the article (which I read thoroughly) even duly calls him a "skeptic." You quote the article calling him that, and You are right, I read that second article and found out that
"He believes that the Kyoto treaty will have a tiny impact, delaying any particular level of warming by just a year or two, and that it is completely unrealistic to see it as just a first step in a whole series of ever more ambitious emissions treaties.
For Lindzen, there is not a lot we can do, beyond ensuring that nations become rich enough to build flood defences or whatever might be necessary if the climate does start to go awry. "
I didn't realize he was one of the "let it happen, we'll be rich enough to build around it then" people. I thought he was one of the "conservative estimates" types, not the bad kind of "conservatives".
Let's recap shall we. New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. NO, the myth is " Polar bear numbers are increasing".
"Denialist" isn't a word. I think you're looking for "skeptic". You know, unless you are intentionally using prejudicial, made-up words to discredit people who may disagree with your conclusions, or at least how much faith we can put in them.
A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed. Sheeple.
"Just believe in ID, it has more prove that the stuff you pull out." Oh really? Care to site sources for this proof? Care to learn the meaning of "sarcasm"?
You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.) Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.
The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
well, there's a reason why Greenland was named Greenland. And that reason is "No, honey, I did not waste my whole winter sailing to a godforsaken barren wasteland, I found a wonderfull land of green pastures and unicorns and chocolate-pooping puppies!"
The fact that you fall so easily for Viking marketing is quite telling to your position of global warming: Thre's one of you born every minute.
So that MIT professor and other researchers who actually present opposing viewpoints *based on scientific data* also argue for Intelligent Design? I don't believe you. You also don't know what you're talking about. That MIT professor doesn't argue agaisnt anthropogenic global warming, he argues that the rise in temperature won't be as high as the model predicts. You would knot that if you read the fucking article: "Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict."
You also need to learn that the people who made you think the MIT professor was opposing the scientific consensus are not the same people as the MIT professors and other scientists of the world. They're people with money, pushing an agenda, and using marketing techniques to shape public opinion. And you fell for it.
First, see Growing number of scientists reconsidering global warming fears. Not the best site ever, but it shows that the consensus everyone likes to talk about is bogus. The _media_ refuses to let allow the discussion to continue and the scientific process run its course without interference. See all 26 climate myths in our special feature.
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.
give both sides a fair chance here; this isn't science vs. religion; it's [supposedly] science vs. science Intelligent Design advocates and Global Warming deniers are the exact same people.
Don't fall for thei slick propaganda. And don't ask us to give them credit they do not deserve.
A clever observer will notice though that warmer climate equals more arable land Because most deserts are away from the equator?
1- Deny it's happening 2- When the evidence makes that laughable, change strategies: Deny it's a bad thing. 3- When it finally happened, laugh all the way to the bank.
Funny. I see this in TFA
Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article. So, other than the standard response of "Global warming deniers are liars", can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy? It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to. Easy, they list a myth and debunk it, you link to the original myth and go "hey, this must be true!". It's... er... dumb. This was at the bottom of your link:
Related Links: Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (born November 17, 1934) is a conservative American politician from Oklahoma. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is the most vocal skeptic of climate change (global warming) in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
Heated debates are not science, they are sophistry.
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'
This is in the 26.
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
"If I talk the loudest, what I say is the truth!" should stop sorking when you pass the age of 5.
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming
In the 26.
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
Again, this is in the 26 myths of TFA.
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
TV meteorologists are not climatologists, nor reliable.
MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to 'Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"
I'm rubber and you're glue... again, past the age of 5, this shouldn't fly.
Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of 'Criminal Neglect'
It's wrong when they disagree with us...
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
...but when they agree with us, they're unquestionable!
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
"Entertainer's friends say that..." WHO CARES?
The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
Seriously, the list of 26 is neutral, they debunk believer myths as well as denier myths. You replied to a page of one-sided propaganda. Can't you see the difference?
Eastern Canada is currently experiencing its thickest strongest ice in 30 years. Coast Guard officials I've spoken with say the ice severity follows a 30 year cycle and current conditions are the same as in the 1970s. The former capital of Canada, Québec city, experienced its first non-white xmas, ever, in 2006.
"You are defending shooting unarmed, injured men? You're morally bankrupt."
Then how,precisely, exactly, would YOU deal with a combatant you had reason to suspect may be armed and playing possum? Ask Jessica Lynch if she thinks wounded enemies should be executed on the off chance that they still have some fight in them.
If you defend your marines when they illegally murder wounded enemies, then you are telling the rest of the world to kill YOUR wounded. Why should they risk getting their hospitals attacked by bringing your blue eyed wounded there for treatment? It's much safer to just kill them in cold blood.
I would like the troops to be treated humanely when they are wounded by the enemy, you're telling your enemies it's better to shoot them like dogs.
This teacher-gunman-drill thing, however, is messed up. What made them think this was a good idea? How would this in any way be reasonable? It's cruel and childish, not reasonable.
The only way to win any war is to be feared and respected, not soft and fuzzy. The last time I read the Geneva Convention Rules, they covered uniformed men only; those out of uniform were not legitimate and not protected. If you check the O'Reilly Fox News Channel 1- The Geneva convention also applies to non-uniformed men, in a separate clause. 2- No wonder you people are ignorant, since you get your info from Fox News. 3- You can take the high road and fight fair, or accept that planes in buildings and dirty bombs are also free game if you don't. Pick one.
You are defending shooting unarmed, injured men? You're morally bankrupt.
If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country. I watched CNN, and they were doing what could best be described as "sucking the pentagon's dick". They were falling over themselves to show how heroic and brave and saintly the troops were, how the "Shock and awe" tactic would have made Julius Caesar wet himself with envy.
What you're saying they said isn't true. It's a Big Lie.
Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life, all of the channels besides Fox News made it seem like we conquered them, like we were raping their women, like we were killing innocent people on purpose. You conquered them. Raped their women (and men). Killed innocent men, women and children by the tens of thousand!
Destroyed the bridges, destroyed the aqueducts, destroyed the sewer treatment plants, allowed the hospitals and museums to be looted while the troops that disbanded the police stood at the doors and watched.
If you watched something else than Fox News, you'd know the truth, but you'd rather be told your government is doing this out of the goodness of their heart, not greed, rather than know the truth. Feel-good news isn't news, it's propaganda.
Please tell me how I plan for a mad man with fire arms. I would really like to know how you plan your exits while you have a guy in an unknown position heading towards unknown locations. Do you play Russian roullete and let 1 class get massacred so the others can escape, or do you all move to 1 location and get shot when he realizes you're all going to parking lot B?
If you've ever played any sort of FPS game you know full well people react in odd ways and you can't predict which way they will come at you from, let alone make a formal plan for such a situation. Putting this into real world setting you're plan revolves on 99% luck and 1% skill. Is there ever was a need for a "-1 Feeding Jack Thompson" mod, this is it;)
Terrorism refers to attempts to use violence and threats to coerce and incite change in those who have power. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately. George W. Bush, March 17, 2003
In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws, and nothing else, gave Woodham that time.
People had to turn to BBC and al-fucking-Jazeera to get some real news on the invasion, because all the American outlets were only feeding us what the military was giving them. CNN was "fun" to watch back then, if you enjoy irony and whatnot. Watching a CNN reporter comment on US soldiers walking out of the palaces with anything made out of gold they could carry and calling their looting "taking souvenirs", that was entertaining.
Listening to the tough talk of the US officials saying that anyone damaging an oil well would be tried for war crimes, then watching the troops and tanks outside of museums and hospitals just sitting there while Iraqis took out anything not bolted down, and then came back with screwdrivers... that was entertaining too, in a "humanity sucks" kinda way.
The correct plan against a single rampaging gunman seems to be for everybody to rush him. An archer can shoot peons all day long if all they do is run and hide within the base, but he'll only be able to get a few if the entire workforce rushes him. EXCELLENT plan: I'm right behind you...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't realize he was one of the "let it happen, we'll be rich enough to build around it then" people. I thought he was one of the "conservative estimates" types, not the bad kind of "conservatives".
New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. NO, the myth is " Polar bear numbers are increasing".
Increasing != "not declining".
A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed. Sheeple.
Oh really? Care to site sources for this proof? Care to learn the meaning of "sarcasm"?
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.
The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
The fact that you fall so easily for Viking marketing is quite telling to your position of global warming: Thre's one of you born every minute.
That MIT professor doesn't argue agaisnt anthropogenic global warming, he argues that the rise in temperature won't be as high as the model predicts.
You would knot that if you read the fucking article: "Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict."
You also need to learn that the people who made you think the MIT professor was opposing the scientific consensus are not the same people as the MIT professors and other scientists of the world.
They're people with money, pushing an agenda, and using marketing techniques to shape public opinion. And you fell for it.
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.
Don't fall for thei slick propaganda. And don't ask us to give them credit they do not deserve.
1- Deny it's happening
2- When the evidence makes that laughable, change strategies: Deny it's a bad thing.
3- When it finally happened, laugh all the way to the bank.
So, other than the standard response of "Global warming deniers are liars", can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy? It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to. Easy, they list a myth and debunk it, you link to the original myth and go "hey, this must be true!". It's... er... dumb.
This was at the bottom of your link:
James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (born November 17, 1934) is a conservative American politician from Oklahoma. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is the most vocal skeptic of climate change (global warming) in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues.Heated debates are not science, they are sophistry.This is in the 26."If I talk the loudest, what I say is the truth!" should stop sorking when you pass the age of 5.In the 26.Again, this is in the 26 myths of TFA.TV meteorologists are not climatologists, nor reliable.I'm rubber and you're glue... again, past the age of 5, this shouldn't fly.It's wrong when they disagree with us......but when they agree with us, they're unquestionable!"Entertainer's friends say that..." WHO CARES?
Seriously, the list of 26 is neutral, they debunk believer myths as well as denier myths.
You replied to a page of one-sided propaganda.
Can't you see the difference?
Then how,precisely, exactly, would YOU deal with a combatant you had reason to suspect may be armed and playing possum? Ask Jessica Lynch if she thinks wounded enemies should be executed on the off chance that they still have some fight in them.
If you defend your marines when they illegally murder wounded enemies, then you are telling the rest of the world to kill YOUR wounded. Why should they risk getting their hospitals attacked by bringing your blue eyed wounded there for treatment? It's much safer to just kill them in cold blood.
I would like the troops to be treated humanely when they are wounded by the enemy, you're telling your enemies it's better to shoot them like dogs.
2- No wonder you people are ignorant, since you get your info from Fox News.
3- You can take the high road and fight fair, or accept that planes in buildings and dirty bombs are also free game if you don't. Pick one.
You are defending shooting unarmed, injured men? You're morally bankrupt.
How would/do/have YOU act/acted when you suspect(ed) an enemy fighter may be "playing possum" You're defending "shooting injured, unarmed men"???
Don't. Just... don't.
There are things called "line breaks" and "paragraphs".
If you want to be taken seriously, learn what these are, and use them.
What you're saying they said isn't true. It's a Big Lie. Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life, all of the channels besides Fox News made it seem like we conquered them, like we were raping their women, like we were killing innocent people on purpose. You conquered them.
Raped their women (and men).
Killed innocent men, women and children by the tens of thousand!
Destroyed the bridges, destroyed the aqueducts, destroyed the sewer treatment plants, allowed the hospitals and museums to be looted while the troops that disbanded the police stood at the doors and watched.
But by gods, the oil sure was well protected!
If you watched something else than Fox News, you'd know the truth, but you'd rather be told your government is doing this out of the goodness of their heart, not greed, rather than know the truth.
Feel-good news isn't news, it's propaganda.
If you've ever played any sort of FPS game you know full well people react in odd ways and you can't predict which way they will come at you from, let alone make a formal plan for such a situation. Putting this into real world setting you're plan revolves on 99% luck and 1% skill. Is there ever was a need for a "-1 Feeding Jack Thompson" mod, this is it
George W. Bush, March 17, 2003
Just sayin'...
It's sick.
Again: Chuck a desk at him when he's reloading!
Watching a CNN reporter comment on US soldiers walking out of the palaces with anything made out of gold they could carry and calling their looting "taking souvenirs", that was entertaining.
Listening to the tough talk of the US officials saying that anyone damaging an oil well would be tried for war crimes, then watching the troops and tanks outside of museums and hospitals just sitting there while Iraqis took out anything not bolted down, and then came back with screwdrivers... that was entertaining too, in a "humanity sucks" kinda way.