientists just made this up too.

If you were right there would be nothing we could do anyways. As I stated before there is no way we are going to go back to pre-industrialized emissions, and even if we do decide to go back to living in caves, other countries will not follow.

Also the earth has warmed and cooled before, I am not worried.

[Eraserhead]

Also the earth has warmed and cooled before, I am not worried.

Yes, but over much longer timescales...

[IntheNet]

If Rush wants to divide America then that makes him very un-patriotic.

I take offense to the unsubstantiated premise that Mr. Limbaugh has any interest in "dividing" America; that is a great misread of Rush and his central message. Certainly, in this center right nation, a devout following of what Mr. Limbaugh stands for is essentially a conservative political understanding. That's not dividing but uniting. Moreover, messages of far left progressivism, like that sold by now defunct Air America, fail in this center right nation; thus the widespread message of Rush Limbaugh is one of conservative uniting to the majority of American citizens.

[Eraserhead]

I take offense to the unsubstantiated premise that Mr. Limbaugh has any interest in "dividing" America;

If he is claiming that Osama Bin Laden is writing the Democrats talking points then he most clearly is attempting to divide America.

[Rt&Dzine]

I take offense to the unsubstantiated premise that Mr. Limbaugh has any interest in "dividing" America; that is a great misread of Rush and his central message. Certainly, in this center right nation, a devout following of what Mr. Limbaugh stands for is essentially a conservative political understanding. That's not dividing but uniting. Moreover, messages of far left progressivism, like that sold by now defunct Air America, fail in this center right nation; thus the widespread message of Rush Limbaugh is one of conservative uniting to the majority of American citizens.

Limbaugh wants our country to fail (he said so). Bin Laden wants our country to fail. They must be working together. That's the same type of logic that Limbaugh uses to amuse his listeners. It's okay when he does it to someone else. But you're offended when Limbaugh is the butt of the joke. :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

If something has a 90% chance of happening, what is the chance that it won't happen? If you are 90% sure something is going to happen, does that not leave a 10% gap of uncertainty?
It is greater than 90% certainty. That is between 90% and 98% likelihood as the IPCC presents it. It had been linked and explained to you multiple times and you either still can't understand or choose not to. You don't understand statistics. It's not a "10% gap". That means nothing and is just empty FUD.

And that is not to mention that your "40% gap" is entirely fictonal. That figure doesn't even exist in the IPCC categories even taking into account you erroneous gap attribution.

Also the earth has warmed and cooled before, I am not worried.
The cyclical nature of climate was determined by exactly the same climate scientists whose data and conclusions you are arbitrarily rejecting now as a worldwide liberal conspiracy. The blatant dishonesty in picking and choosing what suits your politics and position is absolutely asinine.

[Sydde]

...in this center right nation...

You can repeat that assertion all you want, that will not make it any more accurate that the first time. What appears to be your definition of "center-right" is a great long way from the general mindset of the American people.

[NT1440]

How do they do that efficiently? Solar is expensive, and localised wind is very inefficient.

I'd have to reread the book but it focuses on what happens to be a good resource in a given area, be it geothermal, wind, solar, etc etc

[63dot]

True; but that is his job and his ratings attest to his magnificence...

Just this week he served as a judge at The Miss America Pageant (http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/30/rush-limbaugh-miss-america-dancing-video/), one of his many roles in addition to his radio show. While you may dislike his views and fault him for his beliefs, you cannot take away from his ratings which are skyrocketing. More important, the left has nobody even close to size of his following. I listened to his words in person last year at the CPAC and met him (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html); he is a genuine American and devotee of the conservative cause. It was an honor to meet him and realize how many follow his guidance.

People who are on the left are also genuine Americans, of course if they were born here or later got citizenship. This reminds me of a controversial cabinet member Reagan once had who said that there are Democrats, and there are Americans. Nobody knew exactly if he was inferring that Democrats are not Americans, but I hope that's not what you think.

I am a registered Democrat, but I believe people of the other opposing parties are also Americans. America is a country that has more than one party, and genuine ones in all parties.

[IntheNet]

People who are on the left are also genuine Americans, of course if they were born here or later got citizenship. This reminds me of a controversial cabinet member Reagan once had who said that there are Democrats, and there are Americans. Nobody knew exactly if he was inferring that Democrats are not Americans, but I hope that's not what you think...

My post did not provide clarification that is needed here; I see a huge difference between real Democrats are Far Left Progressives; Rush Limbaugh has spoken often on this point...Said another way, I do not have quarrel with traditional Democrats. While I disagree with their policy I respect them. We cannot, however, respect Far Left Progressives since their advocacy is un-American; their dream is one of America's failure. I firmly believe the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Far Left and their are honest Democrats who resent this Progressive shift. I believe this is the reason Senator Lieberman became an Independent. As Republicans, we hear lots of condemnation about the GOP and its treatment of moderates but not a whisper about how the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Far Left. For eight years Democrats screamed about Deficit Spending, now look at what is going on by our Far Left President and the Far Left Senate/House majority! Pelosi's San Francisco Far Left Liberalism is not equatable with traditional Democratic Party planks but where is the complaints from traditional Democrats? Senator Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts was the safest in the nation for Democrats and look what happened....

[Eraserhead]

We cannot, however, respect Far Left Progressives since their advocacy is un-American; their dream is one of America's failure. I firmly believe the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Far Left

Who are these far left democrat's and what are their policies?

[IntheNet]

Who are these far left democrat's and what are their policies?

Since you'll not accept my assessment and answer to that question will you accept the assessment of one of your own, a former Democrat? Here he answers your question:

Democrats Hijacked by Hard-Left Base, Lieberman Says
Sunday, March 30, 2008
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/democrats-hijacked-by-hard-left-base.html

I know you probably don't like Joe Lieberman but he was a long-term Democrat and you should listen to his assessment...

[Eraserhead]

That doesn't really answer my question...

It throws some comments like:

It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government.

Obama seems to have done the first and fourth, he's largely (aside from the tyres) done the third and he's been reasonably strong on defence too.

So they don't really fit with the reality.

EDIT: And neither Universal Healthcare (which every other developed country has) or Cap and Trade (which is using a market-based systems to cut CO2 emissions and increase efficiency if nothing else.) are "far left" policies by any means.

[Rt&Dzine]

My post did not provide clarification that is needed here; I see a huge difference between real Democrats are Far Left Progressives; Rush Limbaugh has spoken often on this point...Said another way, I do not have quarrel with traditional Democrats. While I disagree with their policy I respect them. We cannot, however, respect Far Left Progressives since their advocacy is un-American; their dream is one of America's failure.

I think you're confused. Limbaugh wants America to fail, not the liberals.

[bobber205]

I know these are just names but...

"Conservatives" What are they trying to conserve? Social traditions? Doesn't that make you sound like a stick in the mud?

"Progressives" Yeah. Progress is totally bad.... :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

Rt&Dzine, the idea that Limbaugh wants the country to fail is one of the silliest ideas ever to be uttered.

Obama is not the country. And, given the percentage of voters who supported him, and the decline in the polls for opinions of how he's doing with his on-the-job training, it's now obvious that he doesn't even represent the general views of the people of this country.

Limbaugh doesn't want, has opposed, this govenment takeover of banks, industry and medicine. He wants Obama to fail in these endeavors. Limbaugh objects to Obama's efforts to move this country farther to the left, farther toward failure as a country. And, given the track record of government in managing anything, I for one danged sure don't blame him for that.

Was Obama a liar, in his autobiographies? Has he repudiated those to whom he referred as mentors? Have those mentors not, in their own writings, called for the failure of this society and a rebuilding in a full-bore socialist system? I refer, of course, to Alinsky and others such as Ayres...

So who is more likely to have an interest in creating a leftist failure? One who has become wealthy from the present system, or a leftist politician?

One thing for sure: The monetary policies of Obama and his advisors have us well on our way to financial ruination--fiscal failure. The "ease the pain" printing of money and the government spending is about like taking aspirin against the pain of a brain tumor. Palliative but not curative.

[Rt&Dzine]

Rt&Dzine, the idea that Limbaugh wants the country to fail is one of the silliest ideas ever to be uttered.


Don't even try to tell me Limbaugh isn't detrimental to this country . . . distorting facts to get his listeners misinformed just to feed his egotistical mind and his wallet.

[CaptMurdock]

Since you'll not accept my assessment and answer to that question will you accept the assessment of one of your own, a former Democrat? Here he answers your question:

Democrats Hijacked by Hard-Left Base, Lieberman Says
Sunday, March 30, 2008
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/democrats-hijacked-by-hard-left-base.html

I know you probably don't like Joe Lieberman but he was a long-term Democrat and you should listen to his assessment...

Yes, this is Lieberman's assessment...in March 2008. How timely. :rolleyes: He's obviously still smarting from getting voted out in the Democratic primary...want some cheese with that sour-grapes whine, Joey?

And it does not name even one "far-left Democrat." So, you dodged Eraserhead's question, like you dodged dozens in this forum. Typical.

Oh, Desertrat, the fact that Limbaugh has made plenty of money in "the present system" is hardly an indictment of President Obama and his policies. I guess successful drug dealers and porn stars are your role models, because they made money hand over fist. ;)

[Zombie Acorn]

It is greater than 90% certainty. That is between 90% and 98% likelihood as the IPCC presents it. It had been linked and explained to you multiple times and you either still can't understand or choose not to. You don't understand statistics. It's not a "10% gap". That means nothing and is just empty FUD.

I attribute the 10% gap to the fact that they are not willing to up their certainty level or stick with a hard number. If they were certain it was greater than 90% they could simply put a percentage greater than 90%. Since they are uncertain they will only label it 90% or greater to be safe.

And that is not to mention that your "40% gap" is entirely fictonal. That figure doesn't even exist in the IPCC categories even taking into account you erroneous gap attribution.

It was close enough, after all these aren't exactly hard estimates.

The cyclical nature of climate was determined by exactly the same climate scientists whose data and conclusions you are arbitrarily rejecting now as a worldwide liberal conspiracy. The blatant dishonesty in picking and choosing what suits your politics and position is absolutely asinine.

I had no problem with the science before political interests were involved, I do now believe these scientists have been politicized and are manipulating data. By the way, Phil Jones still hasn't been reinstated, and I do believe he has yet to comment on some of his colorful email tidbits.

[Eraserhead]

I attribute the 10% gap to the fact that they are not willing to up their certainty level or stick with a hard number.

That's because the science isn't 100% there yet. The reason they are banging on the drum is that if they are right (and there is a 90% chance of that) we are in serious trouble.

[IntheNet]

That doesn't really answer my question..

I think you already know the answer here if your question is about far left democrats and their policies... me trying to prove it to you is just emboldening the issue... Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate before his movement to the presidency; Nancy Pelosi the most liberal Speaker. Harry Reid in her accord. The three top Democrats the party's most liberal members. Where is the Blue Dog (moderate) representation within the Democrat party leadership? Hundreds have made this charge; i.e., the Democrat Party being hijacked by the far left, for you to seriously deny the claim is sort of disingenuous. Nonetheless, I provide a few references so you will not claim I am avoiding your question...

Not Your Father's Democratic Party
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16436

Extreme Left Hijacking Local Democratic Party Chairs
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/03/extreme-left-hijacking-local-democratic.html

How the Progressive Movement Hijacked the Once Noble Democrat Party
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2121643/how_the_progressive_movement_hijacked.html?cat=9

[Eraserhead]

I think you already know the answer here if your question is about far left democrats and their policies... me trying to prove it to you is just emboldening the issue... Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate before his movement to the presidency; Nancy Pelosi the most liberal Speaker. Harry Reid in her accord. The three top Democrats the party's most liberal members.

I'll take a look at the sources in a minute, but what are their far left policies?

[Zombie Acorn]

That's because the science isn't 100% there yet. The reason they are banging on the drum is that if they are right (and there is a 90% chance of that) we are in serious trouble.

Their data seems a bit too convenient though, they state at a year 2000 constant we somehow flatline and only raise at .1 d C per decade or somewhere there about. Yet from 1900-1940 we saw a steeper incline than that with less CO2 emissions.

It seems to me they are setting up a "good job, you saved the world, but we have to keep working at it" scenario for themselves.

[Eraserhead]

Not Your Father's Democratic Party
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16436

Some random rubbish about how Obama/the Democrat leadership isn't serious about the war on terror. Given that Obama has actually committed the extra troops for Afghanistan and has made a military buildup against Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf) makes their claims fairly baseless. Considering that the war on terror isn't always 100% wonderful just requires a bit of knowledge about how the world actually operates and that not everyone loves the Americans.

Extreme Left Hijacking Local Democratic Party Chairs
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/03/extreme-left-hijacking-local-democratic.html

No evidence this is even true, or is anything more than a one-off.

How the Progressive Movement Hijacked the Once Noble Democrat Party
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2121643/how_the_progressive_movement_hijacked.html?cat=9

Some ranting on "progressives" and "fear" which manages to cover four pages without making a single substantial point.

Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate before his movement to the presidency;

Even if that is true (and the national journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm) aren't really explaining their methodology very well) given that Obama is centre-right that just says that the US Senate is generally very conservative.

[.Andy]

I attribute the 10% gap to the fact that they are not willing to up their certainty level or stick with a hard number. If they were certain it was greater than 90% they could simply put a percentage greater than 90%. Since they are uncertain they will only label it 90% or greater to be safe.
More nonsense. Your 10% gap claim in just wrong. Utterly wrong. Instead of admitting you have no idea what you are talking about you are making further ridiculous excuses. To claim that at 90%+ likelihood things are still too uncertain to act is again asinine.

It was close enough, after all these aren't exactly hard estimates.
No again it was blatantly dishonest. It wasn't even remotely close. It both demonstrates that you are unable to understand statistics, you don't know what you are talking about, and you are not even bothered to attempt to engage in quality debate. if a scientist was even a fraction as loose or misrepesented figures as you do you would be crying bloody murder and likely have a libertarian aneurysm.

I had no problem with the science before political interests were involved, I do now believe these scientists have been politicized and are manipulating data.
You don't believe because it goes against your politics. It's as simple as that and obvious to anyone watching your nauseous contortions. But by all means continue to make the claim that climate scientists worldwide have all decided to sign up to push a liberal agenda. That claim alone has been enough to demonstrate your inability to be at all objective.

By the way, Phil Jones still hasn't been reinstated, and I do believe he has yet to comment on some of his colorful email tidbits.
Such as?

[opinioncircle]

Since you'll not accept my assessment and answer to that question will you accept the assessment of one of your own, a former Democrat? Here he answers your question:

Democrats Hijacked by Hard-Left Base, Lieberman Says
Sunday, March 30, 2008
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/democrats-hijacked-by-hard-left-base.html

I know you probably don't like Joe Lieberman but he was a long-term Democrat and you should listen to his assessment...

Lieberman....Hum, why don't you travel a little bit around the world and see what HARD LEFT BASE mean?!! Lieberman is IMHO as smart as anyone working at Fox News at the moment. That should speak volumes...

[Zombie Acorn]

More nonsense. Your 10% gap claim in just wrong. Utterly wrong. Instead of admitting you have no idea what you are talking about you are making further ridiculous excuses. To claim that at 90%+ likelihood things are still too uncertain to act is again asinine.

It depends what the costs of action are, putting a choke hold on our economy in recessionary times in order to appease a theory that is unable to obtain a certainty above a 90% threshold is not acceptable to me.


No again it was blatantly dishonest. It wasn't even remotely close. It both demonstrates that you are unable to understand statistics, you don't know what you are talking about, and you are not even bothered to attempt to engage in quality debate. if a scientist was even a fraction as loose or misrepesented figures as you do you would be crying bloody murder and likely have a libertarian aneurysm.

6% difference. Big deal. I misquoted the statistic that they had posted, I am not publishing this information. Also it is evident that as many times as you state that I don't understand statistics I have yet to hear a reason why. The scientists are not confident to post percentages higher than what they have. If there is a 9/10 chance of the world getting a few degrees C warmer and I have to destroy the economy in order to stop it, what is my choice going to be? I think you already know.

Even at a 100% certainty I would question whether now is the best time to act.

You don't believe because it goes against your politics. It's as simple as that and obvious to anyone watching your nauseous contortions. But by all means continue to make the claim that climate scientists worldwide have all decided to sign up to push a liberal agenda. That claim alone has been enough to demonstrate your inability to be at all objective.

I have no choice with incidents like the director of a top research facility in the industry being under investigation.


Such as?

There has been no comment from Phil Jones on his "hide the decline" portion of an email. This issue is still being investigated (although I doubt very rigorously).

[.Andy]

It depends what the costs of action are, putting a choke hold on our economy in recessionary times in order to appease a theory that is unable to obtain a certainty above a 90% threshold is not acceptable to me.
Which is a good example of your political motivation. The fact that the only course of action you see is a "chokehold on the economy" means that you have decided to attack the science. So far your multi-pronged and contradictory arguments have been:


The science is a worldwide conspiracy across multiple disciplines to push a liberal agenda.
The theory will be proven wrong (no working shown)
climate change is cyclical (scientists are right on this) and not man made (the same scientists are lying about this)
the science is legit (no longer a conspiracy) but >90% likelihood is too weak


It's pretty obvious that you can't put together a cohesive argument on This issue.

