Slashdot Mirror

I can't speak to the accuracy of historic weather data or modern weather models, but I can say this:

Global Warming / Climate Change (pick one, please) alarmists do themselves an incredible amount of damage when they do the following:

1. Grossly exaggerate predictions and base everything on the worst case they can find.
2. Manipulate charts to make changes look far more significant than they really are.
3. Instantly ridicule anyone who disagrees with them on anything, even if that disagreement is valid.

I'd say that, by your use of the pejorative term "alarmist", you yourself have already violated your own rule #3. Let's see how you fare on the other 2.

Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the predictions from these weather models are 100% accurate, all of the research and data is correct, and that the climate is indeed warming because of CO2 emissions, and that the climate will warm 5 Celsius degrees in the next 200 years. Let's pretend that the science is completely perfect.

Something which is NEVER claimed by anyone researching or participating in climate science, but for the sake of argument, ok.

Even if all of that is true, you will find a lot of people who won't even bother listening because they remember crazy predictions like "New York city will be underwater in 20 years!" and "We're all going to be cannibals! Cannibals, I say!"

Ahh, here we are. A gross violation of your first rule. You are basing your judgment of so-called "alarmists" on the worst cases you can find. I don't know of any serious climate scientist or climate change / AGW adherent who says any of these things or, if said, are taken out of context by someone to prove the opposite. Yes, there are some nutjobs who should rightly be called "alarmists", and they say some pretty outlandish and stupid things, but they are far in the minority. What they say shouldn't have any impact on the science or anyone's perception of it. They are simply noise in the signal, and are pretty easily eliminated by even a modicum of critical thinking and a little bit of research.

Do you see why so many people don't listen to those who are trying to push human-caused climate change?

Politics needs to be taken out of the equation. Completely. Everything needs to be 100% transparent. The science needs to be broken down in ways the average person can understand. Even if that happens, it will be decades before the damage the global warming alarmists have caused can be reversed.

I hate to break it to you, but real AGW/CC climate science adherents or "climate hawks" don't take the nutjobs seriously, either. The problem is in terms of where you get your information on the subject. Politics are inserted into the equation by people with an agenda. Understand who is talking, and what their goals/motivations are for telling you the things you are hearing from them, and seek out the source of their information. If they can't or won't provide it, then only take what they say with a heavy dose of skepticism. Everything in climate science is open and accessible (more today than in the past, to be sure), and there are many sites which break down the hard science into more meaningful chunks which the lay person can consume at their leisure.

I think the damage that the "alarmists" (supposedly) have caused pales in comparison by far to what the well-monied climate contrarians have caused. We even see it in *this very article* by Spencer, who grossly violates your own Rule #2. It's easy to dismiss a nutjob statement that is very easy to source and check, like Ted Turner's noise. It is much harder to dismiss deceptions which are carefully

I can't speak to the accuracy of historic weather data or modern weather models, but I can say this:

Global Warming / Climate Change (pick one, please) alarmists do themselves an incredible amount of damage when they do the following:

1. Grossly exaggerate predictions and base everything on the worst case they can find.
2. Manipulate charts to make changes look far more significant than they really are.
3. Instantly ridicule anyone who disagrees with them on anything, even if that disagreement is valid.

Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the predictions from these weather models are 100% accurate, all of the research and data is correct, and that the climate is indeed warming because of CO2 emissions, and that the climate will warm 5 Celsius degrees in the next 200 years. Let's pretend that the science is completely perfect.

Even if all of that is true, you will find a lot of people who won't even bother listening because they remember crazy predictions like "New York city will be underwater in 20 years!" and "We're all going to be cannibals! Cannibals, I say!"

Do you see why so many people don't listen to those who are trying to push human-caused climate change?

Politics needs to be taken out of the equation. Completely. Everything needs to be 100% transparent. The science needs to be broken down in ways the average person can understand. Even if that happens, it will be decades before the damage the global warming alarmists have caused can be reversed.

There's Already 17 Times More Coverage on Christie Scandal Than in Last Six Months of IRS (scandal)

Chris Christie's bridge scandal: A blessing in disguise?

Apparently you have no idea about the sorts of things that have been going on due to the fits and starts with Obamacare.

