Never mind that the comment section here would be on fire if GW was in the White House, or the company caught photoshopping was Haliburton or Fox News.
Thank the gods no one in Cancer research has ever said, "The science is settled." Or AIDS research. Or oil technology, plastics, coal, space flight. (That one I may be wrong about as it seems NASA is headed into Islam outreach.)
I'd also like to see them come up with a country that has socialized medicine, that produces as many new cures and drugs as the USA. Hmmm... So long longevity.
My favorite was when IE7 would just close. No warnings about multiple tabs. No crash notifications. No messages that IE7 recovered from a "serious" error. Just gone. And when I reopened it, it was like, "Oh hey! Here's your blank start page. What? What other instance of IE? You had 8 tabs open?"
Whaling has always been a prominent source of food for Alaskans, and is monitored by the International Whaling Commission. A hunting quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was recently renewed, allowing 255 whales to be harvested by 10 Alaskan villages over five years.
So should they have never upgraded to metal from wood? Only the very first tradition of hunting is allowed, right? Fists? Slingshots? Maybe issue the whales similar spears strapped to their backs so they have a sporting chance? It is monitored, and they do have quotas. Maybe we should just ignore all of the whales, let them vote, and watch them eat all of their food up so they starve to death? Like seals in Canada. OH! They cull those too.
All of this kept peoples attention away from Frances actual objections to military action, amongst which were that it did not believe there was an imminent danger from WMDs, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that a war would destabilize the Middle East.
Yes, because the Middle East was a poster-child for peace and prosperity before Bush and his coalition set foot on the ground there? Give me a break. The same old crap from the UN and the major super-powers hasn't worked for 60 years, why shouldn't we at least support what's going on? I'm no fan of Bush, or what he started over there, but it's giving us a chance to at least try something different. We can sit around and cry about what those turds in Washington have done, and cry about who lied etc; or we can use what's CURRENTLY happening for a chance at some positive change.
If anything we can just go back to status quo: Your pre-iraq war stable Middle East.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
Both sides play this game. Everyone takes what that gas-bag Gore says as fact, yet his hockey-stick graph has been disproved as any sort of concrete evidence. What's wrong with saying, "Let's not freak out and make things worse."?? I agree that offering money may not be the best way of focusing on the short-comings of this report but where did all the concern go for Global Cooling?? It wasn't that long ago that we were concerned that the world was cooling at an alarming rate. Hell we were even talking about spreading coal on the ice caps to warm the planet: http://www.savefile.com/files/461234
What if the tax revenue from light bulbs dries up, but now California has lost revenue that they simply can't go without? What do they move that tax to now?
Will someone please explain to me how in the past 30 years we've had a complete 180 on the outlook of the climate? I remember how we saw global temps dip in the 70's and everyone was crying about how we're all going to freeze to death. Don't beleve me? Let's see what Newsweek had to say about it:
It's so stupidly simple though. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. Why would we take the risk and do something that would cause trouble in the other direction? Of course everyone wants cleaner fuels, water, and air. The air has been getting cleaner for at least 10 years or more. Did you know that scientists were telling us we needed to cover the arctic circle with soot because we were in the middle of a global cooling crisis? This was only just back in 1975. Don't believe me? Check out this NewsWeek article from 1975 on GLOBAL COOLING: http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-cooling world.pdf
We just need to stop being so shrill about all of this. Our technology is getting cleaner and so is our planet. Everyone is so quick to jump on the "OMG IT COULD HAPPEN TOMORROW!!" bandwagon.
(Of course there are thousands of you here that will just read the URL instead of the actual PDF that it links to, and complain that GlennBeck is a conservative.)
So... anyone that writes an op-ed has to do so on their own time and never get paid? Al Gore isn't a shill for the side of the argument opposite this Harris guy? I'm a skeptic of everything, but it's sad to see such a smart community resort to ad hominem arguments versus arguing the content.
Also good to note that the science hasn't changed much since 1975, but the politics has. Yet somehow our science was telling us something completely different in 1975.
Also note this newsweek article from 1975. Or has the data changed so much in 30 years? We track hundreds of years worth of data, but toss out our findings that we so recently swore by?
They have published claims. Or has the "evidence" changed since 1975? I mean if we're using models that go back as far as we claim, we should have no problems using articles like this:
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind that the comment section here would be on fire if GW was in the White House, or the company caught photoshopping was Haliburton or Fox News.
Why do I get the sense that the responses to the BP photochop would be much different around here if it was Haliburton doing the photo editing?
Thank the gods no one in Cancer research has ever said, "The science is settled." Or AIDS research. Or oil technology, plastics, coal, space flight. (That one I may be wrong about as it seems NASA is headed into Islam outreach.)