6% difference. Big deal. In science it is. That absolute 6% difference was a misrepresentation of over 10%.

I misquoted the statistic that they had posted, I am not publishing this information.
You are using this information in a debate. It speaks volumes that you don't care or even bother to check the validity of what you type. Nor are you able to admit you're wrong when called on it.

I have no choice with incidents like the director of a top research facility in the industry being under investigation.
Nonsense. The logical conclusion from the director of a single institute being investigated is not that the whole field of climate research is a worldwide conspiracy to push a liberal agenda.

There has been no comment from Phil Jones on his "hide the decline" portion of an email. This issue is still being investigated
I have explained this quote in context in multiple threads you have participated in. Perhaps you can explain what is referred to by "decline" and why it is being "hidden"?

(although I doubt very rigorously).
(more conspiracy theory nonsense)

[NT1440]

Andy, give it up, no matter how many times you show him he can't even have an honest debate or a cohesive stance, he's not going to stop. Like you said, he is 100% politically driven so why even bother? The rest of us have seen this and you've only just cemented it, so as a person with no credibility in these forums any more, why bother to continue?

That said, it is very entertaining to see how many times a person can contradict themselves.

[Zombie Acorn]

I have not contradicted myself, I have laid out scenarios assuming that the data is not being manipulated for political reasons. Again I do not care that the globe may or may not be heating up, we need accurate causes. If you are laying all your eggs in the CO2 basket then I don't expect to see any cooling trends for the foreseeable future. If and when the projections aren't met I will be here.

[.Andy]

Andy, give it up, no matter how many times you show him he can't even have an honest debate or a cohesive stance, he's not going to stop. Like you said, he is 100% politically driven so why even bother? The rest of us have seen this and you've only just cemented it, so as a person with no credibility in these forums any more, why bother to continue?

That said, it is very entertaining to see how many times a person can contradict themselves.
Think I willl take this advice :).

[HitchHykr]

Climate change isn't an agenda, its real - however much our governments wish it wasn't.

The climate has been changing since there has been a climate.

[Eraserhead]

The climate has been changing since there has been a climate.

Well yes, but man's influence has only begun recently. And its mans influence which is usually referred to as climate change.

[HitchHykr]

Limbaugh's logic (or lack of) goes like this:

Find a subject where someone "evil" (aka doesn't agree with rush) agrees with someone Rush doesn't like.

Ride that as somehow supporting evil.


I can't wait for him to bash Obama for agreeing with the Ft. Hood shooter that oxygen is a good thing for the American people.

I guess some liberals, I'm sorry, Progressives, can't decipher satire either ;)

[NT1440]

I guess some liberals, I'm sorry, Progressives, can't decipher satire either ;)

He does this when ranting on just about everything, its a tired tactic and in no way is he always being satirical.

[bobber205]

I would think if you could scientifically prove a 1% chance the world is in deep trouble due to climate change, you'd want to do anything you could to stop it. It's the end of the world as we know it. Global wars for water. Millions upon millions dead.


Slight less economic in the meantime seems like a small price to pay for what we'd suffer in the long run. If it turns out to be nothing, so what?

[Zombie Acorn]

I would think if you could scientifically prove a 1% chance the world is in deep trouble due to climate change, you'd want to do anything you could to stop it. It's the end of the world as we know it. Global wars for water. Millions upon millions dead.


Slight less economic in the meantime seems like a small price to pay for what we'd suffer in the long run. If it turns out to be nothing, so what?

Even if we kept CO2 levels at year 2000 levels we are still rising in temperatures according to projections. That would take into account the cooperation of every developing and undeveloped countries to stop using cheap and easy methods and to start using more expensive hard ones. That might seem easy enough to you, but we are on the top of the food chain. You live green by recycling your plastic, some kid in an underdeveloped nation is going to be living green by starving.

[bobber205]

Even if we kept CO2 levels at year 2000 levels we are still rising in temperatures according to projections. That would take into account the cooperation of every developing and undeveloped countries to stop using cheap and easy methods and to start using more expensive hard ones. That might seem easy enough to you, but we are on the top of the food chain. You live green by recycling your plastic, some kid in an underdeveloped nation is going to be living green by starving.

That's solved by something called FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. :rolleyes: