Nick 0 #1 July 11, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm QuoteA new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 July 11, 2007 Quote"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, Since when is a scientist not willing to debate differing theories? All of the sudden, one guy found the silver bullet? I don't think so.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpjc2000 0 #3 July 11, 2007 Wolf...Wolf...Wolf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #4 July 11, 2007 QuoteWolf...Wolf...Wolf Good debate!!! Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #5 July 11, 2007 We've got to do something about this. The sun is going out. Somehow we've got to refuel the sun. Maybe we can load all of our trash on rockets and send them to the sun. I'm really a greenie at heart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #6 July 11, 2007 Is the BBC a peer reviewed scientific journal? Hardly the best source from which to gain an informed opinion. While the alarmists ring their bells and the deniers blow their whistles the scientists behind the scenes are doing the real work. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #7 July 11, 2007 QuoteWe've got to do something about this. The sun is going out. Somehow we've got to refuel the sun. Maybe we can load all of our trash on rockets and send them to the sun. I'm really a greenie at heart. Are you advocating the building and use of the B ark?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 53 #8 July 11, 2007 Quote Somehow we've got to refuel the sun. Maybe we can load all of our trash on rockets and send them to the sun. Right, and I declare myself in charge of deciding who is trash and who gets to stay!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #9 July 11, 2007 Quote Is the BBC a peer reviewed scientific journal? Hardly the best source from which to gain an informed opinion. I think the BBC was just reporting on what was published the Royal Society of London, which is a respected scientific organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #10 July 11, 2007 No the BBC is a broadcasting organistion that reports the news. However the Royal Society (the publishers of the report) is probably one of the oldest and most learned academy of scientists in the world (just out of interest is was founded in the 1600s). The report writer was Mike Lockwood, based at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in Oxfordshire. You can understand how the reports are published using the links (to the Royal Society and RAL) on the BBC website. For an understanding on how the gathering and reporting of sience news works there might be something on Wiki, can't be arsed to look myself as I feel I understand. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 July 11, 2007 QuoteAre you advocating the building and use of the B ark? What? Don't you like your telephone cleaned by a professional? All sparkly and fresh smelling. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #12 July 11, 2007 QuoteAre you advocating the building and use of the B ark? Sorry, I think that I've missed the boat on that one. Please explain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you advocating the building and use of the B ark? Sorry, I think that I've missed the boat on that one. Please explain. 42 ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #14 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you advocating the building and use of the B ark? Sorry, I think that I've missed the boat on that one. Please explain. 42 I'm sorry, what's the question? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #15 July 11, 2007 apple pie "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,095 #16 July 11, 2007 >All of the sudden, one guy found the silver bullet? Well, more like two guys, several dozen RA's and three universities determined that the sun is most likely NOT the silver bullet. For the actual paper minus the BBC fluff, check here: http://www.publishing.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #17 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuote"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, Since when is a scientist not willing to debate differing theories?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ What really gives away the political agenda of the modern day Chicken Littles is their reaction to good news. These people presumeably believe that 1) global warming is happening, 2) that it's a bad thing, and 3) that mankind (especially those members of the species who live in America) is causing it to occur. However, when confronted with evidence that it may not be nearly as bad as they had been led to believe, they do not receive this information as good news. Instead, they become angry and begin shouting insults, calling people "deniers," "flat-Earthers," etc. Recently a meteorologist at the Weather Channel suggested that any of her colleagues who refuse to march in goose-step formation behind these climate crisis evangelists have their professional credentials rescinded. Add to this the recent scientific analysis of temperature changes on Mars, which to date has enjoyed very little human activity, and we can further expose "global warming" for the Big Lie it always has been. Josef Goebbels would be proud. Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,095 #18 July 11, 2007 >they become angry and begin shouting insults, calling people "deniers," >"flat-Earthers," . . . . . . heck, I hear they even compare people to Josef Goebbels! Can you believe that? Irony award of the day goes to Airman1270. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #19 July 11, 2007 Quote All of the sudden, one guy found the silver bullet? I don't think so. It has happened before. It will happen again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #20 July 11, 2007 Quote>they become angry and begin shouting insults, calling people "deniers," >"flat-Earthers," . . . . . . heck, I hear they even compare people to Josef Goebbels! Can you believe that? Irony award of the day goes to Airman1270. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nice try. History lesson: Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. His function was to manipulate public opinion by repeating false information designed to persuade people to support the Nazi leadership. This task was made easier due to the secular leftist German government's iron-fisted control over the exchange of information. Let's see what we have going on today: A group of secular leftists are promoting a theory designed to scare people and persuade them to vote for more secular leftists, who will then impose more legislation designed to siphon off even more money and freedom from the American people. In addition, while they do not have complete control over the media as the Nazis did, they have been attempting to gain more such control not only by demonizing elements of the media they cannot control (talk radio, Ann Coulter, Fox News, etc.) but are actively seeking legislation designed to inhibit the free exchange of information ("Fairness" Doctrine.) The comparison to Goebbels was not only accurate, but was an understatement. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,095 #21 July 11, 2007 >Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? >A group of secular leftists are promoting a theory designed to scare >people and persuade them to vote for more secular leftists Nope. I understand a lot of the science behind climate change, and I'm a catholic. Most scientists are not "secular leftists" and most of them working the issue understand it as well. But that's the science arena. In the political arena, the alarmists are taken some pretty basic scientific research and using it to scare people, which is sad. Even sadder are the right wing political types trying to suppress the science because it interferes with their political goals, and they fear "the other side will win" if the science is accepted. The cigarette industry faced a similar problem in the 1950's; their reaction was similar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #22 July 11, 2007 Quote>Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The comparison is accurate. See previous post for details. >A group of secular leftists are promoting a theory designed to scare >people and persuade them to vote for more secular leftists... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is SOP for the left: Try to create hand-wringing hysteria followed by promises to "fix" the alleged crisis. Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to be okay. (Quick example: Unless riding in a limousine, it is a crime for a passenger in a vehicle to drink alcohol, regardless of the fact that the driver is sober and there is no threat to public safety. All because some politicians promised to "do something" about drunk driving.) ...In the political arena, the alarmists are taken some pretty basic scientific research and using it to scare people... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Exactly my point. Hence the Geobbles reference. ...Even sadder are the right wing political types trying to suppress the science because it interferes with their political goals, and they fear "the other side will win" if the science is accepted... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It is the left that is trying to suppress scientific evidence that does not prove the theory. Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" The people who pay the least amount of attention to the details of political debate are still exposed to the constant chatter pushed by the media. They do not know about the behind-the-scenes quarrels - all they know is that every time they turn on the radio or watch the Weather Channel they see the issue being discussed. Furthermore, the people they are hearing are all in agreement that G.W. IS happening, and that if they drive a different car or use a more expensive light bulb they will "save" the planet. I believe your REAL problem with my Goebbels reference is that it's right smack of the money. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,095 #23 July 11, 2007 >The comparison is accurate. If the only way you can make a political point is to compare someone to Hitler's regime - you've already lost the argument. >Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy >on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people >find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to >be okay. Yep, a good description of both the left and right wing's approach to political issues. "Partial birth abortion" would be a good example from the right wing. Ignore medical indications of when it's necessary to the health of the mother, and instead launch into emotional appeals to "ripping the screaming baby's skull apart with crushing force." When the dust settles, you discover your wife might die in childbirth because you can't abort a fetus that's not going to live more than a few hours outside the womb anyway. >It is the left that is trying to suppress scientific evidence that does not >prove the theory. Again, that's a characteristic of both the left and right wings. The right is trying their level best to suppress any mention of global warming, because they fear that greater understanding of it will cost them elections. >Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our >heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without >hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" When's the last time you went a month without ANYTHING about how we're fighting terrorism in Iraq? Again, it's a tactic both sides use. >Furthermore, the people they are hearing are all in agreement that G.W. IS happening . . . No one doubts that any more because they can look out their windows. When your house is sinking into the permafrost, you're not going to believe a right-winger who compares climate change scientists to Nazi liars. You're going to start listening to the scientist who has studied it instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #24 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote >Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The comparison is accurate. See previous post for details. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #25 July 11, 2007 Quote>The comparison is accurate. If the only way you can make a political point is to compare someone to Hitler's regime - you've already lost the argument... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ But, if the comparison is accurate how can you claim the argument is lost? You did not refute my statement; You simply said that the fact that I made a comparison to what was happening in Europe in the 1930's is "proof" that I must be wrong. >Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy >on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people >find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to >be okay. Yep, a good description of both the left and right wing's approach to political issues. "Partial birth abortion" would be a good example from the right wing. Ignore medical indications of when it's necessary to the health of the mother... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Typical. Whenever the left starts getting worked up about "liberty" it always has something to do with sex, abortion, pornograpjy, or blasphemy. Partial birth abortion is NEVER medically necessary. Furthermore, in the rare case that it might be necessary to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life you won't find ANY significant opposition from anywhere in the political spectrum. .., and instead launch into emotional appeals to "ripping the screaming baby's skull apart with crushing force."... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is simply a description of what occurs during a P.B.A. Why is an honest description interpreted as political propaganda? More to the point, why don't we test your hypothesis by making a list of the things we were free to do 30 years ago, but are illegal today? I'll bet you'd find far, far more legislation pushed by Democrats than by the evil "right wing." ...Again, that's a characteristic of both the left and right wings. The right is trying their level best to suppress any mention of global warming, because they fear that greater understanding of it will cost them elections. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ah, common ground. You admit that if the population becomes convinced that there is a climate crisis then more people will vote for Democrats. ...>Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our >heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without >hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" When's the last time you went a month without ANYTHING about how we're fighting terrorism in Iraq? Again, it's a tactic both sides use. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Global warming is a theory that has never been proven. Even if it really is happening, there is NO conclusive scientific evidence to indicate that mankind has had anything to do with it. In contrast, Islamic fanatics have repeatedly indicated their desire to kill Americans and anyone else who refuses to subjugate themselves to their worthless false god. They have been killing innocent people for many, many years. The attacks on our own soil (remember 9-11) and the dozens of attacks against our military and other targets around the world during the preceding couple of dozen years provide far more proof regarding the war on terror than anything you can cite to support your chicken little fantasies about climate change. The sad thing here is that if it were proven that there is no climate crisis, you would be disappointed. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,095 #18 July 11, 2007 >they become angry and begin shouting insults, calling people "deniers," >"flat-Earthers," . . . . . . heck, I hear they even compare people to Josef Goebbels! Can you believe that? Irony award of the day goes to Airman1270. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #19 July 11, 2007 Quote All of the sudden, one guy found the silver bullet? I don't think so. It has happened before. It will happen again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #20 July 11, 2007 Quote>they become angry and begin shouting insults, calling people "deniers," >"flat-Earthers," . . . . . . heck, I hear they even compare people to Josef Goebbels! Can you believe that? Irony award of the day goes to Airman1270. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nice try. History lesson: Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. His function was to manipulate public opinion by repeating false information designed to persuade people to support the Nazi leadership. This task was made easier due to the secular leftist German government's iron-fisted control over the exchange of information. Let's see what we have going on today: A group of secular leftists are promoting a theory designed to scare people and persuade them to vote for more secular leftists, who will then impose more legislation designed to siphon off even more money and freedom from the American people. In addition, while they do not have complete control over the media as the Nazis did, they have been attempting to gain more such control not only by demonizing elements of the media they cannot control (talk radio, Ann Coulter, Fox News, etc.) but are actively seeking legislation designed to inhibit the free exchange of information ("Fairness" Doctrine.) The comparison to Goebbels was not only accurate, but was an understatement. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,095 #21 July 11, 2007 >Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? >A group of secular leftists are promoting a theory designed to scare >people and persuade them to vote for more secular leftists Nope. I understand a lot of the science behind climate change, and I'm a catholic. Most scientists are not "secular leftists" and most of them working the issue understand it as well. But that's the science arena. In the political arena, the alarmists are taken some pretty basic scientific research and using it to scare people, which is sad. Even sadder are the right wing political types trying to suppress the science because it interferes with their political goals, and they fear "the other side will win" if the science is accepted. The cigarette industry faced a similar problem in the 1950's; their reaction was similar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #22 July 11, 2007 Quote>Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The comparison is accurate. See previous post for details. >A group of secular leftists are promoting a theory designed to scare >people and persuade them to vote for more secular leftists... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is SOP for the left: Try to create hand-wringing hysteria followed by promises to "fix" the alleged crisis. Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to be okay. (Quick example: Unless riding in a limousine, it is a crime for a passenger in a vehicle to drink alcohol, regardless of the fact that the driver is sober and there is no threat to public safety. All because some politicians promised to "do something" about drunk driving.) ...In the political arena, the alarmists are taken some pretty basic scientific research and using it to scare people... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Exactly my point. Hence the Geobbles reference. ...Even sadder are the right wing political types trying to suppress the science because it interferes with their political goals, and they fear "the other side will win" if the science is accepted... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It is the left that is trying to suppress scientific evidence that does not prove the theory. Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" The people who pay the least amount of attention to the details of political debate are still exposed to the constant chatter pushed by the media. They do not know about the behind-the-scenes quarrels - all they know is that every time they turn on the radio or watch the Weather Channel they see the issue being discussed. Furthermore, the people they are hearing are all in agreement that G.W. IS happening, and that if they drive a different car or use a more expensive light bulb they will "save" the planet. I believe your REAL problem with my Goebbels reference is that it's right smack of the money. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,095 #23 July 11, 2007 >The comparison is accurate. If the only way you can make a political point is to compare someone to Hitler's regime - you've already lost the argument. >Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy >on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people >find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to >be okay. Yep, a good description of both the left and right wing's approach to political issues. "Partial birth abortion" would be a good example from the right wing. Ignore medical indications of when it's necessary to the health of the mother, and instead launch into emotional appeals to "ripping the screaming baby's skull apart with crushing force." When the dust settles, you discover your wife might die in childbirth because you can't abort a fetus that's not going to live more than a few hours outside the womb anyway. >It is the left that is trying to suppress scientific evidence that does not >prove the theory. Again, that's a characteristic of both the left and right wings. The right is trying their level best to suppress any mention of global warming, because they fear that greater understanding of it will cost them elections. >Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our >heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without >hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" When's the last time you went a month without ANYTHING about how we're fighting terrorism in Iraq? Again, it's a tactic both sides use. >Furthermore, the people they are hearing are all in agreement that G.W. IS happening . . . No one doubts that any more because they can look out their windows. When your house is sinking into the permafrost, you're not going to believe a right-winger who compares climate change scientists to Nazi liars. You're going to start listening to the scientist who has studied it instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #24 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote >Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The comparison is accurate. See previous post for details. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #25 July 11, 2007 Quote>The comparison is accurate. If the only way you can make a political point is to compare someone to Hitler's regime - you've already lost the argument... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ But, if the comparison is accurate how can you claim the argument is lost? You did not refute my statement; You simply said that the fact that I made a comparison to what was happening in Europe in the 1930's is "proof" that I must be wrong. >Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy >on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people >find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to >be okay. Yep, a good description of both the left and right wing's approach to political issues. "Partial birth abortion" would be a good example from the right wing. Ignore medical indications of when it's necessary to the health of the mother... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Typical. Whenever the left starts getting worked up about "liberty" it always has something to do with sex, abortion, pornograpjy, or blasphemy. Partial birth abortion is NEVER medically necessary. Furthermore, in the rare case that it might be necessary to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life you won't find ANY significant opposition from anywhere in the political spectrum. .., and instead launch into emotional appeals to "ripping the screaming baby's skull apart with crushing force."... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is simply a description of what occurs during a P.B.A. Why is an honest description interpreted as political propaganda? More to the point, why don't we test your hypothesis by making a list of the things we were free to do 30 years ago, but are illegal today? I'll bet you'd find far, far more legislation pushed by Democrats than by the evil "right wing." ...Again, that's a characteristic of both the left and right wings. The right is trying their level best to suppress any mention of global warming, because they fear that greater understanding of it will cost them elections. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ah, common ground. You admit that if the population becomes convinced that there is a climate crisis then more people will vote for Democrats. ...>Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our >heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without >hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" When's the last time you went a month without ANYTHING about how we're fighting terrorism in Iraq? Again, it's a tactic both sides use. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Global warming is a theory that has never been proven. Even if it really is happening, there is NO conclusive scientific evidence to indicate that mankind has had anything to do with it. In contrast, Islamic fanatics have repeatedly indicated their desire to kill Americans and anyone else who refuses to subjugate themselves to their worthless false god. They have been killing innocent people for many, many years. The attacks on our own soil (remember 9-11) and the dozens of attacks against our military and other targets around the world during the preceding couple of dozen years provide far more proof regarding the war on terror than anything you can cite to support your chicken little fantasies about climate change. The sad thing here is that if it were proven that there is no climate crisis, you would be disappointed. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,095 #23 July 11, 2007 >The comparison is accurate. If the only way you can make a political point is to compare someone to Hitler's regime - you've already lost the argument. >Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy >on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people >find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to >be okay. Yep, a good description of both the left and right wing's approach to political issues. "Partial birth abortion" would be a good example from the right wing. Ignore medical indications of when it's necessary to the health of the mother, and instead launch into emotional appeals to "ripping the screaming baby's skull apart with crushing force." When the dust settles, you discover your wife might die in childbirth because you can't abort a fetus that's not going to live more than a few hours outside the womb anyway. >It is the left that is trying to suppress scientific evidence that does not >prove the theory. Again, that's a characteristic of both the left and right wings. The right is trying their level best to suppress any mention of global warming, because they fear that greater understanding of it will cost them elections. >Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our >heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without >hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" When's the last time you went a month without ANYTHING about how we're fighting terrorism in Iraq? Again, it's a tactic both sides use. >Furthermore, the people they are hearing are all in agreement that G.W. IS happening . . . No one doubts that any more because they can look out their windows. When your house is sinking into the permafrost, you're not going to believe a right-winger who compares climate change scientists to Nazi liars. You're going to start listening to the scientist who has studied it instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #24 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote >Goebbels was Hitler's propaganda minister. Yep. Isn't it ironic that you complain about people "getting angry and shouting insults" - and then you immediately compare those you are complaining about to Hitler's propaganda minister? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The comparison is accurate. See previous post for details. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #25 July 11, 2007 Quote>The comparison is accurate. If the only way you can make a political point is to compare someone to Hitler's regime - you've already lost the argument... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ But, if the comparison is accurate how can you claim the argument is lost? You did not refute my statement; You simply said that the fact that I made a comparison to what was happening in Europe in the 1930's is "proof" that I must be wrong. >Accuse political opponents of "not caring" about said crisis. Go heavy >on the emotion, light on the details. When the dust settles, the people >find themselves living under new laws which criminalize things that used to >be okay. Yep, a good description of both the left and right wing's approach to political issues. "Partial birth abortion" would be a good example from the right wing. Ignore medical indications of when it's necessary to the health of the mother... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Typical. Whenever the left starts getting worked up about "liberty" it always has something to do with sex, abortion, pornograpjy, or blasphemy. Partial birth abortion is NEVER medically necessary. Furthermore, in the rare case that it might be necessary to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life you won't find ANY significant opposition from anywhere in the political spectrum. .., and instead launch into emotional appeals to "ripping the screaming baby's skull apart with crushing force."... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is simply a description of what occurs during a P.B.A. Why is an honest description interpreted as political propaganda? More to the point, why don't we test your hypothesis by making a list of the things we were free to do 30 years ago, but are illegal today? I'll bet you'd find far, far more legislation pushed by Democrats than by the evil "right wing." ...Again, that's a characteristic of both the left and right wings. The right is trying their level best to suppress any mention of global warming, because they fear that greater understanding of it will cost them elections. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ah, common ground. You admit that if the population becomes convinced that there is a climate crisis then more people will vote for Democrats. ...>Furthermore, it is the left that continually beats this drum into our >heads repeatedly. When was the last time you went a month without >hearing ANYTHING at all about "global warming?" When's the last time you went a month without ANYTHING about how we're fighting terrorism in Iraq? Again, it's a tactic both sides use. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Global warming is a theory that has never been proven. Even if it really is happening, there is NO conclusive scientific evidence to indicate that mankind has had anything to do with it. In contrast, Islamic fanatics have repeatedly indicated their desire to kill Americans and anyone else who refuses to subjugate themselves to their worthless false god. They have been killing innocent people for many, many years. The attacks on our own soil (remember 9-11) and the dozens of attacks against our military and other targets around the world during the preceding couple of dozen years provide far more proof regarding the war on terror than anything you can cite to support your chicken little fantasies about climate change. The sad thing here is that if it were proven that there is no climate crisis, you would be disappointed. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