Provided you don't fuck with the Electoral College, I'd rally for you in Michigan.
Are they allowed to link/post/draw/imagine comics that depict Muhammad with a bomb-head?
I'd also like to see them come up with a country that has socialized medicine, that produces as many new cures and drugs as the USA. Hmmm... So long longevity.
People on the left ignore these fanciful things called facts and history.
Thanks for taking the time to post all of this.
The president setting economic policy? What country did this happen in?
*boggle*
"Bush failed econolic policies of deregulation" is hilarious when Bush was crying about getting more regulation set up for Fannie / Freddie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Oops. That's probably CGI though right? Failed Bush policy indeed.
Shhhh! It's not about Democrats! Obviously Dick Cheney and Orin Hatch put Conyers up to it.
Yes yes! Because having a political party get 30% of the vote and come into power would NEVER cause a problem here in the U.S. *roll*
Plenty of people died from general poverty causes in the city that you live in. You could have donated your income and saved people, but you didn't.
Those people sleeping under a bridge could have been warm, but you didn't donate your income to help them.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between "hack" and "crack". At least what is probably "widely accepted" in terms of deffinition.
My favorite was when IE7 would just close. No warnings about multiple tabs. No crash notifications. No messages that IE7 recovered from a "serious" error. Just gone. And when I reopened it, it was like, "Oh hey! Here's your blank start page. What? What other instance of IE? You had 8 tabs open?"
"......."
"Oh hey! Here's your blank start page."
So should they have never upgraded to metal from wood? Only the very first tradition of hunting is allowed, right? Fists? Slingshots? Maybe issue the whales similar spears strapped to their backs so they have a sporting chance? It is monitored, and they do have quotas. Maybe we should just ignore all of the whales, let them vote, and watch them eat all of their food up so they starve to death? Like seals in Canada. OH! They cull those too.
Go cry about the falling sky elsewhere.
(Incidentally, we should have gone into Iraq in 1988. )
Oh so none of the Global Warming Hysteria folks have any money coming from Left-Winged billionaires? Boy have I got a bridge to sell you.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
Both sides play this game. Everyone takes what that gas-bag Gore says as fact, yet his hockey-stick graph has been disproved as any sort of concrete evidence. What's wrong with saying, "Let's not freak out and make things worse."?? I agree that offering money may not be the best way of focusing on the short-comings of this report but where did all the concern go for Global Cooling?? It wasn't that long ago that we were concerned that the world was cooling at an alarming rate. Hell we were even talking about spreading coal on the ice caps to warm the planet: http://www.savefile.com/files/461234
What if the tax revenue from light bulbs dries up, but now California has lost revenue that they simply can't go without? What do they move that tax to now?
Will someone please explain to me how in the past 30 years we've had a complete 180 on the outlook of the climate? I remember how we saw global temps dip in the 70's and everyone was crying about how we're all going to freeze to death. Don't beleve me? Let's see what Newsweek had to say about it:
g world.pdf.html
http://www.fileshack.us/v/4163741/newsweek_coolin
This chicken little BS has got to stop.
teh hockey stick graff is godly tho!
It's so stupidly simple though. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. Why would we take the risk and do something that would cause trouble in the other direction? Of course everyone wants cleaner fuels, water, and air. The air has been getting cleaner for at least 10 years or more. Did you know that scientists were telling us we needed to cover the arctic circle with soot because we were in the middle of a global cooling crisis? This was only just back in 1975. Don't believe me? Check out this NewsWeek article from 1975 on GLOBAL COOLING: http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-cooling world.pdf
We just need to stop being so shrill about all of this. Our technology is getting cleaner and so is our planet. Everyone is so quick to jump on the "OMG IT COULD HAPPEN TOMORROW!!" bandwagon.
(Of course there are thousands of you here that will just read the URL instead of the actual PDF that it links to, and complain that GlennBeck is a conservative.)
So... anyone that writes an op-ed has to do so on their own time and never get paid? Al Gore isn't a shill for the side of the argument opposite this Harris guy? I'm a skeptic of everything, but it's sad to see such a smart community resort to ad hominem arguments versus arguing the content.
Move along.
Also good to note that the science hasn't changed much since 1975, but the politics has. Yet somehow our science was telling us something completely different in 1975.
g world.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolin
Also note this newsweek article from 1975. Or has the data changed so much in 30 years? We track hundreds of years worth of data, but toss out our findings that we so recently swore by?
g world.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolin
They have published claims. Or has the "evidence" changed since 1975? I mean if we're using models that go back as far as we claim, we should have no problems using articles like this:
g world.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolin