The vast number of regular Americans that consider themselves "deniers" are not as concerned with their stocks in those industries being affected as they are the power and control the US government will receive in the name of combating the biggest hoax in the history of the planet.
It's also due to the innate hypocrisy of conservatives. They preach about personal responsibility and accountability, but like the everything else they preach about - fiscal responsibility, family values, strong national defense - they are only standards for people who aren't conservative, not for themselves.
If global warming is real, that conservatives have had a hand in its creation (along with everyone else) but are almost entirely responsible for for the fact that we haven't done anything about it. So, rather than face that responsibility and accountability, they continue to deny the problem.
...and looking at the business section of the Telegraph (UK) I've seen lots of examples of financial sector parasites rubbing their hands in anticipation of Carbon trading and other schemes.
And how many of those ads are placed by those doing the research? You also fail to mention that the whole reason for carbon trading is that it's an attempt to use capitalism to help reduce climate change. And I thought conservatives liked capitalism. Well, since you're against it now, I guess we could start passing harsh regulations against the fossil fuel industry instead....
The peer review process itself was subverted. They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked, even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the "science" that they were producing.
Other than the fact that this is a bunch of nonsense pulled out of your ass, you mean. What's happened in this case is simply standard operating procedures for the ostriches - seize on anything that looks like a smoking gun on face value, nevermind that their "gun" falls apart as quickly as a lunar conspiracy theory.
Thickening arctic ice means global warming is a hoax (except it's happening due to increased precipitation from warmer temperatures bringing more water vapor into the air).
A few faulty temperature sensors in a few American cities mean that global warming is a hoax (nevermind all the nonfaulty sensors and multitude of other data).
Now it's talk of a "trick" (common phrase amongst statisticians) and "hiding fudged data" (nevermind that it was throwing out data from tree cores that didn't match measured temperatures).
Why? Say your name is Bob Rivers and you have a sister named Jan and a brother named Jim. Someone hacks your email account and one message out of thousands talks about how "Jim" got Jan pregnant. Except "Jim" is "Jim Smith", the name of her husband - who just happens to share the same first name as your brother.
Why is it your job to explain to random strangers that your family is not from the South?
Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Bill Bradley even Walter Cronkite, all "News" Anchors/reporters all, all LEFT wing.
I have a suggestion for you: go see a nice proctologist in North Korea for that little "problem" of yours. Once he's done extracting your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what LEFT WING actually looks like.
See, this is the attitude I can't stand. Why do you feel the need to divide everything into believers and denialists? It isn't 'us' against 'them.' That's not scientific in any way.
What are you babbling on about? This is Fox News, the propaganda mouthpiece for the Republican party. This isn't an ad hominem, it's a simple fact that's not up for debate. You might as well try and argue that Korean Central Television is an unbiased news source.
And every blue moon Chris Wallace performs an actual act of journalism and asks a tough follow up question of a Republican. That does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that he sucks Republican cock all day long, all day strong.
Same goes for the rest of Fox. And anyone who argues otherwise is either grossly ignorant of Fox's penchant for labeling Republicans in trouble as Democrats on the ticker & showing months old footage and pretending it's new - just to scratch the surface - or they have the same appetite as Chris Wallace.
by the way, we have $100,000 we'll fund you with to tell us the ramifications of this horrible global warming -- if you find evidence of it existing, that is."
And as soon as you can show that more than a fraction of a percentage of grants are handed out on such a basis, you might have a point there.
My answer was "since you're suing people who know aynthing about flashing Nintendos or even do it, my answer has to be no". This is when he offered money...
You didn't finish the story....is that when your screen name kicked in?
However, if we woke up one day, and said -- "everything not in is out," we'd be one short amendment process away from adding things like the Air Force back into the Constitution.
Sure, sure, but the same thing would happen with Social Security. It's an enormously popular program with tiny administrative costs, and the AARP is the most powerful domestic lobby. Ditto for free-to-use health care.
They did not intend, I believe, to provide a national welfare state.
Social services and safety nets aren't about coddling the lazy, they're about protecting and increasing the middle class. Besides, even the richest, most self-centered elitist in the country will save a ton of money with single payer if he suffers a severe illness or accident.
I'm well aware of the fact that you need to take remedial math. Do you keep your head up your ass because you find the position comfortable, or is it for the warmth, or what?
Democrats routinely pick up over 90% of the black vote. Blacks were among the last groups to get onboard the Obama bandwagon at the start of the primary because they didn't think he'd be given a chance.
But back to the 90% part: Southern Strategy. Google it.
Then you're the first person to have some modicum of consistency...if you actually follow through. Most try and weasel around it. For example, our resident dumb fat fuck, Pudge, argued that all that military stuff was okay under the Forgoing Powers Doctrine, nevermind that General Welfare and Common Defense are in the same sentence in the Constitution, and restrictions that apply to one obviously apply to the other.
But if you support an expansive interpretation of Forgoing Powers, then you have no argument against the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which basically allows Congress to do whatever the hell it wants to do. You can't be a selective constitutionalist and a strict constitutionalist at the same time. Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em, can't do it.
We are happy to pay for all of these things because they are necessary for a balanced society; however, when we see state and federal government spending unprecedented amounts of money at a time when states are flat out bankrupt and giving a certain segment of their workers IOU forms for repayment at a later date (California I'm looking at you), you eventually begin to say "no, you can't have another dime of my hard-earned money."
Except of course that's when you need government spending the most. In a hard crash, it takes years if not decades for business and consumer demand to rebound on their own. Whereas direct government action cushions people from the recession while putting people back to work and putting money in their pockets - which they then spend on goods and services, reviving the economy.
Or, long story short: a Great Depression is far more worrisome than a high amount of national debt. And arguably we would be in a Great Depression 2.0 if it weren't for cushions like unemployment benefits.
Sure. Why not? It happened once before when, in 1781, America created the world's only elected Republic (the Confederation of United States) while the rest of the "developed world" was ruled by monarchs or oligarchs. We Americans are rebellious like that.
Right, which is why you're paying 30-35 cents on the dollar for administrative costs with private insurance, so the CEO of Wellpoint can be worth three quarters of a billion dollars. Whereas Medicare has 2 cents on the dollar for administrative costs.
Why don't we just all sell ourselves as Serfs to our respective Corporations, and let them take care of our every need so long as we can afford it? Why it will be just like circa 1000 A.D. again, where we can live, eat, and die happy with our little plots of land.
Two wrongs don't make a right. So we should just ignore the entire 10th Amendment and the principles of a limited federal government?
Nice dodge. Will you rail against NASA, the CIA, the NSA and any of the 18 intelligence agencies not attached to the army or the navy: yes or no? How about large parts of the FBI, spy satellites and NORAD? Or are you a selectively strict constitutionalist, i.e. engaging in arguments of convenience?
PS: The Air Force was actually formed as part of the Army.
PS: it's not any more, so obviously its a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.
Which is ALWAYS applied selectively, as you only see the tenthers bitching about Social Security, but not the Air Force or the CIA (Congress "only" has the power to fund a army and a navy).
So commodore, you're attending tea party protests while carrying a sign saying "End the Air Force Now!", right? Because the Constitution only gives Congress the authority to fund an army and a navy.
Unions sink any disruptive reform that threatens their status or wealth, for instance.
What "wealth"? How many union haters would be content with $45k a year after a couple decades on the job, a masters degree (or two), years of continuing education and 50-60 hour work weeks?
What "status"? People love to bitch about teachers, as evidenced by just about every thread in this story.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what Firefox and Bugmenot are for.
The vast number of regular Americans that consider themselves "deniers" are not as concerned with their stocks in those industries being affected as they are the power and control the US government will receive in the name of combating the biggest hoax in the history of the planet.
It's also due to the innate hypocrisy of conservatives. They preach about personal responsibility and accountability, but like the everything else they preach about - fiscal responsibility, family values, strong national defense - they are only standards for people who aren't conservative, not for themselves.
If global warming is real, that conservatives have had a hand in its creation (along with everyone else) but are almost entirely responsible for for the fact that we haven't done anything about it. So, rather than face that responsibility and accountability, they continue to deny the problem.
...and looking at the business section of the Telegraph (UK) I've seen lots of examples of financial sector parasites rubbing their hands in anticipation of Carbon trading and other schemes.
And how many of those ads are placed by those doing the research? You also fail to mention that the whole reason for carbon trading is that it's an attempt to use capitalism to help reduce climate change. And I thought conservatives liked capitalism. Well, since you're against it now, I guess we could start passing harsh regulations against the fossil fuel industry instead....
The peer review process itself was subverted. They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked, even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the "science" that they were producing.
Other than the fact that this is a bunch of nonsense pulled out of your ass, you mean. What's happened in this case is simply standard operating procedures for the ostriches - seize on anything that looks like a smoking gun on face value, nevermind that their "gun" falls apart as quickly as a lunar conspiracy theory.
Thickening arctic ice means global warming is a hoax (except it's happening due to increased precipitation from warmer temperatures bringing more water vapor into the air).
A few faulty temperature sensors in a few American cities mean that global warming is a hoax (nevermind all the nonfaulty sensors and multitude of other data).
Now it's talk of a "trick" (common phrase amongst statisticians) and "hiding fudged data" (nevermind that it was throwing out data from tree cores that didn't match measured temperatures).
Same shit, different day.
Well, but you should tell the whole story then.
Why? Say your name is Bob Rivers and you have a sister named Jan and a brother named Jim. Someone hacks your email account and one message out of thousands talks about how "Jim" got Jan pregnant. Except "Jim" is "Jim Smith", the name of her husband - who just happens to share the same first name as your brother.
Why is it your job to explain to random strangers that your family is not from the South?
Uhm... the author had no intent of ever releasing that code.
Uhm....if you rob a bank I doubt you leave plans lying around your house, even if you plan on leaving no evidence tying the robbery to you...
Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Bill Bradley even Walter Cronkite, all "News" Anchors/reporters all, all LEFT wing.
I have a suggestion for you: go see a nice proctologist in North Korea for that little "problem" of yours. Once he's done extracting your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what LEFT WING actually looks like.
See, this is the attitude I can't stand. Why do you feel the need to divide everything into believers and denialists? It isn't 'us' against 'them.' That's not scientific in any way.
What are you babbling on about? This is Fox News, the propaganda mouthpiece for the Republican party. This isn't an ad hominem, it's a simple fact that's not up for debate. You might as well try and argue that Korean Central Television is an unbiased news source.
I suppose you could see it that way, but then I'd have to call you willfully obtuse. Where's the financial incentive for scientists to fake results?
And every blue moon Chris Wallace performs an actual act of journalism and asks a tough follow up question of a Republican. That does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that he sucks Republican cock all day long, all day strong.
Same goes for the rest of Fox. And anyone who argues otherwise is either grossly ignorant of Fox's penchant for labeling Republicans in trouble as Democrats on the ticker & showing months old footage and pretending it's new - just to scratch the surface - or they have the same appetite as Chris Wallace.
by the way, we have $100,000 we'll fund you with to tell us the ramifications of this horrible global warming -- if you find evidence of it existing, that is."
And as soon as you can show that more than a fraction of a percentage of grants are handed out on such a basis, you might have a point there.
You didn't finish the story....is that when your screen name kicked in?
However, if we woke up one day, and said -- "everything not in is out," we'd be one short amendment process away from adding things like the Air Force back into the Constitution.
Sure, sure, but the same thing would happen with Social Security. It's an enormously popular program with tiny administrative costs, and the AARP is the most powerful domestic lobby. Ditto for free-to-use health care.
They did not intend, I believe, to provide a national welfare state.
Social services and safety nets aren't about coddling the lazy, they're about protecting and increasing the middle class. Besides, even the richest, most self-centered elitist in the country will save a ton of money with single payer if he suffers a severe illness or accident.
I am well aware.
I'm well aware of the fact that you need to take remedial math. Do you keep your head up your ass because you find the position comfortable, or is it for the warmth, or what?
Democrats routinely pick up over 90% of the black vote. Blacks were among the last groups to get onboard the Obama bandwagon at the start of the primary because they didn't think he'd be given a chance.
But back to the 90% part: Southern Strategy. Google it.
But if you support an expansive interpretation of Forgoing Powers, then you have no argument against the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which basically allows Congress to do whatever the hell it wants to do. You can't be a selective constitutionalist and a strict constitutionalist at the same time. Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em, can't do it.
We are happy to pay for all of these things because they are necessary for a balanced society; however, when we see state and federal government spending unprecedented amounts of money at a time when states are flat out bankrupt and giving a certain segment of their workers IOU forms for repayment at a later date (California I'm looking at you), you eventually begin to say "no, you can't have another dime of my hard-earned money."
Except of course that's when you need government spending the most. In a hard crash, it takes years if not decades for business and consumer demand to rebound on their own. Whereas direct government action cushions people from the recession while putting people back to work and putting money in their pockets - which they then spend on goods and services, reviving the economy.
Or, long story short: a Great Depression is far more worrisome than a high amount of national debt. And arguably we would be in a Great Depression 2.0 if it weren't for cushions like unemployment benefits.
Sure. Why not? It happened once before when, in 1781, America created the world's only elected Republic (the Confederation of United States) while the rest of the "developed world" was ruled by monarchs or oligarchs. We Americans are rebellious like that.
Right, which is why you're paying 30-35 cents on the dollar for administrative costs with private insurance, so the CEO of Wellpoint can be worth three quarters of a billion dollars. Whereas Medicare has 2 cents on the dollar for administrative costs.
Free market math at work.
STRAWMAN argument.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. But nice try on dismissing your blatant hypocrisy re: paying for things we don't like.
Why don't we just all sell ourselves as Serfs to our respective Corporations, and let them take care of our every need so long as we can afford it? Why it will be just like circa 1000 A.D. again, where we can live, eat, and die happy with our little plots of land.
Fixed that for you.
Two wrongs don't make a right. So we should just ignore the entire 10th Amendment and the principles of a limited federal government?
Nice dodge. Will you rail against NASA, the CIA, the NSA and any of the 18 intelligence agencies not attached to the army or the navy: yes or no? How about large parts of the FBI, spy satellites and NORAD? Or are you a selectively strict constitutionalist, i.e. engaging in arguments of convenience?
PS: The Air Force was actually formed as part of the Army.
PS: it's not any more, so obviously its a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.
You mean, his anti-stem cell research policy where he shrunk the previous administrations budget of $0.00 to several millions.
Because it was a new area of science, dumbass. Kind of hard to spend money to further develop an area of science BEFORE it's been invented/discovered.
Which is ALWAYS applied selectively, as you only see the tenthers bitching about Social Security, but not the Air Force or the CIA (Congress "only" has the power to fund a army and a navy).
So commodore, you're attending tea party protests while carrying a sign saying "End the Air Force Now!", right? Because the Constitution only gives Congress the authority to fund an army and a navy.
Unions sink any disruptive reform that threatens their status or wealth, for instance.
What "wealth"? How many union haters would be content with $45k a year after a couple decades on the job, a masters degree (or two), years of continuing education and 50-60 hour work weeks?
What "status"? People love to bitch about teachers, as evidenced by just about every thread in this story.