Maybe you missed that President Obama recently decreed that insurance policies didn't have to be cancelled, that enforcement would be pushed out? And that various states are or aren't buying into this? And that there is a controversy about the president doing this since there isn't any authority in the ACA to do that?

Obamacare cancellation fix likely to have limited effect

Eleven days after President Barack Obama urged insurers to renew policies that don’t meet all the requirements of the health law, it’s still not clear how many people might be affected by the proposed fix.

That’s because regulators in at least a half dozen states, including Indiana, say they won’t allow insurers to do it and many more have yet to decide, Kaiser Health News reports.

Even if states give insurers a green light to reinstate the policies for a year – and both Ohio and Indiana have done so – many insurers say they’re not sure if they can pull it off in time. Finally, no one knows how many customers who received the cancellations will want to renew.

“The president’s plan is certainly not a guarantee” that people who received discontinuation notices earlier this fall will now be able to renew, Chris Jacobs, senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, told Kaiser’s Julie Appleby.

I've got news for you, very little of the clusterf*ck that is Obamacare's rollout is owned by the "right wing." Nancy Pelosi said they would have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.... well, we're finding out now. You better hope your health insurance isn't going to be cancelled due to it. And guess what? There are probably about another 93,000,000 cancellations coming down the road.

So the black speech = Obamacare. This means the Dark Lord = http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/Obama%20Halo_0.jpg

everyone (outside of talk radio) was telling him to stop being a self-aggrandizing fucktard.

Most of talk radio was also telling him to stop being a fucktard. Obviously, your notions of talk radio are formed by listening to its critics rather than to talk radio itself. Many others have made your mistake.
(see: The Rasberry Effect)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/20/obama-ill-be-president-next-8-10-years
Other democrats have said similar things candidly, like how Obama's not going away in 2016, or how Biden will continue to be Vice President. The more extreme members of their party might be seriously considering repealing the 22nd and elections.

I suspect it's going to be the amount of people turned away from voting because of all these daft ID voter rules. .... I really think it'll be the mass disenfranchisement of a huge % of the US citizens at the next big election.

It doesn't look like there is a problem with that.

Texas voter ID law didn't suppress vote

...it'll take that sharp focused event that'll be the camel back breaker ...

Maybe we've found one.

Calif. Insurance Commissioner: More Than 1M Californians Having Insurance Cancelled Due To ACA

Forbes: White House Predicted in 2010 That 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare

Troubled HealthCare.gov unlikely to work fully by end of November

EDITORIAL: Miss me yet? - Thursday, April 25, 2013

Though still slightly under water, as the campaign wise men might put it, the former president’s job-approval rating is now at 47 percent, up 14 points from his last day in office — and tied with President Obama’s 47 percent. Mr. Obama succeeded Mr. Bush in no small part by blaming the Great Recession (and everything else) on the Bush economic policies. Mr. Obama still rarely lets a day go by without bashing Mr. Bush, but the public now recalls the Bush policies fondly. Approval of his economic policies is up 19 percent from 2009.

This sharp change in public opinion confounds historians who insist that it takes years, if not decades, for a substantial revision of public opinion of a president’s legacy. Obamanomics has reduced the standard of living for many Americans, and they pine for the recent past. T-shirts bearing an illustration of a smirking Mr. Bush with the slogan “Miss me yet?” are flying off the shelves.

We look forward to you sharing your "evidence", thanks.

I tend to ignore people who can't be bothered to use google on their own, and instead ask for everything to be handed to them...

We're talking about half a century of gun control laws and increasing crime rates. There's no single link to ALL that information.

There's a few quick ones:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm (See #10)

http://www.liveandlocalenc.com/proof-gun-control-increases-crime/

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/do-strict-gun-laws-really-stop-gun-crime/

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/04/gun-crimes-increase-massachusetts-despite-tough-gun-laws/XjlDQLZlUDvsf3KS8PqyGK/story.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/06/25/stossel-argues-gun-control-increases-crime-i-was-once-clueless-senator-schumer

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

I don't really like the Republican party any more. They're running the country into the ground. But listening to how hateful the liberals are, and how they wish death to their political opponents (see list below), I can't really support them either. I don't want to be a member of the party of hate. So for now I'll be an independent.

That being said, if even a few of the below links are accurate, wouldn't you protect yourself from the left, who profess to want their political opponents to die?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9757837/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/16/dan-savage-hbos-real-time-i-wish-republicans-were-all-f-king-dead

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberal-talker-mike-malloy-says-he-wants-gop-literally-dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItcqrHLZGDg&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/media-research-center-documents-liberal-death-wishes-against-conservatives

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-dark-side-of-liberalism-death-threats-to-conservatives-and-racist-threats/question-3628447/

Whatever his deepest personal inclinations are, President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He has to govern within the existing structure, with another party in opposition, and conform to the existing rules. You would certainly be mistaken to think he isn't shifting things noticeably to the left within that framework. There really isn't any question about the politics of his former "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is there? And an interesting comment from his former press secretary, Anita Dunn. Early on in his campaign, there were a number of reports or interviews of his early supporters, and several of them that I saw had a similar motif in the wall coverings. Move along, nothing to see here, right?

I would also advise you to not make the mistake of thinking that the US does not have a genuine Left. Among others, the Communist Party USA would beg to differ with you. Since they have little open support, guess what many of the hard left do when they want to actually hold office? Tone down the rhetoric, declare themselves to be "progressives," and join a more moderate party than they would prefer. Once in office, incrementalism moves them towards their goals.

Russia actually wants global warming because it's "fucking cold here":

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/06/russia-welcomes-global-warming-answer-all-its-prayers

Don't forget increasing the chance of asteroid impacts, that wasn't on the list.

As for Zimmerman's "racism", well, the following bit was published a year ago — certainly time enough for everyone to have caught-up by now:

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday [July 12, 2012 -mi] show.

I have to point out this little tidbit:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/06/09/911-whistleblower-snowden-defected-china-whatever-he-knows-they-likel

The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.

Consider that if Edward Snowden took even just traffic analysis information with him to China, which would be easy to fit on a several DVDs, this information could be used for economic and industrial espionage purposes. It would be very easy to see which companies were talking to which other companies, and impute information about the deals going down between various actors.

This information could be used to great economic advantage. Who wouldn't want to know the next company with publically traded stock that Google, Apple, or Facebook is in acquisition talks.

That the information was collected at all in the first place is a loaded gun, and one disgruntled ex-employee or contractor is all it take to pull the trigger on that gun, and in many cases they would have to go to extremes of hiding behind China to do it.

So when she said this:

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

she wasn't saying that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?

She claims she got the quote from a conservative, Lee Atwater, who quoted Mao to make a point but never implied he was a "favorite political philosopher".

According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Lee_Atwater_quote_Mao

Atwater jokingly quoted Mao but never called him 'one of my favorite philosophers'. Lee just used a quote from Mao to provide an ironic point, much in the same way others use quotes from historic figures, both egregious & beneficent.

For further analysis of the situation, here is another site
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/10/17/anita-dunn-blames-lee-atwater-quoting-mao

And what about Dunn's description of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers?" Not to worry, Dunn comes up with yet another comedy line to explain it away via CNN:

As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.

So you see. You peons just don't have the mental ability to see that Anita Dunn was merely being ironic despite the fact that was absolutely nothing in her facial expression, vocal tone, nor in what she said that displayed the slightest sense of irony. In fact, she was dead serious as you can plainly see in the video of her speech.

So, taken in context she is saying exactly what it appears she is saying. Letting her later say is was "irony" is just lefties covering up for her.

Sorry, your attempt at saving your political side's image failed.

$10 says this was militant tea baggers. They all post so much crazy shit about killing people on facebook and eventually one of them snaps and acts on it.

Don‘t you mean £10? It’s hard to believe any American would be so clueless about the Tea Party.

If you are looking for bomb makers among political activists in the United States, here is a hint or two on where to look.

This is commonly repeated, but it's simply not true.

There tend to be two types of people who believe this, first at the people who were going to vote for Obama anyway; many of them were voting for Obama because he was black but didn't want to be honest about that so they had to latch on to some reason why they were supporting a first term Senator with no foreign policy experience. The second group is the establishment Republican-type who wants to purge the party of social conservatives, these are people who would probably be aligned with the Democrats if it weren't for tax policy.

Sarah Palin saved McCain from an embarrassing defeat. He lost with her, he would have been destroyed without her.

See this.

Exit polls showed that 60 percent of voters said that Sarah Palin was a factor in their decision on who to vote for, and of those people 56% of them voted for McCain.

LK

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/17/worlds-oldest-tree-rewrites-climate-history-challenges-global-warming http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_history/ http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm Everybody can make the data do tricks for them. First it was Global cooling, then it was Global warming, then it was Climate change Because you know that change is good right ?

It's not their statements, it's their actions. One of the so-called green movement front men, Al Gore, despite all of his whining about global warming, has been called out as a hypocrite by more than a few people.

Oh yea, I almost forgot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/29/world/state-union-iraq-issue-bush-enlarges-case-for-war-linking-iraq-with-terrorists.html

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

Read the reasons on the war resolution. And understand this is not exact but edited by the fine morons slanting everything to their advantage for wikipedia. Here are some highlights in case you can't figure out how to find the link.

• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• 
  Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• 
  Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• 
  Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

This one is from the actual resolution itself

Whereas Iraqâ(TM)s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;

Oh, one more thing, it appears that the mass media actually knows Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre9/11 and attempted to blame their killing people after the invasion on Bush failing to act before the invasion.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/29/nbc-claimed-bush-allowed-al-qaeda-iraq-war-media-now-ignore-pre-war-p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Known_attacks

and according to George Tenet's book, July 2001, an associate of Zarqawi had been detained and, during interrogations, linked Zarqawi with al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. Of course I don't have a direct link to the book, but you can find reference to it on one of the links I already posted.

But hey, continue being a delusional moron tolling me. Opps, I have smacked you once again. I hope that doesn't mean you will start stalking me in real life or other sites.

Sorry Mr. Slippery, but Fox News is indeed a news channel that also provides commentary.

Fox News viewers overall are about equally informed as other networks, and viewers of particular shows are better informed.

Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge

High
Knowledge / Source

44% - NPR
43% - Hardball
42% - Hannity & Colmes
36% - Rush Limbaugh
34% - BBC
34% - Colbert Report
33% - NewsHour
30% - Daily Show
22% - Daily newspaper
21% - NBC News
19% - CNN
19% - ABC news
19% - Fox News
18% - National Average
17% - Local TV news
10% - CBS News

Why does this sort of disparity in outcomes exist?
Jon Stewart Slams Fox Viewers as Most Misinformed, But He's the Ignorant One
The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Perhaps someday we will live in a world where Daily Show and Colbert Report viewers are as well informed as Rush Limbaugh listeners, but not today.

Believing that Fox News makes you stupid or misinformed is a comforting lie backed by cooked polls that people tell themselves to reassure themselves of their superiority. It may in some fashion be comforting, but it isn't true.

Well, the attacks WERE caused by Obama, since he ordered the Drone Strikes in June that caused this attack. No, it had NOTHING to do with any YouTube video: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/09/28/abc-reports-obama-administration-knew-terrorists-carried-out-libya-at And if you believe it was in response to the YouTube video, as CNN tells you, then why do all the news companies ALSO keep saying they attacked a US EMbassy in Benghazi? THERE NEVER WAS A US EMBASSY IN BENGHAZI! Our only Consulate in all of Libya is in Tripoli: http://libya.usembassy.gov/ Now they are calling it a "US Mission" that they attacked. Translation = Safe House = CIA. Watch some REAL news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nPf0waX2HI

Well, there DEFINITELY is some form of coverup here, because the US HAS NO EMBASSY IN BENGAZI. The only Embassy or Consulate the US has in Libya is in Tripoli. http://libya.usembassy.gov/ The Government even stated that they knew this attack had NOTHING to do with any YouTube Video, but it was "blowback" for US Drone Strikes, and was carried out by Al-Qaeda (actually an affiliate group called Ansar al-Sharia). http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/09/28/abc-reports-obama-administration-knew-terrorists-carried-out-libya-at So it sounds like Beck is speaking more truth than any other news/media company. Except, of course, for Ben Swann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nPf0waX2HI

And your willingness to attach your name to your reply stands as a bold refutation.
Someone with credibility, ESR has shown what a pack of clowns "you guys" are: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
Also instructive, NewsBusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/19/pbs-under-attack-allowing-global-warming-skeptic-speak
Calling me a liar, Your Anonymity, doesn't remove the challenge to start at square one and restore credibility before proceeding.

Just another liberal happy to kill for the cause I suppose. There sure are a disturbing number of you around these days, unwilling to debate and only to destroy.

That's some nice projection you've got going on there. I invite you to visit any number of message boards and count the number of death threats vs. liberals vs. death threats against conservatives and see if it supports your assumption.

--Jeremy

I don't think it's projection when he's posting on a forum with hundreds of posts wishing for Republicans to die. Projection is when your project your own faults onto others who do not have those faults. So, in this case, it is hardly what I'd call "projection".

Next, I challenge you to go to "right wing" sites and find me some death wishes. May I recommend Hot Air, Red State or even News Busters. Now, granted, you will find a few whack jobs out there, but nothing like what you have seen here and nothing like what you may find on Democratic Underground or Daily Kos.

Sorry, but in light of what I've read here, it would appear that you are the one who is projecting.

And that "liberal" Jesus was against sexual deviancy, which includes homosexuality. That's not exactly what I would call a "liberal". Sure, Jesus was a liberal for someone living he first century, but not a liberal by today's standard. You should really clarify that.

I knew someone would bring this up, since the article is obviously a veiled defense of Fareed Zakaria's plagarized editorial extolling gun control.

BTW, self defense is a natural right, our Constitution simply codifies it. Calling the loss of your rights "evolving" is just Orwellian Newspeak. There are a few ex-despots displaced by the Arab Spring who certainly wish they had more effective gun control.

crappy deal for a Chevy Volt

Call me a troll, but with 30 years education I'm just telling you what I've seen and heard.

If your post reflects 30 years of education, you didn't get your money's worth. That is just pitiful. But your rant about Sarah Palin makes sense in light of this:

Sarah, She Wolf of the GOP

Yes, stunning.
Chris 'I Lost On Jeopardy!' Matthews: 'Palin's Briefing Papers Have the Weight of a Comic Book'

Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".

Hmmm, how about the UN?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-obamacare-protesters-racist-including-black-gun-owner

1) Global cooling theory was claimed by serious scientists in the 1970s.

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

2) I never said mammograms, I said self-inspections. And I was there in the 1990s when college campuses had public health representatives giving detailed instructions on how to perform breast self-exams. Since then, doctor's offices have been flooded with hysterical women convinced that they have breast cancer, so they have done away with this recommendation.

3) Many recent studies say that alcohol-based sanitizers are useless, as the alcohol evaporates in a few seconds and does not kill very many germs anyway. The alcohol has to be at a high concentration for it to be effective, but people do not like higher concentrations because it irritates the skin. I work in public health.

4 and 5: check "Dr. Spock's Baby & Child Care". At the time, the medical establishment treated this as the bible of child rearing. Anybody who did not follow Dr. Spock's guidelines was considered a retrograde idiot.

6) Does not contradict anything I said. The recommendation reversal stands.

7) I was at seminars by dermatologists recently who said this stuff. The American Academy of Dermatology today says to avoid sunlight and to get vitamin D only through artificial supplements: "Get vitamin D safely through a healthy diet that may include vitamin supplements. Don't seek the sun."
Source: http://www.aad.org/skin-care-and-safety/skin-cancer-prevention/be-sun-smart/be-sun-smart

8) My dad was part of the studies that promoted hormone replacement therapy in the 90s. Today, it is a dirty word.

9) NASA scientists predicted this. See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

10) Check http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/ecocenter/air/EcoCenter-Air-Acid-Rain-and-Our-Ecosystem.html?c=y&page=2
"In the late 1970s, researchers surveyed 217 lakes above 2,000 feet in the Adirondacks and found that 51 percent were highly acidic. The news was so grim that scientists began attempting to breed more acid-tolerant strains of trout. One New York State employee compared the area to Death Valley. A decade later, a larger study that included 849 lakes higher than 1,000 feet found that 55 percent were either completely devoid of life or on the brink of collapse."

11) If you can find a source today that argues high-carb, low-protein diets are good, let me know. They would be far outside the mainstream establishment today. My specialty is obesity and diabetes research.

12) Psychologists used to promote sex therapy until the mid-1980s, but you won't find anyone advocating it today.

"For someone who is bitching about science, you sure don't have a fucking clue what is going on."

Actually, I am a scientific insider with a PhD. Having insider access has shown me how arbitrary the scientific reasoning process is. People have their agendas, and getting grants is all about putting on a provocative sales pitch. A typical grant identifies a threat to society, and how this research will be the salvation. I have been to more than one seminar where a scientist debunked some opposing theory, then repeated all the exact same mistakes to promote their own, and the room gave a standing ovation. I thought it was done in parody, but they were serious. It made me realize that the scientific establishment can be no smarter than fundamentalists in trailer parks.

Then may I present to you http://newsbusters.org/ http://www.aim.org/, http://www.cato.org/, and http://nlpc.org/.

Never heard of most of those, but I'm sure there is no immediate bias at http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ and even liberals deny being tied to http://mediamatters.org/ .

Have you heard these guys? I've listened to the raw unadulterated crap that the "speakers" at these events are spewing, and it is clear, that either they are nuts, diehard communists (not Socialists), or just Left Wing Loons.

The flip side is that if you show people these raving lunatics for what they are, you get dismissed by saying "that was not an official spokesperson" kind of dismissal. So, on the one hand, were supposed to listen to these guys, and on the other hand, nobody speaks for anyone at these events. So you end up with your "much higher barrier" kind of logic you just espoused it has.

Typically, you want it both ways. You want to be taken seriously, but when your lunatic fringe starts to take over, you claim "not speaking for us" and dismiss it.

Take for example when the whole crowd starts chanting "Blame the Jews" in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qlKiATQIR_4

While you probably hate the Tea Party and call it a bunch of racist, without a single damning video segment even approaching this one, you have video of this that you cannot dismiss. Your friends in the crowd are a bunch of Anti-Semetic assholes and you should be VERY careful about the company you keep. While this was one event, I have NO DOUBT that other events harbor the exact same thinking. Here's more, please watch the videos that OWS doesn't want people to see ...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/16/will-media-report-racism-and-anti-semitism-occupy-wall-street-protest

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/10/15/nyt-poster-boy-ows-protests-reveals-self-bizarre-drama-queen

If you have a valid point, and a valid plan, find someone who can express it. If you can't find someone to express it, clearly, then you have NEITHER a plan nor a cohesive thought of what is wrong. Using Nebulous group think is nothing short of Mob Rule, and that kind of thing is as evil as it sounds.

Have you heard these guys? I've listened to the raw unadulterated crap that the "speakers" at these events are spewing, and it is clear, that either they are nuts, diehard communists (not Socialists), or just Left Wing Loons.

The flip side is that if you show people these raving lunatics for what they are, you get dismissed by saying "that was not an official spokesperson" kind of dismissal. So, on the one hand, were supposed to listen to these guys, and on the other hand, nobody speaks for anyone at these events. So you end up with your "much higher barrier" kind of logic you just espoused it has.

Typically, you want it both ways. You want to be taken seriously, but when your lunatic fringe starts to take over, you claim "not speaking for us" and dismiss it.

Take for example when the whole crowd starts chanting "Blame the Jews" in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qlKiATQIR_4

While you probably hate the Tea Party and call it a bunch of racist, without a single damning video segment even approaching this one, you have video of this that you cannot dismiss. Your friends in the crowd are a bunch of Anti-Semetic assholes and you should be VERY careful about the company you keep. While this was one event, I have NO DOUBT that other events harbor the exact same thinking. Here's more, please watch the videos that OWS doesn't want people to see ...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/16/will-media-report-racism-and-anti-semitism-occupy-wall-street-protest

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/10/15/nyt-poster-boy-ows-protests-reveals-self-bizarre-drama-queen

If you have a valid point, and a valid plan, find someone who can express it. If you can't find someone to express it, clearly, then you have NEITHER a plan nor a cohesive thought of what is wrong. Using Nebulous group think is nothing short of Mob Rule, and that kind of thing is as evil as it sounds.

Paul Krugman says an alien invasion would stimulate the economy.

You know, an awful lot of tea partiers were quietly grumbling about Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush senior and Reagan, but didn't feel the urge to actually do something. Tripling the deficit is pretty big reason for people to start doing something. Obama can't even deny some responsibility for the 2009 budget since he voted for it as a senator on a nearly party line vote.

Al Gore did not invent global warming any more than he invented the internet.

Doesn't Al Gore have a financial interest in promoting global warming via his company Generation Investment Management LLP?

Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming has a somewhat biased view on Al Gore's company, but even if only partially true, it does raise questions about what truly motivates people like him. Is it truly caring for the environment or is it caring for his wallet?

Mij

You've noticed the vanishing party affiliation phenomenon. This appears most blatantly when a leftist politician is the subject of some scandal; you may search high and low but you won't find the party affiliation mentioned by the media. That is left exclusively to the detractors, who are then found to be 'uncivil' or some such.

Given the current disposition of the US congress, the same bias manifests itself as using the term "congress" only when the malcontents are pleased. All other times we get "house republicans."

They know you notice. They just don't give a damn.

You've noticed the vanishing party affiliation phenomenon. This appears most blatantly when a leftist politician is the subject of some scandal; you may search high and low but you won't find the party affiliation mentioned by the media. That is left exclusively to the detractors, who are then found to be 'uncivil' or some such.

Given the current disposition of the US congress, the same bias manifests itself as using the term "congress" only when the malcontents are pleased. All other times we get "house republicans."

They know you notice. They just don't give a damn.

You've noticed the vanishing party affiliation phenomenon. This appears most blatantly when a leftist politician is the subject of some scandal; you may search high and low but you won't find the party affiliation mentioned by the media. That is left exclusively to the detractors, who are then found to be 'uncivil' or some such.

Given the current disposition of the US congress, the same bias manifests itself as using the term "congress" only when the malcontents are pleased. All other times we get "house republicans."

They know you notice. They just don't give a damn.

Sigh...

Irresponsible deregulation of the financial industry.

If you are specifically referring to the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was signed into law by Clinton (democrat, in case you were wondering), and won the votes of nearly 200 house and senate democrats:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/22/maddow-blames-financial-crisis-republican-deregulation-ignores-overwh

Sucks to find out that they are just as responsible, doesn't it?

Except that Democrats couldn't have possibly caused as much damage in 2 years

And yet the original poster and his graph that I was replying to said that Obama had somehow 'saved' us within months, hell, weeks of getting into office. So, Dems can't break things in 1-2 years, but they can fix things within 1-2 months?

...so you better say it on Fox "News" if you want to get away with such blatant BS.

yawn.... I'm sorry, how is this pointless jab at Fox related to anything we've been talking about? Oh, how clever. You're trying to imply that I'm somehow pro-republican and will say anything to make them look good. I'll save you the effort. Republicans suck just as badly as the Democrats at running things. I don't vote for the (R) or the (D), since neither one has shown any ability to lead, even when their party has complete control of both houses and the white house.

I know it looks like I'm just trying to bash Democrats, but I'm just trying to show how silly it is to say that one side or the other can 'break' or 'fix' our economy, since they both tend to just muck things up equally.

those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Americans are terrible at learning from history so we managed to vote back in the same idiots who tanked our economy in the first place.

..and you haven't learned that both sides are capable of screwing things up (both sides voted for the deregulation that you loath).

The tsunami did. And I didn't say just remote power via cable. I said battery backup power not below sea level that can be flooded.

No solution is perfect - wind power has killed more people than nuke power - but the evidence suggests that had the power of the Japanese reactors been protected from water, NOT earthquake, these nuclear incidents might have been averted.

Exactly ... telling a republican your version of facts is like telling a blind man he can see.

In other words, it's lying.

As to why net neutrality is getting killed : http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/06/comcast-execs-gave-large-donations-obama-democrats.

I'm actually in favor of this. Killing net neutrality. Of course, I work in the ISP business. It's just another useless measure that does nothing but making life difficult for us, and has been sold to democrats as "more free stuff". Outlawing QoS. Moronic is indeed the correct term, but I find it fits very well on the other shoe.

Have you ever been on a large ISP's network with QoS disabled (ie. a "net neutral" one) ? You can't actually surf on a network like that, but I'm sure all of you "net neutrality" experts can tell me why, and have considered all technical issues. And there's of course the tiny little tidbit that any reasonable piece of network hardware won't actually let you disable QoS (as that is moronic and *will* kill the network due to the resulting routing instability. But I'm sure all of these net neutrality advocates know why, right ?)

You know, maybe, just maybe, it's the case that things like QoS have technical reasons, the result of hardworking people attempting to bring a usable network to their subscribers, and not just a conspiracy born late at night in Obama's bed with satan, hitler, stalin and few ugly female camp guards mixed up in a big messy pool.

Yea, there is a deeper meaning you are missing. You see, the majority of the population doesn't think as you do on at least a couple of things. In fact, in those things, it disturbs them to a point they want to say or do something about it. These shows give that avenue in which they either say or hear what they believe echoed and know they aren't alone.

It's sort of like the libertarians siding with republicans in most elections, they don't like the majority of what is done/put out/planned to be done, but it's the closest match for a couple important things to they want. People like Beck and Limbaugh are good at bringing all these ideas and forces together which is why their ratings are better then anything the left has put out. In all that stuff you think is crazy, most of it is a mirror of something most of the population is thinking at various times.

and those bizarre conspiracy theories aren't really that bizarre when you think about it. Take this Google situation, it's no secret that Google employees contributed quite a bit to obama's campaign. It's no secret that Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama. And this isn't the first time someone has accused Google of politically biasing search results.

Now if someone is getting different results while using different search engines, I don't see how it's much different then people getting different results when getting their news from sources outside the US mass media markets. And pointing out the results being different isn't ad bizarre or crazy and you might think.

Obama uses bigger words but that doesn't mean he's smarter. You are probably prejudiced against Bush because of the Texas accent, which to you sounds stupid but can hide a smart mind for those unwilling to look beyond the superficial.

A study was done comparing the grade level of speeches by both Obama and Bush. Bush's speeches were actually two grade levels higher than Obama.

Your biggest mistake is equating your dislike of the content of a speech for lack of intelligence on the part of the speaker; a dangerous mistake for then you are oft prone to underestimate someone.

We, as a society, really need to move beyond the thinking that just because someone is credentialed makes them automatically more intelligent than someone without as many credentials. They are an indicator but not the whole story.

There are more economical ways to travel than by private jet that still offer privacy.

Ignoring that, how about his multiple large houses and their enormous electricity bills?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230&title=undefined
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/exclusive-estimate-carbon-footprint-of.html

Do we want him spending half is day rubbing shoulders with the public because of the negligible carbon footprint difference from his plane ride?

I don't know about you, but people who say "do as I say, not as I do" can get bent IMHO.

Can you be specific about which ideals he's gone back on?

Here's a pretty good list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

The ones I especially care about are:

No. 234: A five-day reading period for proposed legislation.

No. 491: Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"

No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

No. 518: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

No. 525: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year

Also, from this list: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286

Probably the most important to me is #10: greater government transparency.

And from John Stewart: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/08/jon-stewart-bashes-obamas-broken-campaign-promises : Closing Gitmo within a year of his campaign promise being made.

It's also interesting to note the things which I felt he'd promised, but which PolitiFact (which I generally trust) has no record of:

• An end to warrantless wiretapping by the NSA.
• Prosecution of CIA torturers.

It would seem that I confused the general image he projected with actual promises on some important issues.

If you think that the hate is limited to the Right, you are sadly mistaken:

Arsonist Strikes on Cape Cod, Leaves Calling Card: ‘F–k the Rich’.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsonist-strikes-on-cape-cod-leaves.html

Kanjorski on Gov.-Elect Rick Scott: “Shoot Him.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/09/kanjorski-on-gov-elect-rick-sc

“A Madison man was arrested Tuesday in connection with a bomb threat Sunday afternoon that disrupted a town Republican fundraiser featuring Senate candidate Linda McMahon.”
http://insidemadison.com/index.php/2010/09/15/ssuspect-arrested-in-madison-bomb-threat

Gunman who took hostages at Discovery Channel inspired by Al Gore.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

James Cameron: Shoot Climate 'Deniers,' Glenn Beck a 'F------ A--hole'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/03/24/james-cameron-shoot-climate-deniers-glenn-beck-f-hole-0

I honestly could go on and on and on. Just do some basic Google searches.

Seriously, how must hate was spewed by the left against Bush during his entire administration? Why wasn't Al Gore blamed for the Discovery Channel hostage situation? Truth is, you just want to twist a mentally disturbed individual's actions in order to score political points. And that makes you part of the problem in this country.