Let’s Get Ready to Rumble

Environment • Views: 2,014

Now here’s an initiative we can really get behind — a call for Sarah Palin to put her money where her mouth is, and debate Al Gore on climate change: Sarah vs Al: The People Want This One.

No time to be shy, “little” Sarah. Shooting spitballs and then hiding behind your computer screen isn’t going to get you into the White House. But nailing Gore’s carcass but good - that’s the stuff that conservative dreams are made of.

I think this will take more than a little bit of outside prodding. When asked about her interest in a debate with Gore, Palin balked at getting set up by Gore’s “friends.” If that’s her biggest problem, then she should listen to Ingraham, who is hardly going to be confused with someone from moveon.org. The two sides could find a neutral setting like the Oxford Union, which has honestly hosted generations of debates, and head into the debate knowing they were on an equal footing.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I want it to happen. Look, it’s been a long and lousy year for most folks (unless you happen to work for Goldman Sachs.) Unemployment soared, the Octomom and Jon Gosselin wouldn’t disappear and the Yankees won the World Series. Could it get much worse? (I ask that knowing full well that the Tiger Woods novella is just getting started.)

So as 2010 comes to a close, we deserve a break. A prime time one-on-one showdown - the people deserve this one. Bill it as “The Thrilla From Wasilla” versus “The Tennessee Tornado” - or whatever - and donate the proceeds to charity. But bring it on.

Jump to bottom

901 comments
1 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:21:39am

ain't gonna happen

2 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:22:52am

That'd be surreal.

3 Kragar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:23:06am

That'll be a real meeting of the minds.

4 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:23:26am

As long as there is no poetry.

5 Kragar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:23:40am

re: #2 Obdicut

That'd be surreal.

A binary system of DUH.

6 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:23:45am

Heh...she'd need a few years to prep first. And her conditions for the debate would be so bizarre they'd eventually have to cancel:
1. She picks the questions.
2. She picks the audience.
3. She gets to answer first.
4. Gore's only allowed to nod his head.
5. Glenn Beck and Greta Van Sustern get to be the moderators.
6. No media will be allowed.
7. No transcripts.

7 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:23:48am

We wouldn't learn anything else about AGW...but i don't want to watch Pacquiao/Mayweather to learn about AGW either!

Can we have Michael Buffer do the honors?

8 badger1970  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:24:12am

Two of the most respected climate scientists in the world going toe-to-toe? What's not to love? /

9 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:24:38am

This one is funny because she's now pre-planning her excuses and potential escape into her favorite posture, that of a victim. Basically if she debates him and wins, she's great, if she loses, she was set up by Gore's friends.

Either way she'll still be a hero to her worshipful fan base.

10 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:24:55am

re: #4 Cannadian Club Akbar

As long as there is no poetry.

But will there be skeet shooting? If so, Gore is out like a wet match.

11 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:25:09am

Drinking game-Every cliche. Better figure on light beer.

12 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:25:16am

re: #9 Locker

and people say she isn't smart!!!

//

13 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:25:53am

Sighs vs. Winks

14 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:18am

Given that climate-change deniers are still daily harping on Gore's misstatement about the relative temperature of the earth's core, (like they still harp on Obama's "57 states" gaffe), Gore would need to bat a perfect 1000 to win, and even then he wouldn't convince a single person on the opposite side.

Meanwhile, the logic bar for Palin is so fantastically low already, all she would have to do is wink and do the "Aw shucks, well, I'm not really a scientist or any of that fancy stuff..." and be considered the winner to anyone who already looks to her as a source of wisdom.

In other words, there's really no reason for Gore to debate her.

15 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:31am

I'd really rather not see this happen. A bottle of Tequila would give me the same feeling I'd get watching these two together.

16 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:39am

re: #9 Locker

This one is funny because she's now pre-planning her excuses and potential escape into her favorite posture, that of a victim. Basically if she debates him and wins, she's great, if she loses, she was set up by Gore's friends.

Either way she'll still be a hero to her worshipful fan base.

She'll hold Trig up as a human shield from any criticism.

"Why won't you debate Al Gore, Sarah?"
"Shame on you...I'm holding my baby!"

17 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:43am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A binary system of DUH.

Well, Gore understands global warming, but he's a terrible, terrible public speaker and has that overlying air of patronization that makes him grating to listen to. But, assuming he had sufficient notes, he'd be representing good science.

Palin, on the other hand: god knows what argument she'd bring. Maybe that everything Gore said was in her book already. And then contradict herself.

18 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:48am

re: #12 Aceofwhat?

and people say she isn't smart!!!

//

no way will her handlers ever let this happen

19 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:48am

Wind bag vs Whine bag.

With a brawl in the parking lot between their unthinking, slavish followers.

20 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:26:56am

How about this-Pay per view-Watch Sarah explain why AGW is a conspiracy and watch Al Gore try to butcher a moose.

21 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:27:03am

Not gonna happen.

Palin is perfectly comfortable and happy sniping from hiding. She's created a completely insular world in which she never has to answer to the press, opponents or anyone else she disagrees with or who might ask embarrassing questions, and that seems to suit her just fine.

As I've said several times before, her career as a politician ended with her resignation from the governorship. Instead, she has taken on the role of professional gadfly, answerable to no one, taking potshots from the sidelines. There's good money it in - ask Michelle Malkin - and no downside.

Exposing herself to an opponent's scrutiny - even an idiot like Gore - can only hurt this comfortable position she's built for herself, and do nothing to help it.

22 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:27:53am

How about we dispense with the niceties, set up a mud wrestling pit, let the strip down to their skivies and duke it out. That would be much more fun.

23 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:27:54am

Question from MSNBC: VP Gore, do you like puppies?

Question from FOX: Gubner Palin, ice sheets seem to be melting. Can you show us how to clean a moose?

24 Ericus58  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:23am

re: #16 darthstar

That's not called for, not funny

25 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:35am

re: #21 SixDegrees

Not going to happen, not going to be a GOP candidate for anything either. There I said it. On The Record.

26 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:36am

re: #20 Rightwingconspirator

How about this-Pay per view-Watch Sarah explain why AGW is a conspiracy and watch Al Gore try to butcher a moose.

Al Gore grew up in Tennessee...I'm sure he's butchered smaller animals. A moose is simply larger.

Speaking coherently is, however, a challenge Sarah Palin would have difficulty with, I'm guessing.

27 Kragar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:42am

re: #17 Obdicut

Well, Gore understands global warming, but he's a terrible, terrible public speaker and has that overlying air of patronization that makes him grating to listen to. But, assuming he had sufficient notes, he'd be representing good science.

Palin, on the other hand: god knows what argument she'd bring. Maybe that everything Gore said was in her book already. And then contradict herself.

Neither one is a person I would willingly sit and listen to. I'd rather sit and watch paint dry because that at least has the potential for a contact high off the fumes.

28 gregb  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:42am

That would be fun to watch.

29 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:43am

Finally one Gore won't duck.

30 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:28:53am

re: #19 karmic_inquisitor

Wind bag vs Whine bag.

With a brawl in the parking lot between their unthinking, slavish followers.

...and Gore's.

31 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:29:17am

Of course this would not happen.

It's a pity.

Unfortunately the reality is the following if a debate would happen:

Gore would come very well prepared with actual science.

Palin would talk about anything but the science and try to smear Gore.

Palin would then launch into the same denialist talking points that she doesn't really understand anyway, stammer and be perky when making stuff up.

Gore would in a long winded but mostly correct and boring way explain the science over and over.

Palin gets more perky! And repeats the same one liner that was just debunked.

The cycle repeats.

Afterwords, the denial types would pick through everything that Gore said with a microscope, find one or two things to fixate on - in addition to bashing him for everything else he ever did, and then try to claim that the 99% of the stuff he said was correct was all false.

Palin is declared the "winner" by the right.

The rest of the world sees her for the utter moron she is, and starts a new round of jokes about all thee really silly things she said coupled with blank stares.

Ulimate upshot, this is all a good thing. It further convinces the educated world that the right wing has gone off the rails and further discredits the anti-science wing of the right. As a downside though, it promotes the cult of Sarah amongst the true believers who hunker down more.

32 Gus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:29:25am

I'm starting to like Charles Cooper more and more. I like the idea of doing it for charity.

33 Ericus58  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:29:35am

re: #19 karmic_inquisitor

Wind bag vs Whine bag.

With a brawl in the parking lot between their unthinking, slavish followers.

"Next, on the Jerry Springer show..."

34 Kilroy  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:29:39am

This would be better than Billy Jean King vs Bobby Riggs. They should do it with pay for view, winner takes all.

35 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:29:46am

re: #21 SixDegrees

"They're attacking Sarah!"

[Link: www.google.com...]

431,000 docs come back just for the last week.

She leads a cult.

36 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:30:04am

re: #24 Ericus58

That's not called for, not funny

She uses her kids as props. And she used Trig as validation for questioning President Obama's birth certificate already...so I'm just stating the obvious.

37 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:30:16am

I wonder though- if this isn't more like biologists refusing to debate creationists. It would be an interesting debate, and I'd certainly watch it with a bowl of popcorn.

38 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:30:24am

re: #16 darthstar

You must really admrie Cato.

39 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:31:10am

re: #36 darthstar

She uses her kids as props. And she used Trig as validation for questioning President Obama's birth certificate already...so I'm just stating the obvious.

Eh. Doesn't mean we ought to use her kids as props. Veerrry different.

40 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:31:11am

re: #32 Gus 802

I'm starting to like Charles Cooper more and more. I like the idea of doing it for charity.

If he were charitable he'd spare all of us the spectacle.

41 salo  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:31:19am

I think Gore may be too busy ducking Vaclav Klaus to debate Palin.

42 Kragar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:31:39am

re: #33 Ericus58

"Next, on the Jerry Springer show..."

"My Baby's Mama aint got no carbon footprint, bitch!"

43 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:31:52am

re: #37 Sharmuta

I wonder though- if this isn't more like biologists refusing to debate creationists. It would be an interesting debate, and I'd certainly watch it with a bowl of popcorn.

It would be more like a duck trying to debate a goose, at least in terms of intelligence.

44 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:31:59am

Sarah Palin Divides The GOP Elite

National Journal's annual Insiders Poll issue will come out Friday, but we've got some early results; the most interesting finding is how many GOP insiders and members of Congress listed Palin as one of their least favorite members of the party.

Palin was the top response when 85 GOP strategists and insiders were asked, "Which voice in your party would you most like to mute?" 28 percent listed Palin; Republican National Committee Chairman Michael came in second, with 12 percent.

Republican members of Congress think a little more highly of her: when GOP lawmakers were asked the same question, "no one" was the most popular response (16 percent), but Palin tied for second at 11 percent with Glenn Beck and Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Steve King (R-IA), and Tom Price (R-GA). 19 votes were recorded in this category.

45 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:32:36am

I'll pass.

46 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:32:38am

re: #16 darthstar

She'll hold Trig up as a human shield from any criticism.

"Why won't you debate Al Gore, Sarah?"
"Shame on you...I'm holding my baby!"

Either that or say:

"for the sake of our troops, stop asking me those questions"

Wait she did say that already...

47 Soap_Man  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:32:39am

re: #14 Jaerik

Given that climate-change deniers are still daily harping on Gore's misstatement about the relative temperature of the earth's core, (like they still harp on Obama's "57 states" gaffe), Gore would need to bat a perfect 1000 to win, and even then he wouldn't convince a single person on the opposite side.

Meanwhile, the logic bar for Palin is so fantastically low already, all she would have to do is wink and do the "Aw shucks, well, I'm not really a scientist or any of that fancy stuff..." and be considered the winner to anyone who already looks to her as a source of wisdom.

In other words, there's really no reason for Gore to debate her.

I agree 100%. Take when she "debated" Biden. The bar was set so low that as long as she didn't vomit on herself while on stage it would be considered a success.

Biden smoked her, plain and simple (and this is coming from someone who can't stand the man). Any objective viewer saw that. But that didn't stop the Chicago Sun-Time from running this headline the following day: "Who won? It's debatable." (The Chicago Tribune has something similar, basically calling it a draw.)

48 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:32:49am

re: #44 Sharmuta

Wow. that's poor company to be listed in.

49 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:32:53am

re: #38 MandyManners

You must really admrie Cato.

What...she's already used her kids as props and validation for her attacks on the president in recent weeks...you don't think she'd hesitate to do it again?

Do a google search on how many times she's mentioned people attacking her kids (which, by the way, I didn't do). Sarah's white trash through and through. She'll use anyone to get ahead...and she has.

50 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:33:17am

re: #16 darthstar

She'll hold Trig up as a human shield from any criticism.

"Why won't you debate Al Gore, Sarah?"
"Shame on you...I'm holding my baby!"

Now that's funny!

51 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:33:19am

re: #16 darthstar

She'll hold Trig up as a human shield from any criticism.

"Why won't you debate Al Gore, Sarah?"
"Shame on you...I'm holding my baby!"

I know you got down dinged for this but I know exactly what you mean. I actually read an article some months back that claimed the left's problem with Sarah had nothing to do with any of her policies or anything she does, it's because we/they "hate trig".

Basically she can say whatever she wants about trig, bring him on stage, use him in speeches and if anyone questions one word of it, they "hate trig".

52 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:33:25am

It better not happen. Nothing could devalue the issue more than having two politicians "debate" it with a sports-minded audience cheering for a win.

53 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:33:40am

Meanwhile, idiotblogger Jim Hoft is relentlessly pushing the false claims about Obama's education czar Kevin Jennings, like a homophobic parrot on meth.

They're trying to get Jennings fired with an ugly smear campaign. "The sodomites are out to steal your children!!!1"

54 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:33:52am

re: #50 Cato the Elder

Now that's funny!

It's unnerving how you are on cue so often...

55 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:34:33am
Palin: Oh my goodness. You know, it depends on what the venue would be, what the forum. Because Laura, as you know, if it would be some kind of conventional, traditional debate with his friends setting it up or being the commentators I’ll get clobbered because, you know, they don’t want to listen to the facts.

She wants a straight forward, face-to-Facebook debate.

56 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:34:51am

re: #51 Locker

I know you got down dinged for this but I know exactly what you mean. I actually read an article some months back that claimed the left's problem with Sarah had nothing to do with any of her policies or anything she does, it's because we/they "hate trig".

Basically she can say whatever she wants about trig, bring him on stage, use him in speeches and if anyone questions one word of it, they "hate trig".

Thanks. Apparently, her people hate Trig argument works, as evidenced by knee-jerk reactions to mentioning him.

57 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:35:06am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"My Baby's Mama aint got no carbon footprint, bitch!"

"Yo baby's mama's carbon footprint's so big, they sent out a team from Jurassic Park to study her!"

58 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:35:08am

re: #53 Charles

Meanwhile, idiotblogger Jim Hoft is relentlessly pushing the false claims about Obama's education czar Kevin Jennings, like a homophobic parrot on meth.

They're trying to get Jennings fired with an ugly smear campaign. "The sodomites are out to steal your children!!!1"


"Fist-gate?"

59 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:35:27am

re: #57 Cato the Elder

"Yo baby's mama's carbon footprint's so big, they sent out a team from Jurassic Park to study her!"

LOL

60 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:35:39am

re: #53 Charles

Meanwhile, idiotblogger Jim Hoft is relentlessly pushing the false claims about Obama's education czar Kevin Jennings, like a homophobic parrot on meth.

They're trying to get Jennings fired with an ugly smear campaign. "The sodomites are out to steal your children!!!1"

It was zombie who started that smear.

61 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:35:56am

re: #53 Charles

Meanwhile, idiotblogger Jim Hoft is relentlessly pushing the false claims about Obama's education czar Kevin Jennings, like a homophobic parrot on meth.

They're trying to get Jennings fired with an ugly smear campaign. "The sodomites are out to steal your children!!!1"

They always use the children as props/shields/weapons. A point I mistakenly made in #16.

62 darthstar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:36:38am

time to take the cat to the vet...happy-yapping.

63 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:36:46am

re: #58 Ben Hur

"Fist-gate?"

Oh, you.

64 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:37:15am

re: #56 darthstar

Thanks. Apparently, her people hate Trig argument works, as evidenced by knee-jerk reactions to mentioning him.

Ahh. So because Sarah can use a handicapped baby as a tool, that makes it OK for everyone else to pile on as well?

Show some class.

65 Kragar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:37:18am

re: #58 Ben Hur

"Fist-gate?"

I do believe some people are actually calling it that.

66 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:37:19am

re: #63 MandyManners

Oh, you.

That's what "they've" been calling it for a few weeks now.

67 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:37:25am

re: #60 Sharmuta

It was zombie who started that smear.

I am completely unsurprised by this, despite thinking it had WND written all over it.

68 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:37:48am

re: #60 Sharmuta

It was zombie who started that smear.

Was it really? Malkin cited someone else as the source, but it's not as though her references can be trusted.

69 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:37:57am

It'll be a real meeting of minds.

Gore, who is prone to making idiotic claims like he invented the Internet and that the earth's core is millions of degrees and whose globetrotting (each trip overseas) puts out more CO2 than the average American does in a year, and Palin, whose own gaffes are too numerous to mention here, and whose anti-science stance and creationism bears no relation to reality.

Yeah, I'll still pass.

70 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:38:01am

re: #51 Locker

I hated trig, and every other math class I had to take, in high school.

71 Sheila Broflovski  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:38:17am

Next South Park episode:

Manbearpig wrestles Mecha-Palin!

72 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:38:24am

re: #53 Charles

Meanwhile, idiotblogger Jim Hoft is relentlessly pushing the false claims about Obama's education czar Kevin Jennings, like a homophobic parrot on meth.

They're trying to get Jennings fired with an ugly smear campaign. "The sodomites are out to steal your children!!!1"

At least Holt has the guts to do his smears in his own name. A certain undead Lizard started this whole thing from behind the screen of "citizen journalist" anonymity.

73 Merryweather  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:38:27am

re: #55 wrenchwench

Great - she's already making excuses. If this debate did happen and she lost, it wouldn't be because she's an idiot who doesn't know her ass from her elbow, it'd be because evil libruls/elitist scientists/godless heathens were out to take her down.

74 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:38:28am

re: #61 darthstar

They always use the children as props/shields/weapons. A point I mistakenly made in #16.

Democrat mind slaves are just as capable of "using the children"
[Link: littledemocrats.net...]

Neither party deserves to make any moral claims.

75 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:39:10am

re: #68 SixDegrees

Was it really? Malkin cited someone else as the source, but it's not as though her references can be trusted.

I'll just link the google results for you, because I'm not linking to the smears themselves.

76 Ericus58  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:39:42am

re: #46 LudwigVanQuixote

Bringing Trig up in a very callous way in this thread does not add "humor".

Leave the kid out of it.
Talk about her personal choices and decisions and their merits. She's taken positions that are not going to get her much more in politics that being an ex Governor was.

77 ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:39:54am

Unlikely considering Gore is to chickenshit to debate anyone on this. Why should he anyway? The science is settled, right? No one debates gravity.

Still, I could imagine him doing this. If you are going to debate one person, make it someone who has no expertiese in the field.

Call me when Gore agrees to debate someone who knows the issues. Hell, I'd settle for Gore v. Inhofe.

How about that Al?

78 Slap  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:40:17am

Hmmm...

AL: That was an ugly smear.
SARAH: I just can't debate with anyone who calls me ugly.
AL: I was referring to the commenter's statement.
SARAH: Now you're making this about states rights?
AL: No, State-MENTs.
SARAH: First it's a government takeover of health care, and now you want the govt to provide MINTS?
AL: wharrrhgggbl

79 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:40:35am

re: #69 lawhawk

He never claimed to have invented the internet, though.

Snopes

80 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:41:01am

re: #74 karmic_inquisitor

Democrat mind slaves are just as capable of "using the children"
[Link: littledemocrats.net...]

Neither party deserves to make any moral claims.

I wasn't going to go there but isn't "do it for the children" a favorite battle cry?

81 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:41:10am

re: #75 Sharmuta

I'll just link the google results for you, because I'm not linking to the smears themselves.

Oops, I had heard about this. Wrong nontroversy.

82 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:41:25am

re: #70 Mad Al-Jaffee

I hated trig, and every other math class I had to take, in high school.

That reminded me of a fun website. Search through 40 million digits of pi. Try your phone number. I found one of my old ones.
[Link: www.angio.net...]

83 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:42:11am

re: #53 Charles

Meanwhile, idiotblogger Jim Hoft is relentlessly pushing the false claims about Obama's education czar Kevin Jennings, like a homophobic parrot on meth.

They're trying to get Jennings fired with an ugly smear campaign. "The sodomites are out to steal your children!!!1"

New at wingnut enterprises!

Do all those annoying facts about the real world keep getting you down?

Have no sellable ideas of your own on how to fix things - because the world is too heathen to vote in the real God fearing agenda you know will save America?

Do all those educated folks and their endless arrogance because they read stuff and remember what is said get you down?

No worries brother!

All you have to do is shout ugly names loudly enough long enough and you never have to talk about a fact again! We know this works because doubt and fear are great motivators! And besides, it feels good to shout evil names doesn't it!

Take that Harvard boy! Prove you aren't a pedophile!

No muss no fuss, and they will be spending so much time trying to "think their way" out of the scandal that there is no need to talk about irrelevant facts again!

It worked for Goebbels. RSM is right that those good white men were not properly appreciated!

///

Well half sarc... I wish it weren't the way things are with some folks.

84 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:42:12am

re: #77 ferris

Was that supposed to be funny? You had me on the floor with the part about "someone who knows the issues" and implying that it's Inhofe.

85 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:42:15am

re: #81 SixDegrees

Oops, I had heard about this. Wrong nontroversy.

It's understandable- there is plenty of kook fodder these days to go around.

86 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:42:22am

re: #64 Racer X

Ahh. So because Sarah can use a handicapped baby as a tool, that makes it OK for everyone else to pile on as well?

Show some class.

I'm pretty sure the point would still be 100% true if you substituted any non-handicapped kid in his original statement.

To be honest, when I originally read it I failed to even remember Trig's disability. A kid with Down's is the same as any other kid in my book. I thought that was how we were supposed to treat the subject to begin with.

87 vxbush  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:42:24am

re: #82 bosforus

That reminded me of a fun website. Search through 40 million digits of pi. Try your phone number. I found one of my old ones.
[Link: www.angio.net...]

Cool!

/math geek

88 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:42:47am

re: #79 Obdicut

He never claimed to have invented the internet, though.

Snopes

True. He said he "took the initiative in creating it." Which is much more god-like than simple, pedestrian invention.

89 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:43:08am

re: #77 ferris

Unlikely considering Gore is to chickenshit to debate anyone on this. Why should he anyway? The science is settled, right? No one debates gravity.

Still, I could imagine him doing this. If you are going to debate one person, make it someone who has no expertiese in the field.

Call me when Gore agrees to debate someone who knows the issues. Hell, I'd settle for Gore v. Inhofe.

How about that Al?

You didn't really just say that you consider James Inhofe to be an expert on global warming, did you?

Oh, I get it. You're kidding. Nobody could seriously believe that. Heh. Had me going there for a minute.

90 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:43:11am

re: #76 Ericus58

Bringing Trig up in a very callous way in this thread does not add "humor".

Leave the kid out of it.
Talk about her personal choices and decisions and their merits. She's taken positions that are not going to get her much more in politics that being an ex Governor was.

Ummm she brings up Trig in a callous way every chance she gets. That is all on her.

91 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:43:23am

re: #79 Obdicut

Actually, if you read the transcript (as linked from snopes), that's what he intended to say:

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Created the Internet is a tad strong, but his wording is such that you could imply precisely that.

92 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:44:01am

Vint Cerf on Al Gore's statement:

Vint Cerf responded to MSNBC's questions about the Net's origins with this e-mail:

VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.

As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.

While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.

93 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:44:08am

re: #90 LudwigVanQuixote

Ummm she brings up Trig in a callous way every chance she gets. That is all on her.

So lets all stoop down there too?

94 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:45:24am

Great. The publicity seeking pseudo-intellectual vs. the publicity seeking pseudo-politician.

If only we could find a couple of White House party-crashers to moderate...

95 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:45:38am

re: #92 Charles

Vint Cerf on Al Gore's statement:

Doesn't matter. The intraweb thinggy is just a fad.
///

96 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:45:49am

re: #93 Racer X

So lets all stoop down there too?

NO, I think it was a fair statement of fact. I really believe that Palin, as she has done in the past would try to use Trig as a shield or promotional tool.

97 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:46:02am

re: #87 vxbush

Cool!

/math geek

Yeah, it is cool. But you're not truly cool until you've found the pattern in the decimal values of the sevenths, ie, 1/7, 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, 6/7, 7/7.
I won't spoil the fun. I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's Friday night.

98 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:46:15am

re: #94 Gearhead

Great. The publicity seeking pseudo-intellectual vs. the publicity seeking pseudo-politician.

If only we could find a couple of White House party-crashers to moderate...

Beer should definitely be served. And nuts.

99 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:46:35am

re: #91 lawhawk

At the top of that Snopes page there, does it call the claim that Gore said he invented the internet true or false?

Does the first paragraph on that Snopes page say:

Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.

?

100 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:46:38am

re: #80 brookly red

I wasn't going to go there but isn't "do it for the children" a favorite battle cry?

Yes. Invoked for all arguments on topics ranging from health care reform to immigration to public pensions.

101 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:46:49am

re: #98 wrenchwench

Beer should definitely be served. And nuts.

I suggest acorns.

102 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:47:11am

Vint Cerf:

Vinton Gray "Vint" Cerf[1] is an American computer scientist who is the "person most often called 'the father of the Internet'."

The fact is that Al Gore has been really unfairly smeared by the right wing on this subject. He DID play a large role in the beginning of the Internet.

103 ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:47:32am

re: #89 Charles

Compared to Sarah Palin? Yeah, I do.

Of course the tip off that I don't think he's the ideal choice was "I'd settle for".

Can you point me to any one on one debate Gore has been willing to engage in on this subject? Or better yet...who do you think is worthy of getting in the ring with Gore? And not on comedic value like Palin but on the merits.

104 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:47:40am

I'd like to request one rule for the debate:

The participants must mime their answers.

105 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:47:45am

re: #1 brookly red

ain't gonna happen

It'd be like me debating Charles on webpage coding. :

106 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:48:22am

re: #92 Charles

Good for you.

Of course Gore deserves credit for his role in getting the net started.

This was one of the more really agitating false memes of the right. They still parrot it over and over.

He never said he invented it.

He did truthfully claim that he was one of the major political movers in making it happen.

107 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:48:26am

I'll never understand why it's supposed to be "ungentlemanly" to point out that Palin, who is anything but a lady, consistently abuses her children as political tools and talking points.

It is unseemly of her to do it, but what's wrong with calling attention to it?

108 Slap  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:48:32am

re: #98 wrenchwench

Beer should definitely be served. And nuts.

Well, if the nuts attend, they should be served along with the sane folks. That's just courtesy.

109 vxbush  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:48:41am

re: #97 bosforus

Yeah, it is cool. But you're not truly cool until you've found the pattern in the decimal values of the sevenths, ie, 1/7, 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, 6/7, 7/7.
I won't spoil the fun. I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's Friday night.

Nice, but simple. More fun to look at the representations of certain complex functions. :D

110 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:48:51am

re: #95 Cannadian Club Akbar

Doesn't matter. The intraweb thinggy is just a fad.
///

Like my new buggy-whip?

111 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:48:52am

This is round 2 on Kevin Jennings. The accusations and smears of NAMBLA didn't work the first time, so now they go with fisting? Pretty low down stuff going on. Bleach please.

112 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:49:22am

re: #100 karmic_inquisitor

Yes. Invoked for all arguments on topics ranging from health care reform to immigration to public pensions.

I knew it sounded familiar...

113 [deleted]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:49:24am
114 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:49:33am

re: #110 MandyManners

Like my new buggy-whip?

No flirting.
/

115 Merryweather  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:49:43am

re: #101 Sharmuta

Whackjob congressman Steve King recently had a freak out on Twitter because the WH served acorn-shaped cookies at its Christmas party. I like to think the WH did that on purpose.

116 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:49:43am

re: #101 Sharmuta

I suggest acorns.

Now that I think of it, heavy doses of caffeine are probably necessary.

117 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:49:47am

re: #104 Gearhead

I'd like to request one rule for the debate:

The participants must mime their answers.

Why not interpretative dance?

118 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:50:33am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

I'll never understand why it's supposed to be "ungentlemanly" to point out that Palin, who is anything but a lady, consistently abuses her children as political tools and talking points.

It is unseemly of her to do it, but what's wrong with calling attention to it?

She's hardly the first politician to use her smiling family as a prop, true.

119 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:50:54am

re: #111 Stanley Sea

This is round 2 on Kevin Jennings. The accusations and smears of NAMBLA didn't work the first time, so now they go with fisting? Pretty low down stuff going on. Bleach please.

It's just disgusting. This kind of crap is one of the big reasons I refuse to be associated with the right.

120 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:50:59am

re: #102 Charles

But Al did what Al always does. He did a large amount of good work and then said something silly that is easier to remember than all of the good work that he did.

He deserves a ton of credit (and i'm no cheerleader) for the work that he did. And he deserves some ribbing about his choice of words. Just Al bein' Al...

121 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:51:04am

re: #117 MandyManners

Why not interpretative dance?

I'm for it, but only is Gore and Palin have to swap shoes.

122 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:51:31am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

I'll never understand why it's supposed to be "ungentlemanly" to point out that Palin, who is anything but a lady, consistently abuses her children as political tools and talking points.

It is unseemly of her to do it, but what's wrong with calling attention to it?

Nothing. Not a damn thing is wrong with it. The sooner people realize how classless and stupid she is the better. What get's me though is that to any educated person at all she was obviously and instantly seen as classless, stupid and unthinking.

But this is America. People want those they can relate to in office.

The really sad commentary on that is the percentage of Americans who are just as stupid, classless and clueless.

123 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:51:41am

re: #121 Gearhead

I'm for it, but only is Gore and Palin have to swap shoes.

if

PIMF, dang it

124 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:52:06am

2010 is coming to a close?

125 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:52:08am

re: #118 The Sanity Inspector

She's hardly the first politician to use her smiling family as a prop, true.

But she was the first to use her child's disability to lie about government "death panels". For that her name will go down in infamy.

126 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:52:18am

re: #87 vxbush

Cool!

/math geek

Wow! I found my daughters birthdate.

127 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:52:33am

re: #124 cliffster

2010 is coming to a close?

I noticed that, too. I completely lost a year somewhere :(

128 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:52:37am

re: #121 Gearhead

I'm for it, but only is Gore and Palin have to swap shoes.

I get it! Then her footprint is bigger, and his is smaller!

129 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:00am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

I'll never understand why it's supposed to be "ungentlemanly" to point out that Palin, who is anything but a lady, consistently abuses her children as political tools and talking points.

It is unseemly of her to do it, but what's wrong with calling attention to it?


Let me help. Calling attention to what she did with her kids isn't unseemly. Speculating crudely about what she might do with her kids is unseemly.

Cato is as Cato does, but imho, there are few if any good reasons to go somewhere with someone else's kids, even if they've been there before.

130 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:01am

re: #106 LudwigVanQuixote

Good for you.

Of course Gore deserves credit for his role in getting the net started.

This was one of the more really agitating false memes of the right. They still parrot it over and over.

He never said he invented it.

He did truthfully claim that he was one of the major political movers in making it happen.


Here is the quote in question

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]

131 vxbush  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:04am

re: #126 The Sanity Inspector

Wow! I found my daughters birthdate.

I found all my past phone numbers. Wicked cool.

132 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:10am

re: #99 Obdicut

Do you read the actual text of what Gore said (and which I quoted in full)? Snopes by itself is not as authoritative as you wish it to be.

Can you interpret it to be true - that he claimed invention of the Internet based on what he said? Yes - by claiming that he provided the basis on which it was developed from an economic and legislative perspective.

Snopes get to no by saying that the economic and legislative acts which he takes credit for is not "inventing" the Internet.

And the Interstate highway claim made by snopes to argue the point falls short as well, particularly since the Interstate system is named the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, in honor of Eisenhower's role in establishing the national highway network.

133 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:18am

re: #125 Cato the Elder

But she was the first to use her child's disability to lie about government "death panels". For that her name will go down in infamy.

I have to disagree there. I think it was being able to see Russia that made her stick out in my mind. By the time she went, nirther, deather and climate denier, she was already pretty well established as a complete stain on our nation.

134 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:21am

re: #128 wrenchwench

I get it! Then her footprint is bigger, and his is smaller!

Actually, the mental image of Gore trying to move in 3-inch heels amused me.

135 Ojoe  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:22am

On this topic:

It should be a cage match in Vegas, IMHO.

136 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:24am

I'd settle for Sarah debating a republican on climate change. How about Lindsey Graham? Or a debate between Sarah and Condi Rice on foreign policy? Or she could debate Mitt Romney on being the executive of a state? I think she would look remarkably under-informed for any of those debates.

137 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:40am

I might find it fruitful to watch these to debate on what to do about AGW, as that is a legitimate political issue. But a scientific debate? I'd rather listen to scientists, or at least talented science popularizers.

138 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:54:43am

I understand that Palin's use of her children might seem a little more... overt than with other politicians, but let's not make her out to be Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone.

139 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:55:06am

re: #117 MandyManners

Why not interpretative dance?

[Link: www.russpage.net...]

one of the best photoshops ever...

140 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:55:09am

re: #136 Sharmuta

Or Newt.

142 Ojoe  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:55:23am

Down with the MoFo political, financial and media elite of this country.

143 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:55:24am

re: #140 lawhawk

Or Newt.

Yes!

144 Kragar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:55:49am

re: #134 Gearhead

Actually, the mental image of Gore trying to move in 3-inch heels amused me.

I picture him in something more like an open toed pump.

145 Merryweather  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:56:10am

re: #138 JasonA

I understand that Palin's use of her children might seem a little more... overt than with other politicians, but let's not make her out to be Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone.

Sarah Palin should not be made out to be Martin Sheen in any of his presidential forms.

146 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:56:11am

re: #119 Charles

It's just disgusting. This kind of crap is one of the big reasons I refuse to be associated with the right.

I've seen the reports.

There's a lot of literature.

Do you think the literature is fake?

147 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:56:29am

re: #102 Charles

Vint Cerf:

The fact is that Al Gore has been really unfairly smeared by the right wing on this subject. He DID play a large role in the beginning of the Internet.

His actual statement, however,

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

is a gross, self-aggrandizing overstatement.

148 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:56:50am

re: #136 Sharmuta

I'd settle for Sarah debating a republican on climate change. How about Lindsey Graham? Or a debate between Sarah and Condi Rice on foreign policy? Or she could debate Mitt Romney on being the executive of a state? I think she would look remarkably under-informed for any of those debates.

She looks remarkably uninformed talking to MSM reporters in one on one interviews that were very soft.

Really how different is Palin from this?

Youtube Video
149 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:56:51am

re: #131 vxbush

I found all my past phone numbers. Wicked cool.

I recommend that no one put their social security number into that thing, though.

150 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:57:01am

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

I have to disagree there. I think it was being able to see Russia that made her stick out in my mind. By the time she went, nirther, deather and climate denier, she was already pretty well established as a complete stain on our nation.

The line "I can see Russia from my house" was uttered by Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

151 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:57:53am

Charles, I reported a comment that would be beneficial to a lizard if it was deleted.

152 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:57:59am

re: #150 sattv4u2

Bush's "Strategery" was also from SNL.

153 Ojoe  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:58:00am

Every fart travels the world in the atmosphere.

154 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:58:41am

How will the bookies handle it? Al Gore would only score points with facts, but Sarah only needs to stick to her talking points. Also, you have over/under for sighs, winks. Between Al putting people to sleep and Sarah making people shoot their tvs, who's left to score it?

155 Merryweather  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:59:11am

re: #147 SixDegrees

His actual statement, however,

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

is a gross, self-aggrandizing overstatement.

In other words, typical talk from a politician.

156 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:59:19am

re: #152 Sharmuta

Bush's "Strategery" was also from SNL.

I just think it's funny that LUDWIG is railing on about a misquote re: Gore about "inventing" the internet, so to prove the point he uses a quote that Palin never uttered!

157 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:59:22am

re: #147 SixDegrees

...is a gross, self-aggrandizing overstatement.

I know -- it's unheard of for a politician to be self-aggrandizing.

I agree, he overstated it. But it's also an extreme overstatement (false, in fact) to say he claimed he "invented" the Internet.

And as I've pointed out, he really does have the right to claim that he played a key role in the beginning of the Internet, and even Vint Cerf acknowledges that.

158 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:59:36am

re: #150 sattv4u2

The line "I can see Russia from my house" was uttered by Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

Absolutely unbelievable.

159 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 10:59:38am

re: #130 sattv4u2

Here is the quote in question

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]


Ok, i admit that we're playing microscopic semantics. I just like microscopic semantics, so forgive me in advance. I'm a grammar/sentence structure nerd.

Even with context, I would argue that "i took the initiative in creating" means that "i was instrumental in creating" and simultaneously "i was one of the first in creating".

I know he wasn't really trying to claim that he created it. But it was a big, funny, silly gaffe.

160 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:00:38am

re: #150 sattv4u2

The line "I can see Russia from my house" was uttered by Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

The reason the line has stuck is because days previous to the SNL skit, she tried to argue that because you can see a remote corner of Russia from an equally remote, nearly-uninhabited island that's technically part of Alaska on a remarkably clear day, that qualified as "foreign policy experience."

The statement was so jaw-droppingly stupid that Tina Fey's "I can see Russia from my house" parody wasn't actually any dumber, and was also infinitely more quote-handy.

161 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:00:59am

re: #159 Aceofwhat?

Ok, i admit that we're playing microscopic semantics. I just like microscopic semantics, so forgive me in advance. I'm a grammar/sentence structure nerd.

Even with context, I would argue that "i took the initiative in creating" means that "i was instrumental in creating" and simultaneously "i was one of the first in creating".

I know he wasn't really trying to claim that he created it. But it was a big, funny, silly gaffe.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%. I was pointing out the exact quote for LUDWIG to show how close CREATING is to INVENTING

162 vxbush  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:01:01am

re: #149 The Sanity Inspector

Absolutely not!

163 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:01:06am

re: #159 Aceofwhat?

Ok, i admit that we're playing microscopic semantics. I just like microscopic semantics, so forgive me in advance. I'm a grammar/sentence structure nerd.

Even with context, I would argue that "i took the initiative in creating" means that "i was instrumental in creating" and simultaneously "i was one of the first in creating".

I know he wasn't really trying to claim that he created it. But it was a big, funny, silly gaffe.

It was a gaffe.

But it's fun to be literal when it's suitable.

164 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:01:43am

Ahhh I love this video - Pure Palin :)

Youtube Video
165 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:01:50am

re: #139 brookly red

[Link: www.russpage.net...]

one of the best photoshops ever...

Without a doubt.

166 jjmckay1216  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:01:56am

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

I have to disagree there. I think it was being able to see Russia that made her stick out in my mind. By the time she went, nirther, deather and climate denier, she was already pretty well established as a complete stain on our nation.

so, if SNL says it it is attributed to the peron they are imitating?

167 subsailor68  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:02:13am

re: #150 sattv4u2

The line "I can see Russia from my house" was uttered by Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

Hi sattv4u2! Yep. Sarah Palin did mention being able to see Russia from parts of Alaska (island in the chain) during an interview with Charles Gibson IIRC, but that "from my house" part was definitely Tina Fey.

168 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:02:36am

re: #111 Stanley Sea

This is round 2 on Kevin Jennings. The accusations and smears of NAMBLA didn't work the first time, so now they go with fisting? Pretty low down stuff going on. Bleach please.

As I understand it, this latest round is just as false as the first.

Let's get right down to basics here: they hate Jennings because he's gay. Period. End of story. And a vision of the sort of governance they want to see ushered in: one where those who don't share their faith are barred from employment, publicly vilified and far, far worse should they ever grasp the reins of power.

A few minutes at Hot Air, Malkin's or other sites promoting this bilge will convince you from the commentary that it's his sexual orientation, and not his qualifications, that are the real issue here.

For those who don't pick up on this, here's a clue: they're not comparing Jennings to a bundle of wood, or to Tinkerbell, in their posts.

169 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:02:38am

re: #160 Jaerik

So let me get this straight. While Charles is trying to correct a distorted quote about al gore, you're going to defend distorting a quote about sarah palin?

170 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:02:43am

re: #160 Jaerik

The reason the line has stuck is because days previous to the SNL skit, she tried to argue that because you can see a remote corner of Russia from an equally remote, nearly-uninhabited island that's technically part of Alaska on a remarkably clear day, that qualified as "foreign policy experience."

The statement was so jaw-droppingly stupid that Tina Fey's "I can see Russia from my house" parody wasn't actually any dumber, and was also infinitely more quote-handy.


Thats true, but as I stated, she never said those words, yet LUDWIG attributed them to her

Yet at the same time, Gore says he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." is a lot closer to the "myth" about it

171 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:29am

Why are Democrats skeptical that Alaska is next to Russia?

172 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:32am

This is kind of depressing:

Sarah Palin’s Copenhagen-Bashing Op-Ed One Of Most Read WaPo Opinion Pieces Of The Year

173 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:41am

re: #165 MandyManners

I've always been fond of this one:

Image: putinrearshisheadnz7.jpg

174 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:44am

re: #165 MandyManners

Without a doubt.

I have seen that one blown-up to 30" x 40" & it still holds up at that size.

175 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:45am

re: #153 Ojoe

Every fart travels the world in the atmosphere.

Yes. Atmospheric mixing is so efficient that, with every breath we take, we inhale some of the same molecules farted by Beethoven.

176 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:45am

re: #150 sattv4u2

The line "I can see Russia from my house" was uttered by Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

re: #152 Sharmuta

Bush's "Strategery" was also from SNL.

No kimchi for either of you.

177 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:03:50am

re: #166 jjmckay1216

so, if SNL says it it is attributed to the peron they are imitating?

Only Eva knows for sure.

Youtube Video
178 mph  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:04:13am

The far left would collapse without the religious right to prop it up.

Beck v. Olbermann, etc etc etc. Idiots screaming at idiots.

These are the kind of people who need each other.

So why not have this debate?

179 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:04:21am

re: #158 cliffster

Poor Sarah did say that when Putin flies to America, he has to fly over Alaska. But in fact ait traffic from Moscow to the US goes westbound, over the Atlantic.

180 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:04:31am

re: #169 Sharmuta

So let me get this straight. While Charles is trying to correct a distorted quote about al gore, you're going to defend distorting a quote about sarah palin?

Distorting liberals' quotes is so 2005. All the kids are distorting republicans' quotes these days.

181 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:04:48am

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

I have to disagree there. I think it was being able to see Russia that made her stick out in my mind. By the time she went, nirther, deather and climate denier, she was already pretty well established as a complete stain on our nation.

Uh - she never said that. That was Tina Fey, during a SNL skit.

182 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:05:17am

re: #172 JasonA

This is kind of depressing:

Sarah Palin’s Copenhagen-Bashing Op-Ed One Of Most Read WaPo Opinion Pieces Of The Year

Not surprising at all.

Half of them were probably fact checkers from 5 newspapers.

183 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:05:26am

re: #161 sattv4u2

Check out 164. About Palin and Russia, she talked about her proximity to Russia in Alaska. She goes on to "clarify it."

As to Gore, he did not say invented and he did, he actually did help to create the net. That's just the truth. If there was a question about what he meant, you could have looked into the record. Of course you didn't. Of course even now, you refuse to acknowledge his contribution. OK, sop don't capitalize my name and act all wounded. You never cared about the truth. It was easy to find. You cared about smearing Gore.

184 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:05:52am

re: #160 Jaerik

The reason the line has stuck is because days previous to the SNL skit, she tried to argue that because you can see a remote corner of Russia from an equally remote, nearly-uninhabited island that's technically part of Alaska on a remarkably clear day, that qualified as "foreign policy experience."

The statement was so jaw-droppingly stupid that Tina Fey's "I can see Russia from my house" parody wasn't actually any dumber, and was also infinitely more quote-handy.

But, IT WASN'T TRUE!

185 Merryweather  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:05:59am

re: #172 JasonA

Sarah Palin’s Copenhagen-Bashing Op-Ed One Of Most Read WaPo Opinion Pieces Of The Year

*headdesk*

That's almost enough to make me hope the Mayans were right about 2012.

186 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:06:02am

So, with the whole Palin/SNL thing. Does this mean Chris Farley was never a Chip-n-Dale?
/

187 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:07:41am

What Palin actually said:

They're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

That was how she responded to a question from Charles Gibson about "what insight" the state of Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her.

188 Mark Pennington  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:07:44am

re: #172 JasonA

This is kind of depressing:

Sarah Palin’s Copenhagen-Bashing Op-Ed One Of Most Read WaPo Opinion Pieces Of The Year

Think of how many people are going to read that and take it as the final word. It's really no wonder more and more Americans are becoming convinced AGW isn't real. They're being lied to by the only people they listen to. Disgusting.

189 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:07:48am

re: #169 Sharmuta

So let me get this straight. While Charles is trying to correct a distorted quote about al gore, you're going to defend distorting a quote about sarah palin?

Uh, no. A comedian parodying a quote from a politician, and it catching on like wildfire because it's funny and equally inane as the original, is one thing. I have yet to meet a single person who actually is under the impression Palin said "I can see Russia from my house." They use it because it's funny, as a tongue-in-cheek nod to the other hilariously nonsensical things she became known for all throughout the campaign.

The debate above re: Gore's quote is nothing of the sort. It's about how to selectively interpret the wording in the original quote. Uttered by Gore himself.

I was agreeing with you... "I can see Russia from my house" is a Tina Fey quote, not a Palin one. Is there really any confusion about that? I was pointing out why it's stuck.

190 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:08:10am

re: #186 Cannadian Club Akbar

He was robbed. He beat Swayze hands-down.

191 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:08:11am

re: #184 MandyManners

But, IT WASN'T TRUE!

Neither was the Reagan AIDS quote, but they'll go to their graves believing it.

192 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:08:34am

re: #153 Ojoe

Every fart travels the world in the atmosphere.

And many don't even tell their constituents they're flying first class.

193 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:08:35am

re: #186 Cannadian Club Akbar

So, with the whole Palin/SNL thing. Does this mean Chris Farley was never a Chip-n-Dale?
/

And John Belushi was never a Mexican bee.

194 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:08:50am

re: #187 Charles

What Palin actually said:

That was how she responded to a question from Charles Gibson about "what insight" the state of Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her.

That's all she said? Or was the first line of a longer answer?

195 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:09:08am

re: #188 beekiller

Think of how many people are going to read that and take it as the final word. It's really no wonder more and more Americans are becoming convinced AGW isn't real. They're being lied to by the only people they listen to. Disgusting.

Yeah, I'm getting more and more disgusting with WaPo for printing this nonsense.

196 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:09:16am

re: #193 MandyManners

And John Belushi was never a Mexican bee.

BULLSHIT!! TAKE THAT BACK!!!

197 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:09:20am

re: #187 Charles

What Palin actually said:

That was how she responded to a question from Charles Gibson about "what insight" the state of Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her.

and the link is in 164.

198 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:09:25am

Also note that Palin was saying something VERY different about global warming during the campaign:

Youtube Video
199 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:09:37am

re: #145 Merryweather

Sarah Palin should not be made out to be Martin Sheen in any of his presidential forms.

Aren't they all fictional though in any case?

200 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:09:46am

Gonna' go get the stuff to back cookies!

201 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:10:02am

cu 2nite.

202 Merryweather  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:10:12am

re: #199 oaktree

Aren't they all fictional though in any case?

Kennedy wasn't.

203 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:10:13am

re: #187 Charles

What Palin actually said:

That was how she responded to a question from Charles Gibson about "what insight" the state of Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her.

Hmm, a whimsical anecdote thrown in the course of normal conversation. What a moron.

204 teh flowah  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:10:16am

risky imo. And not sure what it would prove.

Neither of them are really scientists. If Al Gore, as he has been known to be/do, screws up in some way, he could damage the scientific community more than help it. This kind of debate is less about science and more about GOTCHAS! Which is dumb, this is science, not politics.

Then again, the laypeople neither have the intellectual capacity or the patience to sit down and slog through a real scientific debate. A real scientific debate would be over before it even started. Every single pseudo-scientific talking point against AGW has been so thoroughly debunked by this point that I don't even know what the "other side" would use.

205 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:10:50am

re: #194 Ben Hur

That's all she said? Or was the first line of a longer answer?

It got even stupider from there.

206 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:02am

re: #183 LudwigVanQuixote

Check out 164. About Palin and Russia, she talked about her proximity to Russia in Alaska. She goes on to "clarify it."

As to Gore, he did not say invented and he did, he actually did help to create the net. That's just the truth. If there was a question about what he meant, you could have looked into the record. Of course you didn't. Of course even now, you refuse to acknowledge his contribution. OK, sop don't capitalize my name and act all wounded. You never cared about the truth. It was easy to find. You cared about smearing Gore.

You are so laughable, ,I"M the one here who supplied the EXACT Gore quote, AND put it in context. You're the one who attributed the Tina Fey quote to Palin

207 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:14am

re: #194 Ben Hur

That's all she said? Or was the first line of a longer answer?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.



And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

208 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:16am

re: #184 MandyManners

But, IT WASN'T TRUE!

Who's saying it was?

I never said that. I correctly attributed it to SNL from the beginning. Jesus.

My post was an explanation of why the quote has stuck as a parody. I never said Palin uttered it, nor agreed with anyone incorrectly saying Palin uttered it. I was elaborating on why the quote worked as a parody to begin with.

Seriously, why do people fly off the handle whenever Palin comes up?

209 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:31am

re: #189 Jaerik

And no one is disputing that, but there are people who cite it as if she'd said it and not Fey, as with "strategery". I once saw a dumb Quayle quote recycled to a Bushism. There's plenty of distortions on jokes and phrases to go around, I think.

210 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:38am

re: #198 Charles

Also note that Palin was saying something VERY different about global warming during the campaign:


[Video]

Ohh how they hate that we have memories longer than a year :)

211 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:41am

re: #204 teh flowah

Prove? It would prove nothing. But it might still be awesome, for all the deliciously wrong reasons...

212 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:11:51am

re: #204 teh flowah

risky imo. And not sure what it would prove.

Neither of them are really scientists. If Al Gore, as he has been known to be/do, screws up in some way, he could damage the scientific community more than help it. This kind of debate is less about science and more about GOTCHAS! Which is dumb, this is science, not politics.

Then again, the laypeople neither have the intellectual capacity or the patience to sit down and slog through a real scientific debate. A real scientific debate would be over before it even started. Every single pseudo-scientific talking point against AGW has been so thoroughly debunked by this point that I don't even know what the "other side" would use.

At this point I just don't really see what there is left to lose. I just don't see anyone who already believes the scientific consensus that AGW exists having their mind changed by Sarah Palin. And even if only a few people are won over by what Gore has to say, isn't that a victory?

213 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:12:06am

re: #194 Ben Hur

That's all she said? Or was the first line of a longer answer?

Check out 164

214 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:12:39am

re: #76 Ericus58

Bringing Trig up in a very callous way in this thread does not add "humor".

Leave the kid out of it.
Talk about her personal choices and decisions and their merits. She's taken positions that are not going to get her much more in politics that being an ex Governor was.

That's the point man. He's not criticizing the kid, he's criticizing her USE of the kid. Can you and others really not tell the difference?

215 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:12:54am

re: #213 LudwigVanQuixote

Check out 164

Is it safe?

216 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:13:36am

re: #213 LudwigVanQuixote

Check out 164

Check out 130, then take back your smear in 183

217 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:13:42am

re: #215 Ben Hur

Is it safe?

Are you Lawrence Olivier? Am I Dustin Hoffman?

218 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:13:46am

re: #203 cliffster

Hmm, a whimsical anecdote thrown in the course of normal conversation. What a moron.

And, for what it's worth, factual - at least in theory. This came up on a science blog I used to frequent, without any reference to where it had come from, and after some simple number crunching was put in the "Plausible" column. Whether anyone as actually sighted one country from the other remains unknown, but purely in terms of distance, elevation and geometry it's entirely possible.

219 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:02am

re: #214 Locker

That's the point man. He's not criticizing the kid, he's criticizing her USE of the kid. Can you and others really not tell the difference?

Agree 100%. She makes the use of her son for political reasons a legitimate topic for public discussion when she carries him around like a prop at every public appearance.

220 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:05am

I'll bet this blog must have been a gas in winter/spring 2008.

221 Ojoe  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:22am

On stupidity.

222 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:39am

I guess debates between actual climate scientists and economists on the degree to which humans influence global climate and what we can and should should do about it aren't sexy enough.

Nope we need to put two political animals on stage who are known for their gaffes and hyperbole and let people take sides on who they would prefer to mock.

I guess some people would prefer shooting fish in a barrel to fly fishing.

223 Bloodnok  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:41am

re: #220 SteveMcG

I'll bet this blog must have been a gas in winter/spring 2008.

It was fine. Check the archives.

224 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:56am

re: #214 Locker

That's the point man. He's not criticizing the kid, he's criticizing her USE of the kid. Can you and others really not tell the difference?

This again?

I told Cato above, and i'll say it again - criticizing someone's use of their kid and hypothesizing crudely about how they might use their kid (even if the hypothesis is based on past evidence) are two different things.

We're better humans for treading lightly here.

225 KenJen  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:14:56am

She'll be on next year's Dancing with the Stars. Just you wait. I'll betcha.

226 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:15:07am

re: #213 LudwigVanQuixote

Check out 164

I'll stick with actual transcripts.

That's heavily edited.

227 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:15:23am

re: #216 sattv4u2

Check out 130, then take back your smear in 183

Uhh no... You have consistently in the past, tried to argue that his quote was close enough to saying he invented it and that he deserved the flack he got from the right. Have the courage of your convictions, or just admit that the man was unfairly smeared for years.

228 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:15:43am

An idiot used the LGF contact form to write this love note a few minutes ago:

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is. You believe the earth
is melting and CO2 is causing it. So get your little green tree hugging
ass to stop using any product that uses any energy. Start by shutting
your stupid little website down and all your electronics. Also keep your
breathing to a minimal, and I mean minimal. You don't want to kill any
of those cute and cuddly polar bears.

229 teh flowah  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:15:55am

re: #212 drcordell

At this point I just don't really see what there is left to lose. I just don't see anyone who already believes the scientific consensus that AGW exists having their mind changed by Sarah Palin. And even if only a few people are won over by what Gore has to say, isn't that a victory?

I have a lot less faith in Gore's ability to win on TV /and/ the American people's capacity for understanding how a debate between Gore and Palin doesn't mean the science is on Palin's side.

The American people are exceedingly fickle and short-term in their analysis. Look at support numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan. Fluctuating with their perceptions of how it is going. Oh it's getting better? We should stay! Oh it's not as easy as we thought? Well let's just leave.

There's no long-term thinking there at all.

230 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:16:35am

re: #223 Bloodnok

Is there a link I'm overlooking, or do I have to click yesterday 500 times?

231 Ojoe  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:17:13am

re: #229 teh flowah

There is very little long term thinking, right you are.

BBL

232 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:17:42am

re: #228 Charles

Start by shutting your stupid little website down

Did they offer their own website?

233 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:17:43am

re: #230 SteveMcG

Is there a link I'm overlooking, or do I have to click yesterday 500 times?

In the upper left sidebar is a flippy triangle called "Tolls/Info". Click on that, and you will find the link to the monthly archives.

234 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:17:44am

re: #219 drcordell

Agree 100%. She makes the use of her son for political reasons a legitimate topic for public discussion when she carries him around like a prop at every public appearance.


Really? Did you ever take an active part in parenting a newborn?

I didn't see her take him on her on interviews and she didn't hold him during speeches. She traveled with her family and picked up her infant son after she was done with her events. Yes they were occasionally seen on stage together but no more than the Obama girls were seen with their Daddy (one of his more positive attributes IMO).

She's got plenty to criticize but being offended by her carrying her baby is getting into Palin derangement syndrome.

235 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:17:55am

re: #132 lawhawk

I disagree with you entirely, and I think it harms your argument to be using Gore's statements about the internet as an attack on him. Gore did great service in helping to create the internet. It's entirely true. So when you use it as something to attack him for, you turn off a lot of people who know that he did do good work in helping the birth of the internet.

236 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:17:56am

re: #233 Sharmuta

Tools- pimf.

237 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:18:10am

That hate mail is a great example of the sheer derangement of the right wing. These are people who have little minds, clouded by hatred and willful ignorance, and anyone who dares to challenge their ignorance becomes a target for the hatred.

238 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:18:38am

re: #226 Ben Hur

I'll stick with actual transcripts.

That's heavily edited.

OK

I'll stick to the actual footage:

Youtube Video

Look at this, this is her clarifying.

Youtube Video
239 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:18:43am

re: #224 Aceofwhat?

This again?

I told Cato above, and i'll say it again - criticizing someone's use of their kid and hypothesizing crudely about how they might use their kid (even if the hypothesis is based on past evidence) are two different things.

We're better humans for treading lightly here.

They don't seem that different to me to be honest. Predicting behavior based on past patterns seems like a fairly valid form of handicapping. However, that's not the comparison being discussed.

Criticizing someone for using their kid for political purposes is not even close to the same thing as attacking the kid. Yet in this thread and all over the place they are treated as the same thing. It's lame.

240 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:18:46am

re: #233 Sharmuta

Thanks

241 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:01am

Is Al Gore known for debating the opposition about climate issues?
A debate between the two of them would be fun TV for us but would we learn anything?

242 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:13am

re: #229 teh flowah

I have a lot less faith in Gore's ability to win on TV /and/ the American people's capacity for understanding how a debate between Gore and Palin doesn't mean the science is on Palin's side.

The American people are exceedingly fickle and short-term in their analysis. Look at support numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan. Fluctuating with their perceptions of how it is going. Oh it's getting better? We should stay! Oh it's not as easy as we thought? Well let's just leave.

There's no long-term thinking there at all.

This is all true. Nobody ever got rich overestimating the intellectual capacity of the America public, that's for sure. And I am extremely disgusted with the fact that our media now turns everything into a "cagematch" between perceived opponents. Gore vs. Palin, Cheney vs. Obama etc.

The question is, is there a potential benefit in exposing people to true climate science who might not normally be exposed to actual climate science? Or will the debate simply be a dumbed-down dog and pony show that accomplishes nothing except the legitimization of AGW-deniers? I think it could go either way.

243 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:24am

re: #230 SteveMcG

Is there a link I'm overlooking, or do I have to click yesterday 500 times?

Just above the calendar in the left hand column is a button that says "daily archives". Click on it and pick a day.

244 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:35am

It has a sorta knowledgy taste...re: #228 Charles

245 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:43am

Given that Al Gore possesses of one of the most pedantic and boring speaking styles on earth, and most people aren't really listening to the issues anyway, I don't see how this could be a loser for the camera-friendly Ms. Palin, ... although if there is any way, the pundits will find one.
She should probably hold off.

246 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:47am

re: #234 DaddyG

Really? Did you ever take an active part in parenting a newborn?

I didn't see her take him on her on interviews and she didn't hold him during speeches. She traveled with her family and picked up her infant son after she was done with her events. Yes they were occasionally seen on stage together but no more than the Obama girls were seen with their Daddy (one of his more positive attributes IMO).

She's got plenty to criticize but being offended by her carrying her baby is getting into Palin derangement syndrome.

I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

-Hillary Clinton before the left was against working moms.

247 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:19:58am

re: #241 Blueheron

Is Al Gore known for debating the opposition about climate issues?
A debate between the two of them would be fun TV for us but would we learn anything?

We would learn to not turn on the TV.

248 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:20:10am

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote

Uhh no... You have consistently in the past, tried to argue that his quote was close enough to saying he invented it and that he deserved the flack he got from the right. Have the courage of your convictions, or just admit that the man was unfairly smeared for years.

excuse me?

249 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:20:11am

re: #241 Blueheron

Is Al Gore known for debating the opposition about climate issues?
A debate between the two of them would be fun TV for us but would we learn anything?

No, there's no real point to it. But it would be lots of fun.

250 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:20:17am

re: #234 DaddyG

Really? Did you ever take an active part in parenting a newborn?

I didn't see her take him on her on interviews and she didn't hold him during speeches. She traveled with her family and picked up her infant son after she was done with her events. Yes they were occasionally seen on stage together but no more than the Obama girls were seen with their Daddy (one of his more positive attributes IMO).

She's got plenty to criticize but being offended by her carrying her baby is getting into Palin derangement syndrome.

Are you deliberately ignoring the issue on purpose? Do I really need to link to all of the comments and articles screaming about the left attacking trig and her personally saying people are attacking trig? No one is offended for her carrying a baby. Hello?

251 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:20:21am

re: #238 LudwigVanQuixote

I posted the transcript, man. I assume it's the same thing hearing her say it.

252 teh flowah  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:21:12am

re: #249 Charles

No, there's no real point to it. But it would be lots of fun.

Only if the Al Gore from Futurama shows up and not the Al Gore from 2000.

I can see Palin now, practicing winks in the mirror. Doing her "gotcha" fingers.

253 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:21:18am

re: #237 Charles

That hate mail is a great example of the sheer derangement of the right wing. These are people who have little minds, clouded by hatred and willful ignorance, and anyone who dares to challenge their ignorance becomes a target for the hatred.

Anger stems from being threatened. When someone really wants to believe something, and there's information being presented to the contrary, it makes them feel threatened. Thus angry.

254 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:22:09am

re: #252 teh flowah

"I'm a tenth-level vice president".

That episode made me more favorably disposed towards him.

255 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:22:28am

re: #241 Blueheron
He's been caught in so many umm, misstatements lately that I can't imagine he wants another Q&A.

256 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:22:38am

This is what Sarah Palin wrote about "death panels," and please note the extremely cynical use of her child to do it:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Sorry, that's not just holding up her baby for a photo op. That's a creepy attempt to say that the Obama administration would try to kill babies like Trig.

She's absolutely willing to use her children to advance her populist demagoguery.

257 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:23:02am

re: #206 sattv4u2

Satt you are right. Tina fey did say see Russia from my house. What Plain said meant the same thing but was even more stupid. I have put up the link to what she said and her "clarification."

I admit I falsely missatributed the less stupid line to Palin.

In the mean time, at no point did Gore claim to have invented the net, and at no time have you ever acknowledged the smear against him or that his actual remarks were true.

258 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:23:05am

re: #246 Ben Hur

I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

-Hillary Clinton before the left was against working moms.

Yea you got us. We are against working moms, babies, special needs babies. It's been our plan all along.

259 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:23:30am

re: #229 teh flowah

I have a lot less faith in Gore's ability to win on TV /and/ the American people's capacity for understanding how a debate between Gore and Palin doesn't mean the science is on Palin's side.

The American people are exceedingly fickle and short-term in their analysis. Look at support numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan. Fluctuating with their perceptions of how it is going. Oh it's getting better? We should stay! Oh it's not as easy as we thought? Well let's just leave.

There's no long-term thinking there at all.

WMD
Climate scientist e-mails
Halliburton
Drowning Polar bears
Blood for oil
Katrina sent to kill blacks
Commies
Nazis


I blame sesame street and McDonalds. /

260 Slap  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:23:37am

re: #246 Ben Hur

before the left was against working moms.

Wha?

261 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:23:49am

re: #251 Ben Hur

I posted the transcript, man. I assume it's the same thing hearing her say it.

What she said was anecdotal, it was not stupid. She has said plenty of stupid things, I don't know why people need to distort other things.

262 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:23:51am

re: #207 Ben Hur

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

[Link: beldar.blogs.com...]

On a clear day, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska

263 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:24:20am

re: #239 Locker

They don't seem that different to me to be honest. Predicting behavior based on past patterns seems like a fairly valid form of handicapping. However, that's not the comparison being discussed.

Criticizing someone for using their kid for political purposes is not even close to the same thing as attacking the kid. Yet in this thread and all over the place they are treated as the same thing. It's lame.


Let me help you. Criticizing someone for using their kid for political purposes is not the same thing as making crude references to their kid in a hypothetical statement that isn't in any way an attempt to forecast future behavior.

She's not going to wave her kid around at someone in the middle of the debate. Saying that she will is crude. You can say it - i won't shun you. but crude is crude.

264 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:24:24am

re: #237 Charles

That hate mail is a great example of the sheer derangement of the right wing. These are people who have little minds, clouded by hatred and willful ignorance, and anyone who dares to challenge their ignorance becomes a target for the hatred.


Oh stop it. You just cant handle the love of those who seek to enlighten you. /

265 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:24:47am

re: #234 DaddyG

Really? Did you ever take an active part in parenting a newborn?

I didn't see her take him on her on interviews and she didn't hold him during speeches. She traveled with her family and picked up her infant son after she was done with her events. Yes they were occasionally seen on stage together but no more than the Obama girls were seen with their Daddy (one of his more positive attributes IMO).

She's got plenty to criticize but being offended by her carrying her baby is getting into Palin derangement syndrome.

No, I don't have any children yet. But is it really in the best interest of her special-needs child to be jetted/bussed around the country in a whirlwind book tour? Carrying him out on stage to public appearances in the late evening? It just doesn't make sense to me. If I had a young infant, let alone one with down syndrome, I wouldn't be exposing them to riotous crowds willingly.

266 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:25:05am

re: #237 Charles
I don't get it. Why should they send hate mail to you? It's Gore & company that they detest.
Seems like really misguided shoot-the-messenger-a-hatemail.

267 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:25:12am

re: #262 Bobibutu

[Link: beldar.blogs.com...]

On a clear day, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska

well at one time it was Russia, no?

268 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:25:12am

re: #258 Locker

Yea you got us. We are against working moms, babies, special needs babies. It's been our plan all along.


There was a lot of criticism coming from the left that Palin didn't stay home and take care of her children, or who would if she were elected.

269 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:25:19am

re: #256 Charles

Which is why it is perfectly fair to call her on her use of her kids. Those who got morally outraged at using kids here are correct to be outraged at that, but they hit the wrong targets.

270 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:25:56am

re: #256 Charles

I'm not disagreeing with what she did, or that it was crude. But I am disagreeing with those who would join her. Let her bring her kid into it. Let us be the oasis of rational thought by leaving it alone, unless we're commenting on something that she's actually done.

271 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:26:12am

re: #262 Bobibutu

[Link: beldar.blogs.com...]

On a clear day, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska

That's how deep the rabbit hole goes.

They're now manipulating satellites!

272 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:26:17am

re: #256 Charles

That would be an example of a legitimate quote to slam her on.

273 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:26:26am

re: #22 Jetpilot1101

How about we dispense with the niceties, set up a mud wrestling pit, let the strip down to their skivies and duke it out. That would be much more fun.


re: #242 drcordell

This is all true. Nobody ever got rich overestimating the intellectual capacity of the America public, that's for sure. And I am extremely disgusted with the fact that our media now turns everything into a "cagematch" between perceived opponents. Gore vs. Palin, Cheney vs. Obama etc.

The question is, is there a potential benefit in exposing people to true climate science who might not normally be exposed to actual climate science? Or will the debate simply be a dumbed-down dog and pony show that accomplishes nothing except the legitimization of AGW-deniers? I think it could go either way.


Especially if Gore comes up behind her and breaths on her from his lofty height like he did to Bush in their debate. heh

274 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:26:38am

re: #257 LudwigVanQuixote

Satt you are right. Tina fey did say see Russia from my house. What Plain said meant the same thing but was even more stupid. I have put up the link to what she said and her "clarification."

I admit I falsely missatributed the less stupid line to Palin.

In the mean time, at no point did Gore claim to have invented the net, and at no time have you ever acknowledged the smear against him or that his actual remarks were true.


I linked to his "actual remarks" AND their context in #130. And you didn't "missatribute" anyhting. Till that point you 100% beleived Palin said the Tina Fey quote

275 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:26:52am

re: #268 Ben Hur

There was a lot of criticism coming from the left that Palin didn't stay home and take care of her children, or who would if she were elected.

Where'd you hear that? Fox News? Or National Review Online?

276 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:27:01am

re: #263 Aceofwhat?

Let me help you. Criticizing someone for using their kid for political purposes is not the same thing as making crude references to their kid in a hypothetical statement that isn't in any way an attempt to forecast future behavior.

She's not going to wave her kid around at someone in the middle of the debate. Saying that she will is crude. You can say it - i won't shun you. but crude is crude.

What crude reference to her baby?

277 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:27:08am

re: #262 Bobibutu

[Link: beldar.blogs.com...]

On a clear day, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska

True or not, what in the world can that possibly have to do with Palin's foreign policy experience?

The reason why Tina Fey was able to make that a devastating example of stupidity is because it IS an embarrassing example of stupidity.

278 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:27:25am

re: #265 drcordell

If you had a young infant, you would instantly defend others' right to raise their kids as they saw fit (within some bounds of reason, of course) because you'd get real tired of being criticized for perfectly rational decisions that you made about your kids.

truuust me.

279 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:27:37am

re: #265 drcordell

No, I don't have any children yet. But is it really in the best interest of her special-needs child to be jetted/bussed around the country in a whirlwind book tour? Carrying him out on stage to public appearances in the late evening? It just doesn't make sense to me. If I had a young infant, let alone one with down syndrome, I wouldn't be exposing them to riotous crowds willingly.

Why do all the experts on raising children, never actually have any children?

280 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:27:49am

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote

Uhh no... You have consistently in the past, tried to argue that his quote was close enough to saying he invented it and that he deserved the flack he got from the right.

I'd say either version richly deserves the criticism that it was made by someone with a dramatically over-inflated ego and sense of self-importance, and is richly deserving of criticism.

281 subsailor68  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:28:16am

OT, but not a surprise:

Nation's Health Care Tab to Grow Under Senate Bill

CBO? Nope. This analysis comes from - the administration:

The analysis from nonpartisan economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concludes that the nation's health care tab will grow more rapidly under the Democratic plan senators are debating -- an estimated increase of $234 billion over 10 years. It also calls into question the Democrats' plan to squeeze $493 billion in savings from Medicare over 10 years, saying it "may be unrealistic."

And, in what can only be described as total irony:

In more bad news, the report released Friday warns that a new long-term care insurance plan included in the legislation could "face a significant risk of failure." The silver lining: The bill provides coverage to 93 percent of Americans.

Translation: "Well, it looks like we can cover 93 percent of Americans, but the downside is that no doctors or hospitals appear interested in taking patients with this coverage." (And, yes, we've already started to see that with Medicare patients.)

282 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:28:23am

re: #276 Locker

At the top. Wait - where did you think this topic originated from?

Don't tell me you didn't look before you leapt...

283 Radicchio ad Absurdum  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:28:25am

re: #279 Ben Hur

Why do all the experts on raising children, never actually have any children?

Where else would they get the time to become experts?/

284 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:28:26am

re: #250 Locker

Are you deliberately ignoring the issue on purpose? Do I really need to link to all of the comments and articles screaming about the left attacking trig and her personally saying people are attacking trig? No one is offended for her carrying a baby. Hello?


Her family was excoriated by her critics beyond any reasonable measure. I didn't like it when it happened to the Bush twins, I don't like it when it happens to the Obama girls (and they have not been kept out of the political spotlight by a long shot), I don't like it when people feel they are justified in saying it about her family. That is a very consistent position.

285 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:28:36am

re: #277 Charles

True or not, what in the world can that possibly have to do with Palin's foreign policy experience?

The reason why Tina Fey was able to make that a devastating example of stupidity is because it IS an embarrassing example of stupidity.

The fact that the only place you can "see" Russia from is an extremely remote and impoverished island that Palin has never visited is also relevant here. Considering it exposes yet another one of her obviously false and completely unnecessary pathological lies.

286 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:29:36am

re: #280 SixDegrees

I'd say either version richly deserves the criticism that it was made by someone with a dramatically over-inflated ego and sense of self-importance, and is richly deserving of criticism.

Except that he actually was in reality one of the primary movers politically of the development of the net.

That is an actual real accomplishment as opposed to the standard politicians talking about their experiences as cub scouts and other such clap trap. He had every right to bring it up. It is something he should be proud of.

287 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:29:54am

re: #282 Aceofwhat?

At the top. Wait - where did you think this topic originated from?

Don't tell me you didn't look before you leapt...

Well I was commenting on something IN this thread that doesn't seem to me to be a crude reference to her baby at all. It's a crude reference to HER.

re: #16 darthstar

She'll hold Trig up as a human shield from any criticism.

"Why won't you debate Al Gore, Sarah?"
"Shame on you...I'm holding my baby!"

288 ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:29:59am

re: #249 Charles

No, there's no real point to it.

I'm amazed that I'm still amazed when I see a statement like that coming from someone who claims to be pro-science.

There are an awful lot of things we take forgranted today that are the product of people continuing to investigate and debate things when others said the 'science is settled'.

Personally, I'm glad somone like Darwin for example didn't just take "shut up, we have all the answers we need"about why the natural world is the way it is.

Hey, didn't everyone know the world was flat at one point? Seems a few people thought that was a debate worth having.

I'm just not sure why this one particular subject is simply beyond the pale in polite company.

289 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:30:14am

re: #276 Locker

What crude reference to her baby?

#16, i think - and i think that Darthstar was talking to you!

(not your fault. DS talks to me too sometimes)//

290 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:30:23am

re: #257 LudwigVanQuixote

The transcript of Palin's response in #207 seems reasonable, if somewhat unremarkable. And her statement of Russia being visible from Alaska passes the plausibility test, which you can probably work out for yourself with Google and some simple math in a couple of minutes.

Allow your objective vision to be clouded by ideology much?

291 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:30:44am

re: #267 brookly red

well at one time it was Russia, no?

Yes and there is a significant culturally Russian population still there as well.

There is one town on the Kenai that is all Russian.

292 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:31:12am

re: #287 Locker

yep. i think it's too far. you may disagree. i win (which why i referee all my debates!)

/

293 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:31:16am

re: #279 Ben Hur

Why do all the experts on raising children, never actually have any children?

When did I call myself an expert? All I'm saying is, Palin can't have it both fucking ways. Out of one side of her mouth she whines about her family being brought into political discussions. Out of the other side she is screaming about Obama having her special-needs son executed by the government, and bringing him on stage with her at every stop on her book tour.

She has a right to raise her children however she sees fit. Nowhere did I say otherwise. But that doesn't mean she can get away with complaining about her family being exposed to the media spotlight, while she simultaneously exploits them for her own political purposes.

294 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:31:28am

re: #279 Ben Hur

Why do all the experts on raising children, never actually have any children?

Its amazing the number of total strangers who will tell you how poorly you are raising your infant. Don't take your kid outside this young! Don't leave your kid inside all day! What are you doing at the grocery store with a kid that young??

295 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:31:34am

re: #265 drcordell

No, I don't have any children yet. But is it really in the best interest of her special-needs child to be jetted/bussed around the country in a whirlwind book tour? Carrying him out on stage to public appearances in the late evening? It just doesn't make sense to me. If I had a young infant, let alone one with down syndrome, I wouldn't be exposing them to riotous crowds willingly.


He isn't made of glass he is a child who needs a mother. I take my seven kids everywhere they are allowed to go, even disaster recovery and service work) and they are better off for it. Criticizing Sarah Palins parenting skill is irrelevant to her politics, her level of acumen in matters scientific and a host of other things she can legitimately be critizied for.

Are you seriously going to argue that Trig Palins campaign appearences are a serious issue for anyone but the Palins to discuss?

If so what do you think of Obama talking to his daughters during stump speeches. More bad parenting?

296 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:31:38am

You can see Cuba from the Bahamas.

297 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:31:55am

OT: Does anyone know if there is a method to update a single field in a .NET 3.5 data set? I have ones for the whole set and for a single data row but can't figure out a single field update.

298 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:32:03am

re: #280 SixDegrees

I'd say either version richly deserves the criticism that it was made by someone with a dramatically over-inflated ego and sense of self-importance, and is richly deserving of criticism.

Why? He really, really did do a lot to help the internet get going. Why shouldn't he be praised for that?

I don't like Gore. I can point to things he's done that are bad to criticize him for.

I don't get why people point to something good he did, and criticize him for talking about it.

299 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:32:42am

re: #273 Blueheron

Especially if Gore comes up behind her and breaths on her from his lofty height like he did to Bush in their debate. heh


He was trying to kill Bush with CO2 emissions. /

300 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:33:04am

re: #286 LudwigVanQuixote

Spin all you want, what Gore did in no way equates with initiating the Internet's creation. It is ludicrous overstatement bordering on pure fiction.

To be polite.

301 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:33:10am

re: #288 ferris

What does being "pro-science" have to do with a debate between Al Gore and Sarah Palin? The only person in that debate who knows anything at all about science is Gore, and he's prone to make mistakes too.

If you think the way to get to an understanding of global warming is to listen to Sarah Palin about it, you're living in a fantasy world.

If this debate happens, it will be amusing, but not illuminating.

302 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:33:17am

re: #295 DaddyG

He isn't made of glass he is a child who needs a mother. I take my seven kids everywhere they are allowed to go, even disaster recovery and service work) and they are better off for it. Criticizing Sarah Palins parenting skill is irrelevant to her politics, her level of acumen in matters scientific and a host of other things she can legitimately be critizied for.

Are you seriously going to argue that Trig Palins campaign appearences are a serious issue for anyone but the Palins to discuss?

If so what do you think of Obama talking to his daughters during stump speeches. More bad parenting?

Where did I ever call her a bad parent? Go pull up the quote for me. I'm calling her a hypocrite for using her children as political props whenever she sees fit, yet complaining about her children being discussed by the media.

303 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:33:46am

For all the heat I took for being an AGW 'skeptic' I think this excellent article sums up how I feel about the topic. It also nicely sums up the problem with the overall 'debate.'
The AGW Debate summed up nicely

304 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:33:59am

re: #269 LudwigVanQuixote
There are all different ways of using kids for political gain... Chelsea Clinton was not even a glimmer until the first-term gov's poll numbers began to tank, and Bubba's advisors blamed in part the child-free lifestyle of the way-too-feminist-for-their-taste Hillary Rodham,( who decided Clinton might make a more politically friendly surname as well).

305 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:34:01am

re: #43 SixDegrees

It would be more like a duck trying to debate a goose, at least in terms of intelligence.

One thing Gore doesn't have that Palin does have and that is social intelligence. She can out charm him any day.

306 [deleted]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:34:07am
307 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:34:22am

re: #290 SixDegrees

The transcript of Palin's response in #207 seems reasonable, if somewhat unremarkable. And her statement of Russia being visible from Alaska passes the plausibility test, which you can probably work out for yourself with Google and some simple math in a couple of minutes.

Allow your objective vision to be clouded by ideology much?

Actually that's why I directed Ben Hur to the whole tape, that segment of the transcript does make her seem almost reasonable. However, not if you look at the whole package or her clarification. The only one who is letting their vision get clouded is you.

I mean so what if you can stand at the end of Alaska be close to Russia?

What does that have to do with foreign policy? Palin never dealt with a Russian in her life.

308 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:34:28am

re: #288 ferris

I know this is going to hurt me as an atheist to actually nitpick this one but... =)

Most people who were educated since the time of the Greeks already knew the earth was round. The debate wasn't really about that. There were few exceptions to it. While it is true that some Christian cartographers actually were influenced by the Bible verbatim and thought that it couldn't possibly be round, that line of thinking never really lasted very long. The debate was much more along the lines of what the world looked like in terms of land formations according to the way it could fit with scripture.

The real debate was when we the Copernican system came out and then they had to think about if we were actually the center of the solar system or not.

But in essence, your point is 100% correct. =)

309 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:34:36am

re: #277 Charles

Absolutely nothing. As the author of the site also points out ...

"I'm not saying that these photos and maps, by themselves, are any proof that Sarah Palin is ready to be a heartbeat from the presidency. I am saying that these photos and maps, by themselves, are indeed proof that she and others were telling the literal truth when they described Russia as sharing a border with, and being visible from, Alaska."

310 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:35:00am

re: #290 SixDegrees

Eh. I'm usually in agreement with you on a range of topics, but only half here.

I think Gore deserves ribbing for inflating his (admittedly notable) role.

I think that what Palin said was equally as dumb as what Fey said. The visibility of a continent from one's own is a non-sequitur response to the question regarding one's expertise. It'd be like saying i'm a climate expert because i can see the sky and it's clearly blue.

311 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:35:04am

re: #295 DaddyG

He isn't made of glass he is a child who needs a mother. I take my seven kids everywhere they are allowed to go, even disaster recovery and service work) and they are better off for it. Criticizing Sarah Palins parenting skill is irrelevant to her politics, her level of acumen in matters scientific and a host of other things she can legitimately be critizied for.

Are you seriously going to argue that Trig Palins campaign appearences are a serious issue for anyone but the Palins to discuss?

If so what do you think of Obama talking to his daughters during stump speeches. More bad parenting?

Also, there is a bit of a difference between a paid book signing tour and a Presidential campaign. Politically you are expected to bring your family along and display them, because that is what is expected of a Presidential candidate. Why does her infant son need to be a part of every appearance she makes on a book tour? Even the ones that are made in the late evening?

312 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:35:22am

The sheer silliness of it all would be worth the watch. I think Gore is a gentleman and I think he'd be kind to her, but he could run her into the ground on most conversations, certainly this one.

Al Gore is/was...
a Harvard Grad
a Vietnam Vet and a journalist in the war
a Congressman and Senator for 17 years
VP of the United States

He sat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House Committee on Science and Technology (chaired it 4 years) and House Intelligence Committee. In the Senate, he sat on the Governmental Affairs, the Rules and Administration, and the Armed Services Committees.

Always a geek, in 1979, he and Newt Gingrich co-chaired the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future. His passion was always technology, biomedical research, genetic engineering and the environmental impact of the greenhouse.

He's a smart man who cares deeply about this country and has dedicated himself to it. The Right hates him because he's a Democrat and that's it. There's no other plausible reason.

But hey, Sarah, you wanna debate, than have at it!

313 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:35:30am

re: #300 SixDegrees

Spin all you want, what Gore did in no way equates with initiating the Internet's creation. It is ludicrous overstatement bordering on pure fiction.

To be polite.

Have you been reading how actual computer scientists give him credit in this very thread. Gore was pushing for the net back in 86.

You are the only one with spin.

314 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:36:34am

re: #309 Bobibutu

Absolutely nothing. As the author of the site also points out ...

"I'm not saying that these photos and maps, by themselves, are any proof that Sarah Palin is ready to be a heartbeat from the presidency. I am saying that these photos and maps, by themselves, are indeed proof that she and others were telling the literal truth when they described Russia as sharing a border with, and being visible from, Alaska."

Sure, she was telling the literal truth -- in response to a question about her foreign policy experience. And she revealed her utter lack of foreign policy experience with that "literally true" statement.

315 fizzlogic  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:36:41am

I don't see how Gore could compete. All she has to do is pull out the God card. After all, God created this world; and it's his to protect or destroy. Humans play no part is the final plan. Gore and the Left need to wake up and realize who's in charge. And frankly, this debate should be about what's really important-- outlawing abortion for limited government.

316 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:36:43am

re: #308 Summer

Oh and I meant you're point about the flat earth and not the point about 'a debate worth having'. I don't agree with you that some things in science are still in a state of contest at that level. Sorry. =)

317 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:36:50am

re: #310 Aceofwhat?
I'm still wondering what turned Al Gore's intellectual curiosity light on... he flunked out of divinity school, and dropped out of law school to avoid flunking out, all the while during the Gore-Bush campaign being described as the more intelligent candidate.
Hmmm, Double Vandy dropout vs Harvard MBA. That's a tough one.

318 ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:37:32am

re: #301 Charles

Yeah, except for the fact I said Palin has no expertiese in this field which is why it's ridiculous to even talk about it.

My point is, Gore should debate someone who does have expertiese in the field.

I took your "No, there's no real point to it" comment to mean he shouldn't bother debating anyone. Am I wrong about that or were you just refering to Palin?

319 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:38:10am

re: #298 Obdicut

Why? He really, really did do a lot to help the internet get going. Why shouldn't he be praised for that?

I don't like Gore. I can point to things he's done that are bad to criticize him for.

I don't get why people point to something good he did, and criticize him for talking about it.

Feel free to praise him for those efforts.

Equating them with initiating the Internet's creation, however, is pure gas.

320 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:38:18am

re: #318 ferris

Yeah, except for the fact I said Palin has no expertiese in this field which is why it's ridiculous to even talk about it.

My point is, Gore should debate someone who does have expertiese in the field.

I took your "No, there's no real point to it" comment to mean he shouldn't bother debating anyone. Am I wrong about that or were you just refering to Palin?

You could try reading my comment.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

321 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:38:45am

Oops I'm really misclicking all over the place today. I better stop and have some lunch. =)

Again, to recap: Ferris, I agree on the basic level about the flat earth debate. I don't agree that you can use it (or the comment about Darwin) to easily contest accepted scientific theory unless you have an incredibly enormous set of new evidence that nobody has hitherto yet heard of. =)

I was just commenting on the whole "they thought the earth was flat" comment. =)

322 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:38:47am

re: #295 DaddyG

He isn't made of glass he is a child who needs a mother. I take my seven kids everywhere they are allowed to go, even disaster recovery and service work) and they are better off for it. Criticizing Sarah Palins parenting skill is irrelevant to her politics, her level of acumen in matters scientific and a host of other things she can legitimately be critizied for.

Are you seriously going to argue that Trig Palins campaign appearences are a serious issue for anyone but the Palins to discuss?

If so what do you think of Obama talking to his daughters during stump speeches. More bad parenting?

Upding Daddy G from a mother who drug her kids everywhere also.

323 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:39:06am

re: #312 marjoriemoon

Very well said.

324 Sheila Broflovski  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:39:13am

re: #313 LudwigVanQuixote

Have you been reading how actual computer scientists give him credit in this very thread. Gore was pushing for the net back in 86.

You are the only one with spin.

My understanding is that Al Gore was responsible for the legislation that made the DARPA-net system available to the public. So he did have a part in creating the Internet as we know it.

325 MKelly  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:39:15am

re: #14 Jaerik

Given that climate-change deniers are still daily harping on Gore's misstatement about the relative temperature of the earth's core, (like they still harp on Obama's "57 states" gaffe), Gore would need to bat a perfect 1000 to win, and even then he wouldn't convince a single person on the opposite side.

Meanwhile, the logic bar for Palin is so fantastically low already, all she would have to do is wink and do the "Aw shucks, well, I'm not really a scientist or any of that fancy stuff..." and be considered the winner to anyone who already looks to her as a source of wisdom.

In other words, there's really no reason for Gore to debate her.

How long did the left harp on Quale and the potato or Bush's nuclear? Gore presents himself as an expert. I.E. he testifies before congress, alone, so he should be held to a higher standard. He was magitudes off not just a few thousand degrees.

326 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:40:08am

...figuratively, of course...

327 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:40:43am

re: #318 ferris

Yeah, except for the fact I said Palin has no expertiese in this field which is why it's ridiculous to even talk about it.

My point is, Gore should debate someone who does have expertiese in the field.

I took your "No, there's no real point to it" comment to mean he shouldn't bother debating anyone. Am I wrong about that or were you just refering to Palin?

I'm not following all of the above, but maybe you missed the point.

In an interview with Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin, Ingraham suggested that Palin debate Gore. Gore would never in a million years think of such a thing. Certainly not her.

328 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:41:12am

re: #318 ferris

Yeah, except for the fact I said Palin has no expertiese in this field which is why it's ridiculous to even talk about it.

My point is, Gore should debate someone who does have expertiese in the field.

I took your "No, there's no real point to it" comment to mean he shouldn't bother debating anyone. Am I wrong about that or were you just refering to Palin?

About 98% of the time, the people with expertise in the field will tell you that Gore is correct. Gore is not a scientist. Gore does occasionally miss a point or even get something wrong. However, of all the politicians in DC, he actually is the most clear on the science in his public speaking.

The science is there for anyone with open eyes to look at. Gore is the only DC politician who has convinced me that he really has taken the time to look at it deeply. I would like to believe that Obama has too, however, Obama has not made nearly as clear a discussion of the science publicly.

329 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:41:26am

re: #314 Charles

Sure, she was telling the literal truth -- in response to a question about her foreign policy experience. And she revealed her utter lack of foreign policy experience with that "literally true" statement.

No argument. And she is certainly not the first politician to dance around questions. She got nailed good and proper.

330 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:41:26am

re: #321 Summer

Oops I'm really misclicking all over the place today. I better stop and have some lunch. =)

Again, to recap: Ferris, I agree on the basic level about the flat earth debate. I don't agree that you can use it (or the comment about Darwin) to easily contest accepted scientific theory unless you have an incredibly enormous set of new evidence that nobody has hitherto yet heard of. =)

I was just commenting on the whole "they thought the earth was flat" comment. =)

When people thought the earth was flat, humanity hadn't even begun to understand the value of the scientific method. The amount of actual scientific knowledge at that time was easily expressed in a big round number: zero.

Comparing that situation with the current understanding of global warming is completely ludicrous.

331 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:41:54am

bosforus:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

No, this and FARK are the only 2 sites I post on.

332 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:42:02am

re: #312 marjoriemoon

Can I dislike him because he's disingenuous on subjects that don't profit him? Charles posted his take on nuclear power a few threads back...we don't need to rehash the discussion, but he was either very ill-informed, very evasive, or both. Very disappointing.

333 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:42:11am

re: #320 Charles

You're right, I misread the comment you were replying to. Clearly it was in the context of Palin.

Still, as I asked earlier, who do you think, if anyone, Gore should debate?

He clearly isn't interesting in going one on one with anyone.

334 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:42:54am

Article that sums up My position on AGW

335 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:43:02am

re: #305 Blueheron

One thing Gore doesn't have that Palin does have and that is social intelligence. She can out charm him any day.

I'm not so sure. Leaving scores of her fans standing in the cold without their book copies signed because she had other places to be, after they had patiently stood in line waiting since the previous day, was a major gaffe, to say the least.

She does well when in front of a cheering crowd of admirers. When the setting is less than completely friendly, however, not so much.

It's true that Gore is stultifyingly dull, but he's consistently stultifying.

Hard to say how such a debate would turn out. In the end, you're adding stupid to stupid, and all you're going to wind up with is more stupid than you started with.

336 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:43:12am

re: #331 RogueOne

bosforus:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

No, this and FARK are the only 2 sites I post on.

Ha ha. Thanks for getting back to me. I was browsing a car forum this morning and saw a RogueOne nick.

337 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:43:23am

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote
So your contention is that 98% of Gore's dialogue in An Inconvenient Truth is factual?
Okey dokey.

338 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:43:24am

re: #313 LudwigVanQuixote

Have you been reading how actual computer scientists give him credit in this very thread. Gore was pushing for the net back in 86.

You are the only one with spin.

Is that what they call the AlGoreRhythm?

339 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:43:30am

re: #302 drcordell

Where did I ever call her a bad parent? Go pull up the quote for me. I'm calling her a hypocrite for using her children as political props whenever she sees fit, yet complaining about her children being discussed by the media.

So what you are trying to argue is using children in campaign appearences then criticizing their being discussed in the meda is hypocritical? In that case every politician since JF Kennedy is guilty of hypocracy.

So when do we get to hear your diatribe about how the white house garden is a cynical photo op and that Obama deserves to be called on his shout outs to the girls? /

Speaking of hypocricy.

340 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:43:51am

re: #330 Charles

And it was only 100 years ago or so that people called it "the science".

341 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:44:25am

re: #319 SixDegrees

Feel free to praise him for those efforts.

Equating them with initiating the Internet's creation, however, is pure gas.

Okay. So attack him over hyperbole, if you want-- though I have no clue why you think it's significant.

As long as you give him credit for the large part he played in the political side of creating the internet.

342 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:45:14am

re: #338 Spare O'Lake
AlGoreRythym:

Youtube Video
343 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:45:35am

None of it matters. Hopenhagen will accomplish nothing. We are all doomed to suffer the consequences of Global Warming.

No sarc.

344 Jadespring  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:45:41am

re: #261 cliffster

What she said was anecdotal, it was not stupid. Se has said plenty of stupid things, I don't know why people need to distort other things.

No it was incredibly stupid because it was part of an answer to questions about her insight into foreign policy. She used this anecdotal statement to relate that somehow just being in proximity to something eg 'you can see it' somehow gives knowledge about the thing you are near and can see. Then when asked to clarify more it got even worse. She couldn't explain one whit why just being near Russia gave her experience in understanding what was going on in Georgia. She couldn't because it doesn't and talking about it as if it did mean something is stupid.


Where I grew up on a clear day I could see the US from my porch. Washington State to be exact. I'll be damned if I know how that proximity and the fact they're neighbors and allies transfered to insight about the US's decisions to invade Iraq or whatever else they were up to at the time.

345 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:45:56am

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

Ok but what's the wider point?

He's out there engaging in a one-sided campaign.

If he's holding himself out as an expert on the science, he should debate a scientist. If he's simply a politician (or an ex-politician), he should debate someone similarly situated (not Palin, she's not someone who has spent any time on this matter).

The fact that he refuses to engage anyone in a one on one setting is troubling to me given his profile on this issue.

346 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:46:19am

The real crappy part of this whole thing is that either political party would have Sarah Palin or Al Gore as a standard bearer.

347 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:46:47am

re: #339 DaddyG

So what you are trying to argue is using children in campaign appearences then criticizing their being discussed in the meda is hypocritical? In that case every politician since JF Kennedy is guilty of hypocracy.

So when do we get to hear your diatribe about how the white house garden is a cynical photo op and that Obama deserves to be called on his shout outs to the girls? /

Speaking of hypocricy.

Palin isn't in a campaign right now. She's selling a book. They aren't campaign appearances. They are paid book signing appearances. Huge difference.

348 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:46:48am

re: #311 drcordell

As a fulltime father and lefty who subscribes to the attachment parenting, you really have no idea what your talking about. You should read a book about parenting infants and toddlers or try it yourself before lecturing other people about it.

349 Mark Pennington  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:46:50am

re: #237 Charles

That hate mail is a great example of the sheer derangement of the right wing. These are people who have little minds, clouded by hatred and willful ignorance, and anyone who dares to challenge their ignorance becomes a target for the hatred.

I'm getting a tiny sample of the haters just for being associated with LGF. Your stalkers are going to the trouble of contacting me via my youtube account. The amusing part is that they are ranting at you and not me.

350 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:46:59am

re: #341 Obdicut

I can't speak for anyone else, but i mock his hyperbole because a tendency for hyperbole and discussions about AGW go together like peanut butter and lemons.

351 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:47:04am

re: #311 drcordell

Also, there is a bit of a difference between a paid book signing tour and a Presidential campaign. Politically you are expected to bring your family along and display them, because that is what is expected of a Presidential candidate. Why does her infant son need to be a part of every appearance she makes on a book tour? Even the ones that are made in the late evening?

Usually I figure I'm expected to bring my children along because I sired them and am expected to raise them. 24/7/365/forever...

352 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:47:19am

re: #346 Gordon Marock
Taking the state of politics in this nation today, taking into account the media treatment of our politicians, who in his or her really right mind would make that human sacrifice?
IMO, anyone who does is a little suspect.

353 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:47:36am

re: #343 Racer X

None of it matters. Hopenhagen will accomplish nothing. We are all doomed to suffer the consequences of Global Warming.

No sarc.

Yeah, I get the feeling that we're boned.

354 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:47:36am

re: #332 Aceofwhat?

Can I dislike him because he's disingenuous on subjects that don't profit him? Charles posted his take on nuclear power a few threads back...we don't need to rehash the discussion, but he was either very ill-informed, very evasive, or both. Very disappointing.

I saw it last night. I don't find his thoughts on nuclear power ill-informed in the least. Actually they are very well informed. He's concerned about the waste. He should be. He's concerned about how, where and the cost of building nuclear reactors. He should be. He's concerned about the long-term abundance of uranium. He should be. He's concerned about safety. He should be, although they are pretty safe today, certainly as safe as oil refineries. The only problem is that if you have a problem with nuclear, it's far more dangerous than a problem at an oil refinery.

I don't find him disingenuous or a money whore which is how the Right always sees him. He's done more for this country than probably 10 of us here put together.

355 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:48:03am

re: #299 DaddyG

He was trying to kill Bush with CO2 emissions. /

ROFLMBO!!

356 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:48:13am

re: #337 tradewind

So your contention is that 98% of Gore's dialogue in An Inconvenient Truth is factual?

It is.

357 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:49:18am

re: #330 Charles

When people thought the earth was flat, humanity hadn't even begun to understand the value of the scientific method. The amount of actual scientific knowledge at that time was easily expressed in a big round number: zero.

Comparing that situation with the current understanding of global warming is completely ludicrous.

Off topic and purely pedantic: I've never run across any evidence for belief that the earth was flat was ever widespread or even common. The sole exception seems to be a tiny, early Christian religious sect that was around for a couple hundred years. But mainstream society never thought that the earth was anything but round, if they thought about it at all. Ancient Greeks noted early on that a lunar eclipse was caused by the earth's shadow falling on the moon, and it's curvature was proof that the earth was a sphere.

The canard of Columbus disproving a widespread belief in a flat earth seems to have been started by a Washington Irving story, and is pure fiction.

Not a criticism, just setting the record on this matter straight.

Pedant mode off.

358 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:49:21am

re: #348 Jeff In Ohio

As a fulltime father and lefty who subscribes to the attachment parenting, you really have no idea what your talking about. You should read a book about parenting infants and toddlers or try it yourself before lecturing other people about it.

Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of books that advocate carrying your special needs child onto a stage nightly in front of thousands of screaming fans. It's not as if Palin is a single-mom, or someone who lacks the resources to have her child looked after for her brief appearances on stage.

359 Stuart Leviton  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:49:23am

re: #6 darthstar

Heh...she'd need a few years to prep first. And her conditions for the debate would be so bizarre they'd eventually have to cancel:
1. She picks the questions.
2. She picks the audience.
3. She gets to answer first.
4. Gore's only allowed to nod his head.
5. Glenn Beck and Greta Van Sustern get to be the moderators.
6. No media will be allowed.
7. No transcripts.


8. She can pick her seat

360 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:49:58am

re: #337 tradewind

So your contention is that 98% of Gore's dialogue in An Inconvenient Truth is factual?
Okey dokey.

Ummm yes... indeed it is. Care to look at the actual science long enough first and then go back and give Gore a fair hearing? I'l make it easy for you, imagine it isn't Gore. Imagine you are just listening for facts.

361 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:50:02am

re: #350 Aceofwhat?

I can't speak for anyone else, but i mock his hyperbole because a tendency for hyperbole and discussions about AGW go together like peanut butter and lemons.

I think that it's more that AGW is a literally hyperbolic thing; the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the faster the rate of warming accelerates-- which forms a hyperbolic curve.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with giving Gore credit where credit is due for his support of the internet.

362 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:50:05am

re: #347 drcordell

Palin isn't in a campaign right now. She's selling a book. They aren't campaign appearances. They are paid book signing appearances. Huge difference.

So using your children for campaign appearances is nces is cool but for book signing tours is not.

Care to explain the juge difference between a politician trying to get elected and a politician trying to make a buck and how that relates to the proximity of their children during their evening events and activities?

363 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:50:10am

re: #330 Charles

When people thought the earth was flat, humanity hadn't even begun to understand the value of the scientific method. The amount of actual scientific knowledge at that time was easily expressed in a big round number: zero.

Comparing that situation with the current understanding of global warming is completely ludicrous.

I agree. I was only responding to the myth of it. =)

Put it another way though: Science is always open to debate and question. Climate Change Deniers and Creationists claim it isn't, but that's a completely distorted view of it. They point to the flat earth theory and Galileo and say things like "You see, they questioned accepted science too!" and attempt to equivocate on that same level.

It's a complete distortion of the reality. The fact is that accepted "science" back then wasn't based on science but on Biblical literature and "common sense" - which really isn't sensible in certain situations, whereas Copernicus and Darwin discovered truths based on the scientific method.

People did come along and challenge them later on based on the same principles, but they didn't refute what science states - they merely adjusted things to be more correct.

When a Creationist or any other science denier says something like "I'm glad that Galileo didn't just accept what he was told!" is putting the question into reverse. What I am glad for is that once Galileo's theories were proven to be correct, nobody went back and said "I don't like this and I challenge this based on that assumption because it says so in The Bible".

That's what Creationists and deniers should be grateful for, but clearly aren't...because they don't accept the fact that the Bible could ever be "wrong" - a complete misunderstanding of how Science actually works.

However, that being said, I just wanted to point out yet again that I was only arguing the myth that everyone thought the earth was flat in those days. Once again: most educated people knew it was round since the Greeks. =)

In summation, I couldn't be in more agreement with you on this, Charles.

364 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:50:24am

re: #356 Charles

It is.

And the insane thing about it that probably the majority of lizards have never seen the movie, nor would ever watch it. But they sure can criticize it.

365 Soap_Man  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:50:43am

re: #359 Stuart Leviton

8. She can pick her seat

9. She can call him Joe.

366 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:02am

re: #354 marjoriemoon

I saw it last night. I don't find his thoughts on nuclear power ill-informed in the least. Actually they are very well informed. He's concerned about the waste. He should be. No he shouldn't. He should call France. He's concerned about how, where and the cost of building nuclear reactors. He should be. No, he should be concerned about the cost of building less proven power generation technologies, the ones he's talking about.He's concerned about the long-term abundance of uranium. He should be. No, he should ask someone how long they think the current supply might last us. See my prior link.He's concerned about safety. He should be, although they are pretty safe today, certainly as safe as oil refineries. The only problem is that if you have a problem with nuclear, it's far more dangerous than a problem at an oil refinery.Because France, who gets 90% of their power from reactors, is burning?

I don't find him disingenuous or a money whore which is how the Right always sees him. He's done more for this country than probably 10 of us here put together.

I find him disingenuous for asking questions that have already been answered. Then again, that's one of my definitions for 'disingenuous', so it wasn't too big of a leap for me.

367 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:10am

re: #344 Jadespring

And if you liked her, you wouldn't be saying any of this.

368 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:41am

re: #351 DaddyG

Usually I figure I'm expected to bring my children along because I sired them and am expected to raise them. 24/7/365/forever...

You really can't see what I'm talking about here. You do realize that Palin doesn't keep Trig by her side during any of the actual book signings? She walks out with him on stage to use him as a prop for all the photos that get taken. Then upon commencing the signing, he is immediately handed off to a handler and whisked away. Explain to me what exactly the purpose of trotting him out on stage is, considering she isn't "parenting him" when he's whisked away after the photos are snapped.

369 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:44am

re: #361 Obdicut

I can't help it - the hyperbolic cut was good stuff. Props.

370 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:49am

re: #275 drcordell

Where'd you hear that? Fox News? Or National Review Online?

It's all over left wing blogs.

Oh, and CNN blogs.

November 18th, 2009 10:21 pm ET

Palin "first went rogue" when she abandoned her family and then her state in her egocentric, misguided, idiotic ambition to be president.

She's nothing but a quitter, a liar and a mooch.

snip

beth November 18th, 2009 9:55 pm ET

So did anyone ask her why her young daughter Piper (the one she says was harrassed by liberal media ) is walking to and from school by herself. Is supermom too busy to take care of her kids?

CNN’s John Roberts: Palin Might Neglect Her Disabled Infant?

CNN, right wing Nazi rag.

And then there's this piece of genius from CNN:

Sarah Palin — what if she were a black woman?

(ironic because she's being treated that way as a white woman.)

Sarah Palin: 'She’s not retreating, she’s reloading'

Palin has stayed in the spotlight as one of the few recognizable women within the Republican party. One of the many criticisms that she addressed in her book were questions surrounding her ability to hold office while being a wife and mother to five kids as well as her decision to bring her entire family on the campaign trail while she was running for vice president. Palin responded to her critics saying, “I will be able to do this job, the same way that the men are able to do this job with five kids.” Palin continued, “It never occurred to me that I couldn’t do the job because of children. My children are my strength.”

Republican consultant and former White House Press Secretary Joyce Giuffra has three children herself and said, “What we saw from her was a lot of honesty as a mother of five children and I think it was great seeing them on the campaign trail with her. I think the media is responsible for a lot of the criticism we saw on her because they evaluate female candidates differently.”

Rabid rightist loonytunes on display at CNN.

Only a couple of examples. You have google. Use it.

371 Jaerik  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:55am

re: #325 MKelly

How long did the left harp on Quale and the potato or Bush's nuclear? Gore presents himself as an expert. I.E. he testifies before congress, alone, so he should be held to a higher standard. He was magitudes off not just a few thousand degrees.

Here's the problem: if you re-read every post I've made in this thread, I have never defended the left. I made a snarky comment re: the intellectual bar on a Palin debate, and also attempted to clarify the source and popularity of a particular parody without ever saying I approved of the misattribution. I also attempted to diffuse an argument that was starting around the perceived disability of Palin's kid. (And apparently failed.)

Instead, because I wasn't right there with knee-jerk support of Palin the Individual from the moment I opened my mouth, folks have jumped to the conclusion that I'm a hardcore supporter of Gore (from a side conversation I wasn't even a part of) and/or a crazy partisan lefty.

It's just an example of how nuts the political environment has gotten recently. Look how quickly the thread devolved into personal arguments about Palin and Gore's character. It took what, a couple dozen posts?

When did the world go so insane?

372 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:51:56am

re: #20 Rightwingconspirator

How about this-Pay per view-Watch Sarah explain why AGW is a conspiracy and watch Al Gore try to butcher a moose.

I'd watch.

373 MKelly  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:52:32am

re: #263 Aceofwhat?

I agree.

374 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:52:35am

re: #313 LudwigVanQuixote

Uh - in 1986, I was using the Internet.

Glad to hear that Gore was "pushing for it" back then, though, presumably as part of his "initiative in creating" it.

375 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:52:47am

re: #26 darthstar

Al Gore grew up in Tennessee...I'm sure he's butchered smaller animals. A moose is simply larger.

Speaking coherently is, however, a challenge Sarah Palin would have difficulty with, I'm guessing.

Her fans don't seem to mind.

376 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:53:51am

Some people at the Academy want their Oscar back.///
[Link: latimesblogs.latimes.com...]

377 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:54:17am

re: #330 Charles

When people thought the earth was flat, humanity hadn't even begun to understand the value of the scientific method. The amount of actual scientific knowledge at that time was easily expressed in a big round number: zero.

Comparing that situation with the current understanding of global warming is completely ludicrous.

I think the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and a few other would take exception to the idea that there was zero scientific knowledge but whatever.

This idea that people before were idiots but us now? We got it under control is a great falacy. I guarentee you in 100 years people will look back on a lot of what we 'know' (and I'm not talking at Global Warming) and laugh.

It's the nature of human advancement.

378 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:54:21am

re: #341 Obdicut

Okay. So attack him over hyperbole, if you want-- though I have no clue why you think it's significant.

As long as you give him credit for the large part he played in the political side of creating the internet.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) created by ARPA of the United States Department of Defense during the Cold War, was the world's first operational packet switching network, and the predecessor of the global Internet.

Gore was about 20 years old when this happened. Yes much later he pushed legislation that helped it expand. It was 10 years later when he was elected to the House. Thank you Mr. Gore for your foresight in expanding this operational and proven concept.

379 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:54:22am

We cannot undo 200 years of industrialized carbon emissions. Cannot be done. And with carbon emissions continuing to rise exponentially there will be no real way to slow it down.

Without throwing humanity back to the stone age.

380 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:54:29am

re: #354 marjoriemoon

Mind you, i'm not saying there are no concerns with nuclear power. I'm just saying that it's very nearly indefensible to think that there are more obstacles to switching our power grid to an increasing nuclear component than switching our power grid to wind and solar components.

The one can bridge to the other. Ignoring clean energy closest at hand is a betrayal of principle, isn't it?

381 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:54:31am

re: #376 tradewind

Some people at the Academy want their Oscar back.///
[Link: latimesblogs.latimes.com...]

Yea, because of Climate"gate". Hilarious.

382 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:54:54am

re: #366 Aceofwhat?

I find him disingenuous for asking questions that have already been answered. Then again, that's one of my definitions for 'disingenuous', so it wasn't too big of a leap for me.

France is the size of maybe Wisconsin. How can you compare the United States to one small country in Europe and declare we should become 90% nuclear? Ridiculous argument.

If we're going to spend the millions/billions we need for alternative energy, we should start with wind and solar, first. It just makes good sense.

383 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:55:37am

re: #49 darthstar

What...she's already used her kids as props and validation for her attacks on the president in recent weeks...you don't think she'd hesitate to do it again?

Do a google search on how many times she's mentioned people attacking her kids (which, by the way, I didn't do). Sarah's white trash through and through. She'll use anyone to get ahead...and she has.

I disagree on the sole point that she is not 'white trash'. First, I hate that term, and secondly, she's a middle-class woman with a college degree, who is playing the victim card like she thought it might go out of style.

384 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:55:56am

re: #379 Racer X

We cannot undo 200 years of industrialized carbon emissions. Cannot be done. And with carbon emissions continuing to rise exponentially there will be no real way to slow it down.

Without throwing humanity back to the stone age.

We need a national initiative like the moon landing to get us on clean energy and develop the technology to remove excessive CO2 out of the atmosphere, but I agree it's looking pretty bleak.

385 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:56:28am

re: #360 LudwigVanQuixote
I understand that anyone who disagrees with Gore ( and by extension, you ) is a non-science hack, but there are way too many points specifically from the movie that have drawn scientists' criticisms for me to accept that ALL of them ( these points of contention) are wrong. Especially the points re Naomi Oreske's findings and what happened when researchers tried to duplicate them.

386 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:11am

re: #384 Sharmuta

We need a national initiative like the moon landing to get us on clean energy and develop the technology to remove excessive CO2 out of the atmosphere, but I agree it's looking pretty bleak.

Moon landing doesn't even come close.

387 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:17am

re: #377 Ferris

I think the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and a few other would take exception to the idea that there was zero scientific knowledge but whatever.

This idea that people before were idiots but us now? We got it under control is a great falacy. I guarentee you in 100 years people will look back on a lot of what we 'know' (and I'm not talking at Global Warming) and laugh.

It's the nature of human advancement.

Yes, perhaps. But they won't do it by denying science. They will do it by building up on the science and facts that we already have.

I guarantee you that nobody is going to come along within the next million years and disprove that Atoms exist, or that our sun is a star, or that we revolve around the sun and not the other way around. They will build on what we already know.

There is a major difference.

Creationists and Climate Change Deniers aren't trying to do that. They're trying to tear down what we already know to be true and replace it with a fantasy system of their own.

388 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:42am

re: #51 Locker

I know you got down dinged for this but I know exactly what you mean. I actually read an article some months back that claimed the left's problem with Sarah had nothing to do with any of her policies or anything she does, it's because we/they "hate trig".

Basically she can say whatever she wants about trig, bring him on stage, use him in speeches and if anyone questions one word of it, they "hate trig".

It's been a rallying cry from the beginning. And it makes me terribly angry.

389 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:45am

re: #377 Ferris

I think the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and a few other would take exception to the idea that there was zero scientific knowledge but whatever.

Technically, however, the statement is correct. It's certainly possible to argue about when, precisely, science arose, but somewhere around the Enlightenment is certainly close enough, and calling prior efforts at understanding the physical world "science" would be, strictly, incorrect.

390 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:45am

re: #378 Bobibutu

Or, as Vint Cerf said about Gore:


If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.

While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.

We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit.

391 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:48am

re: #374 SixDegrees

Uh - in 1986, I was using the Internet.

Glad to hear that Gore was "pushing for it" back then, though, presumably as part of his "initiative in creating" it.

YOU LIE!!!
//

392 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:57:49am

re: #382 marjoriemoon

Start with the least proven technologies? That makes no sense at all.

And France draws a lot more power than Wisconsin, mon amie. The point of the comparison is that they have or are working diligently on all of the awful obstacles that Gore mentioned.

I am saying that proven tech is a better short-term investment than tech still in development. I'm having trouble acheiving clarity on why you disagree. but i'm enjoying the discussion, so keep at it!

393 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:58:11am

re: #321 Summer

Oops I'm really misclicking all over the place today. I better stop and have some lunch. =)

Again, to recap: Ferris, I agree on the basic level about the flat earth debate. I don't agree that you can use it (or the comment about Darwin) to easily contest accepted scientific theory unless you have an incredibly enormous set of new evidence that nobody has hitherto yet heard of. =)

I was just commenting on the whole "they thought the earth was flat" comment. =)

It's insanity to bring that stuff.

In the end, what you have is an anti-science type bringing past examples of anti-science, that science eventually won out against as some sort of argument against science.

It is even historically flawed. Just because certain ignorant medievals believed that the Earth was flat did not mean that educated people didn't know better. Over 200 years ago the first accurate calculation of the Earth's diameter was done by Ptolemy.

It was really clever how he did it too. He heard that due south of him, (he was governor in Alexandria) that there was a village that one could see all the way to the bottom of the town well at noon. He concluded that the village must be on the equator. Hey measured the shadow of a stick at noon in his own position (Alexandria) and calculated the angle that the sun was at where he was. He then sent surveyors to the village and figured out how far it was from Alexandria.

Knowing the angle and the arc length, hey got the circumference of the Earth. He was accurate to within 5% if memory serves.

The point is, that there is this weird meme that the wingnuts like to bring again and again, that somehow science is always wrong and getting fixed and that we do not know what we know.

This could not be further from the truth. We actually do know what we claim to know.

394 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:58:12am

re: #380 Aceofwhat?

Mind you, i'm not saying there are no concerns with nuclear power. I'm just saying that it's very nearly indefensible to think that there are more obstacles to switching our power grid to an increasing nuclear component than switching our power grid to wind and solar components.

The one can bridge to the other. Ignoring clean energy closest at hand is a betrayal of principle, isn't it?

Why is that indefensible?

It's easy for me to think of some reasons and I'm not even close to an expert on the subject. The first few being wind and solar are "unlimited" resourced while Uranium is not. There isn't any harmful waste from collecting wind and/or solar and you can't turn it into a WMD. Additionally zoning issues and community resistance would probably be stronger to nuclear expansion than to wind and solar.

Not saying he's right or wrong but it seems like it's worthy of conversation.

395 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:58:15am

re: #368 drcordell

You really can't see what I'm talking about here. You do realize that Palin doesn't keep Trig by her side during any of the actual book signings? She walks out with him on stage to use him as a prop for all the photos that get taken. Then upon commencing the signing, he is immediately handed off to a handler and whisked away. Explain to me what exactly the purpose of trotting him out on stage is, considering she isn't "parenting him" when he's whisked away after the photos are snapped.

I can see where you find that offensive even when I don't think it is a big deal. (I like to take photos with my kids and have always included them in special events. They helped me decorate the Governor's mansion last year for Christmas and we took a lot of family pictures.) What I can't see is why that is more offensive than the Obamas trotting the girls out for a photo op or posing for a magazine cover as a family. I think that is sweet too and one of their more endearing activities. So what is the difference between the two and why is Palins action fodder for jokes and slams while the Obamas are excused?

We're supposedly anti-idolitarian here not just left or right. I don't like the smell of hypocracy and I call 'em pretty evenly. (Look up my history and you won't find me saying one thing about a perticular party that I'm not willing to say about the other.) It seems to me that people are really stratching to criticize Palin for silly things when she's a much easier target on her real gaffes and political associations.

396 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:58:21am

Good article on the AGW debate

397 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:58:48am

re: #362 DaddyG

So using your children for campaign appearances is nces is cool but for book signing tours is not.

Care to explain the juge difference between a politician trying to get elected and a politician trying to make a buck and how that relates to the proximity of their children during their evening events and activities?

In a political campaign, especially for the Presidency, your family is expected to make appearances with you. That's just how American politics works. If a candidate didn't appear with his family it would create a media shitstorm of speculation that no campaign would want to deal with.

Palin's book tour on the other hand, is a purely commercial enterprise. If she's bringing her children along with her, more power to her. Why not, she's flying on a nice big Gulfstream V, why not bring the kids along? I would too. But why would you carry your infant son out on stage (with none of your other children) and then hand him off once the flashbulbs stop popping? How else is that supposed to be interpreted other than using him as a prop for photo ops?

Here are a few photos as an example:
Image: -d8dbd026964bd49c_large.jpg

Image: 610x.jpg

Image: article-1229148-0745f375000005dc-412_634x484-300x229.jpg

398 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:58:48am

re: #381 Locker
The controversy really... you'd think that any minute now it would just go poof. Any minute now.
How did anyone in Hollywood get suckered in? They're so politically enlightened there! They testify before Congress... hell, they fly to Copenhagen!!///

399 Jadespring  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:59:11am

re: #367 cliffster

And if you liked her, you wouldn't be saying any of this.

Huh?

400 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:59:17am

re: #379 Racer X

We cannot undo 200 years of industrialized carbon emissions. Cannot be done. And with carbon emissions continuing to rise exponentially there will be no real way to slow it down.

Without throwing humanity back to the stone age.

So we should just not even attempt to try?

401 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:59:22am

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

It's insanity to bring that stuff.

In the end, what you have is an anti-science type bringing past examples of anti-science, that science eventually won out against as some sort of argument against science.

It is even historically flawed. Just because certain ignorant medievals believed that the Earth was flat did not mean that educated people didn't know better. Over 200 years ago the first accurate calculation of the Earth's diameter was done by Ptolemy.

It was really clever how he did it too. He heard that due south of him, (he was governor in Alexandria) that there was a village that one could see all the way to the bottom of the town well at noon. He concluded that the village must be on the equator. Hey measured the shadow of a stick at noon in his own position (Alexandria) and calculated the angle that the sun was at where he was. He then sent surveyors to the village and figured out how far it was from Alexandria.

Knowing the angle and the arc length, hey got the circumference of the Earth. He was accurate to within 5% if memory serves.

The point is, that there is this weird meme that the wingnuts like to bring again and again, that somehow science is always wrong and getting fixed and that we do not know what we know.

This could not be further from the truth. We actually do know what we claim to know.

I didn't bring it up. Ferris did. I merely responded to that meme. I couldn't agree more. =)

402 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:59:34am

re: #383 SanFranciscoZionist

I disagree on the sole point that she is not 'white trash'. First, I hate that term, and secondly, she's a middle-class woman with a college degree, who is playing the victim card like she thought it might go out of style.

I have to admit, the "white trash" comment kept me from giving an upding to that comment. Same as when another poster used it about the Clintons.

403 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 11:59:39am

re: #60 Sharmuta

It was zombie who started that smear.

Zombie starts a lot of things. My first inkling that ACORN existed was when Zombie reported that they'd caused the housing bubble.

404 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:00:07pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

We need a national initiative like the moon landing to get us on clean energy and develop the technology to remove excessive CO2 out of the atmosphere, but I agree it's looking pretty bleak.

All that sounds nice. It will certainly make some people feel good. Realistically it will do didlly squat to reverse or even slow down GW.

Every ounce of carbon we save in America will be offset by a whole new industrial complex in China or India or somewhere. I'm not saying we shouldn't take action - we absolutely should!

But some people have the expectation that we can keep the temperature rise to 1.4 degrees or whatever - it aint gonna happen. Those expectations are completely unrealistic.

405 badger1970  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:00:14pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

The problem with that, by sending men to the moon, be can see evidence of it. Hey! There''s men walking and playing golf on the moon. Immediate proof of success.

By removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere, what would people notice?

406 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:00:38pm

re: #64 Racer X

Ahh. So because Sarah can use a handicapped baby as a tool, that makes it OK for everyone else to pile on as well?

Show some class.

No one here criticized the baby. It's fair to criticize his mother for using him as a political prop.

407 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:03pm

re: #186 Cannadian Club Akbar

So, with the whole Palin/SNL thing. Does this mean Chris Farley was never a Chip-n-Dale?
/

I haven't read through the entire thread yet but this has to be the winner.

408 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:04pm

re: #394 Locker

I think that Marjorie is a "she". Juuust guessing//

Wind and solar are undoubtedly cleaner. and they are undoubtedly still far from being advanced enough to support a sizeable chunk of our power requirements.

So what do we do now? We either carry on and keep working on wind and solar...

...or we switch to a medium-term clean solution and keep working on wind and solar.

What other alternative, pray tell, do you envision?

409 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:05pm

re: #406 SanFranciscoZionist

No one here criticized the baby. It's fair to criticize his mother for using him as a political prop.

That they have to wear jackets in winter again?
//

410 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:10pm

re: #335 SixDegrees

I'm not so sure. Leaving scores of her fans standing in the cold without their book copies signed because she had other places to be, after they had patiently stood in line waiting since the previous day, was a major gaffe, to say the least.

She does well when in front of a cheering crowd of admirers. When the setting is less than completely friendly, however, not so much.

It's true that Gore is stultifyingly dull, but he's consistently stultifying.

Hard to say how such a debate would turn out. In the end, you're adding stupid to stupid, and all you're going to wind up with is more stupid than you started with.


I didn't know about the disappointed fans. What can you say except you feel sorry for them and wonder what she had to do that was so important she couldn't get to them?

In any case a debate between the two would be better entertainment than a cage match./

411 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:14pm

re: #382 marjoriemoon

Actually, it is a pretty good paradigm, because no state in the country gets anywhere near as much power from nuclear as France does.

Japan gets 30% of its electricity from nuclear.

The biggest hurdle in the US right now is where to put the waste. Reid has thwarted the opening of Yucca Mt., and reprocessing spent uranium isn't going to happen anytime soon in the US. Storing the waste in the national repository at Yucca Mt. would reduce costs to the utilities that are currently trying to store the waste at their facilities around the country (either dry casks or in containment pools, some of which have an annoying tendency to leak (see Indian Pt in NY)). The national repository has been paid for by the utilities via taxes taken out over the years, and Reid has personally held up the opening because it's in his home state, and yet he also has the audacity to keep it limping along because it generates a couple of jobs - just enough to take credit for, but not too many that would get the project to fruition.

Siting nuclear energy facilities around the country could begin with colocating with existing nuclear power plants, and could be done in conjunction with building a smart grid and electrification of rail in anticipation of high speed rail in certain locations.

But none of it is going to happen with the NIMBYots around; who not only don't want new nuclear power plants, but want to shut down existing ones (without saying where the power differential will come from).

412 William of Orange  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:15pm

Golly!! You betcha! (and every other catchphrase...)

413 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:01:37pm

re: #409 ignoranceisfatal

Ooops... quoted wrong post

414 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:02:25pm

re: #394 Locker

mind you, i said it was worthy of conversation, lest you think i'm trying to end the discussion. i'm very much enjoying the discussion. how do we all get sharper, other than sharpening our wits amongst each other, right?

415 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:02:31pm

re: #398 tradewind

The controversy really... you'd think that any minute now it would just go poof. Any minute now.
How did anyone in Hollywood get suckered in? They're so politically enlightened there! They testify before Congress... hell, they fly to Copenhagen!!///

Laugh. I guess it's because of this:

Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both Academy members, are among a small, meandering pack of known political conservatives still believed to be on the loose in the liberal bastion of movie-making.

416 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:11pm

re: #391 sattv4u2

re: #374 SixDegrees

MMMhmmm you are right, it existed in it's present form back then...

That is very foolish.

And Satt, there you go again trying to deny his contributions. There really was no distortion on my part when when I said you were happy to smear Gore.

How about you two re-read Charles' 92 :)

417 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:32pm

re: #387 Summer

Yes, perhaps. But they won't do it by denying science. They will do it by building up on the science and facts that we already have.

I guarantee you that nobody is going to come along within the next million years and disprove that Atoms exist, or that our sun is a star, or that we revolve around the sun and not the other way around. They will build on what we already know.

There is a major difference.

Creationists and Climate Change Deniers aren't trying to do that. They're trying to tear down what we already know to be true and replace it with a fantasy system of their own.



Depends on what you mean by "Climate Change Deniers".

No one that I know of denies that climates change. However the idea that we can not be pro-science and question our understanding the mechanisms or causes of that change is profoundly anti-science.

Certainly people are at this moment questioning the full range of forces that impact how atoms interact or what are the processes behind the life cycle of stars.

To simply accept that something exists does not preclude curiosity about cause, effects and interactions.

418 ED 209  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:37pm

re: #193 MandyManners

And John Belushi was never a Mexican bee.

I think you're thinking of this guy-

Youtube Video
419 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:50pm

re: #118 The Sanity Inspector

She's hardly the first politician to use her smiling family as a prop, true.

Yeah, but I don't remember others accusing people of hating their children, or hating them for having them, as a routine part of their political act.

420 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:52pm

re: #382 marjoriemoon

France is the size of maybe Wisconsin. How can you compare the United States to one small country in Europe and declare we should become 90% nuclear? Ridiculous argument.

If we're going to spend the millions/billions we need for alternative energy, we should start with wind and solar, first. It just makes good sense.

Not really. Nuclear power has the tremendous advantage of being extremely well understood, and being capable of producing prodigious amounts of electricity right now, off the shelf. The same cannot be said for either solar or wind power. While attractive in many ways, they simply aren't capable of producing the amounts of energy that will be demanded in the future without extensive development, and the way forward toward overcoming many of these shortcomings is along an unknown path.

China is aggressively pursuing nuclear power development. So are many other countries. It's an easy step to take that produces large results quickly, without reliance on unpredictable breakthroughs that other alternatives require.

I'm not a fan of monolithic solutions to this problem, and certainly welcome investment in a number of alternative energy sources going forward. In fact, I'd prefer to see a diversified energy solution, rather than relying on a sole source. But nuclear is an enormously viable option, and dismissing it is unrealistic.

421 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:53pm

re: #395 DaddyG

I can see where you find that offensive even when I don't think it is a big deal. (I like to take photos with my kids and have always included them in special events. They helped me decorate the Governor's mansion last year for Christmas and we took a lot of family pictures.) What I can't see is why that is more offensive than the Obamas trotting the girls out for a photo op or posing for a magazine cover as a family. I think that is sweet too and one of their more endearing activities. So what is the difference between the two and why is Palins action fodder for jokes and slams while the Obamas are excused?

We're supposedly anti-idolitarian here not just left or right. I don't like the smell of hypocracy and I call 'em pretty evenly. (Look up my history and you won't find me saying one thing about a perticular party that I'm not willing to say about the other.) It seems to me that people are really stratching to criticize Palin for silly things when she's a much easier target on her real gaffes and political associations.

It's true, of all the heinously absurd things Palin can be criticized for, this doesn't even rank in the top 5.

422 MKelly  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:03:56pm

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

About 98% of the time, the people with expertise in the field will tell you that Gore is correct. Gore is not a scientist. Gore does occasionally miss a point or even get something wrong. However, of all the politicians in DC, he actually is the most clear on the science in his public speaking.

The science is there for anyone with open eyes to look at. Gore is the only DC politician who has convinced me that he really has taken the time to look at it deeply. I would like to believe that Obama has too, however, Obama has not made nearly as clear a discussion of the science publicly.

98%!! Then how come he got so much wrong in AIT.

423 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:04:02pm

re: #368 drcordell

You really can't see what I'm talking about here. You do realize that Palin doesn't keep Trig by her side during any of the actual book signings? She walks out with him on stage to use him as a prop for all the photos that get taken. Then upon commencing the signing, he is immediately handed off to a handler and whisked away. Explain to me what exactly the purpose of trotting him out on stage is, considering she isn't "parenting him" when he's whisked away after the photos are snapped.

Image: barack_obama_family.jpg

Image: nm_obama_family_091026_ms.jpg

Image: obama-family.jpg

Image: obama-family-8-8-08.jpg

Image: alg_obama-family-onstage.jpg

Image: obama-family-election-night.jpg

Image: barack_obama_family_presidential_campaign_iowa_victory_2007.jpg

Image: obama_family_on_jet_magazine_cover1.jpg

Image: obamamagazinemania.jpg

Image: obama_people_2.jpeg

Image: barack_obama_family_people_magazine_cover_november_2008.jpg

Image: essence-magazine-the-obama-family-1-big.jpg

Image: obamahello.jpg

Image: parade-magazine-sunday-january-18-cover.jpg

Image: alg_obama-family.jpg

424 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:04:28pm

re: #408 Aceofwhat?

I think that Marjorie is a "she". Juuust guessing//

Wind and solar are undoubtedly cleaner. and they are undoubtedly still far from being advanced enough to support a sizeable chunk of our power requirements.

So what do we do now? We either carry on and keep working on wind and solar...

...or we switch to a medium-term clean solution and keep working on wind and solar.

What other alternative, pray tell, do you envision?

Laugh "he" refers to Gore, not Marjorie, regarding his comments on Nuclear.

Personally I'm a nuclear, wind, solar, water, wave and other alternative energy advocate.

425 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:04:31pm

re: #399 Jadespring

Huh?

When one doesn't like someone, they are very willing to take something that is very ho-hum and try to manufacture a reason to go nuts about it. I think this quote is an example of that. Perhaps a bit evasive, but certainly not "unbelievably stupid".

426 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:05:02pm

re: #411 lawhawk

well-written. (both because i think it was well-written and because you conveniently agreed with me...hey...at least i'm honest)

Of course, Reid could always focus on improving our ability to reprocess spent fuel, like France has done, leaving much less to store in Yucca (and drastically reducing security concerns). But nooo...that would be too logical.

427 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:05:09pm

re: #417 Ferris

The cause of AGW is A producing CO2, causing GW and really FTU in a VBW.

428 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:05:39pm

re: #392 Aceofwhat?

Start with the least proven technologies? That makes no sense at all.

And France draws a lot more power than Wisconsin, mon amie. The point of the comparison is that they have or are working diligently on all of the awful obstacles that Gore mentioned.

I am saying that proven tech is a better short-term investment than tech still in development. I'm having trouble acheiving clarity on why you disagree. but i'm enjoying the discussion, so keep at it!

Long term, dear. For your children's children's children and beyond. Solar and wind are currently being used and developed. I don't think you mean to say that we should not bother with technology because it's too hard, too costly and takes too much time. I mean, if folks thought this way, we wouldn't have cars, planes, telephones, let alone computers and medical advances.

429 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:05:44pm

re: #397 drcordell

In a political campaign, especially for the Presidency, your family is expected to make appearances with you. That's just how American politics works. If a candidate didn't appear with his family it would create a media shitstorm of speculation that no campaign would want to deal with.

Palin's book tour on the other hand, is a purely commercial enterprise. If she's bringing her children along with her, more power to her. Why not, she's flying on a nice big Gulfstream V, why not bring the kids along? I would too. But why would you carry your infant son out on stage (with none of your other children) and then hand him off once the flashbulbs stop popping? How else is that supposed to be interpreted other than using him as a prop for photo ops?

Here are a few photos as an example:
[Link: media.mlive.com...]

[Link: cache.daylife.com...]

[Link: blogs.babble.com...]

Please tell me you realize that's from one event, yes?

430 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:06:07pm

I suffer no delusion that mankind will stop or even slow down GW.

Not in this century.

431 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:06:47pm

re: #430 Racer X

I suffer no delusion that mankind will stop or even slow down GW.

Not in this century.

The feedback loop that causes us to slow down will not be voluntary.

432 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:05pm

re: #416 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #374 SixDegrees

MMMhmmm you are right, it existed in it's present form back then...

That is very foolish.

And Satt, there you go again trying to deny his contributions. There really was no distortion on my part when when I said you were happy to smear Gore.

How about you two re-read Charles' 92 :)

Where have I "denied his contributions". Once again see #130 (apparantly for the 1st time)

But keep swinging. You're bound to hit the targte SOME day!

433 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:05pm

re: #397 drcordell

In a political campaign, especially for the Presidency, your family is expected to make appearances with you. That's just how American politics works. If a candidate didn't appear with his family it would create a media shitstorm of speculation that no campaign would want to deal with.

Palin's book tour on the other hand, is a purely commercial enterprise. If she's bringing her children along with her, more power to her. Why not, she's flying on a nice big Gulfstream V, why not bring the kids along? I would too. But why would you carry your infant son out on stage (with none of your other children) and then hand him off once the flashbulbs stop popping? How else is that supposed to be interpreted other than using him as a prop for photo ops?

Here are a few photos as an example:
[Link: media.mlive.com...]

[Link: cache.daylife.com...]

[Link: blos.babble.com...]

The older kids are in school. That makes a difference. and you didn't really answer my question. The Obamas are no longer campaigning and yet the girls show up at events and on magazine covers. Why is that different.?
Again I will remind you I have no problem with that in either case and I'm consistent about it.

434 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:15pm

re: #423 Ben Hur

[Link: www.moonbattery.com...]

[Link: a.abcnews.go.com...]

[Link: www.havanatimes.org...]

[Link: letustalk.files.wordpress.com...]

[Link: assets.nydailynews.com...]

[Link: cockingasnook.files.wordpress.com...]

[Link: www.shallownation.com...]

[Link: yeyeolade.files.wordpress.com...]

[Link: www.blackcelebkids.com...]

[Link: www.blogmagazine.com...]

[Link: www.shallownation.com...]

[Link: www.ethiopianreview.com...]

[Link: www.blackcelebkids.com...]

[Link: www.bittenandbound.com...]

[Link: www.nydailynews.com...]

Again. These are photos of Obama's family from the Presidential campaign. And while there are plenty, he did not walk out into EVERY SINGLE APPEARANCE HE MADE carrying his daughter in his arms.

Palin isn't running for office. She is trying to sell her hackneyed "biography" for personal financial gain. And yet at every single appearance she made, no matter what time she walked off the bus, Trig was carried out on stage in her arms. Without exception.

That is the difference.

435 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:18pm

re: #171 Ben Hur

Why are Democrats skeptical that Alaska is next to Russia?

We're not. We're just skeptical that being near Russia counts as foreign policy experience.

436 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:30pm

re: #351 DaddyG

Usually I figure I'm expected to bring my children along because I sired them and am expected to raise them. 24/7/365/forever...


Yep until they are forty or you are dead whatever comes first.

437 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:44pm

re: #431 cliffster

The feedback loop that causes us to slow down will not be voluntary.

Mother Nature can be a bitch.

438 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:57pm

re: #397 drcordell

In a political campaign, especially for the Presidency, your family is expected to make appearances with you. That's just how American politics works. If a candidate didn't appear with his family it would create a media shitstorm of speculation that no campaign would want to deal with.

Palin's book tour on the other hand, is a purely commercial enterprise. If she's bringing her children along with her, more power to her. Why not, she's flying on a nice big Gulfstream V, why not bring the kids along? I would too. But why would you carry your infant son out on stage (with none of your other children) and then hand him off once the flashbulbs stop popping? How else is that supposed to be interpreted other than using him as a prop for photo ops?

Here are a few photos as an example:
[Link: media.mlive.com...]

[Link: cache.daylife.com...]

[Link: blogs.babble.com...]

I'll bet there are parents of children with Down's Syndrome that are absolutely thrilled to see someone widely-known proudly holding her special child up on stage.

439 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:07:59pm

re: #404 Racer X

A lot of things could happen. We could get a breakthrough in technology, or we could get a natural event that will slow down or speed up the process. Other than pushing for R&D, I don't know what else to do, because I'm already doing what I can.

440 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:03pm

re: #424 Locker

Laugh "he" refers to Gore, not Marjorie, regarding his comments on Nuclear.

Personally I'm a nuclear, wind, solar, water, wave and other alternative energy advocate.


Oops, my bad. (Marjorie - at least i was defending your honor)

I think advocating all of the above is intellectually honest. I just think that we ought to place them in order of their short-term applicability, which would put NP at the top of the list.

But we have to keep working on the others in the meantime. NP isn't eternally renewable...unless we can get fusion to work someday. Different subject entirely.

441 MKelly  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:08pm

re: #379 Racer X

We cannot undo 200 years of industrialized carbon emissions. Cannot be done. And with carbon emissions continuing to rise exponentially there will be no real way to slow it down.

Without throwing humanity back to the stone age.

Carbon emissions are not rising "exponentially". However, I do agree that slowing down CO2 emission will throw us back a ways, but maybe not to the stone age.

442 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:09pm

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

Just because certain ignorant medievals believed that the Earth was flat did not mean that educated people didn't know better.

Can you name any ignorant medievals who believed the earth was flat? I've looked into this in some depth, and haven't found that it was ever a widely held belief in any era. See my note above; the notion that Columbus "disproved" this notion seems to be pure fiction, invented by Washington Irving.

443 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:15pm

re: #385 tradewind

I understand that anyone who disagrees with Gore ( and by extension, you ) is a non-science hack, but there are way too many points specifically from the movie that have drawn scientists' criticisms for me to accept that ALL of them ( these points of contention) are wrong. Especially the points re Naomi Oreske's findings and what happened when researchers tried to duplicate them.

Oh what a wonderful way to shift the argument...

Umm no,

People who disagrees with the science after it has been clearly explained and who continue to obfuscate the facts of the science are anti-science hacks.

And no, AGW is not about just disagreeing with me any more than if you claimed that 2+5 = 89 and I insisted it was 7, followed by you getting all hurt and claiming that we are just disagreeing and calling you names.

And I haven't called you anything yet!

However, this is not a "disagreement".

Disagreements are things that two honest people can have about matters of opinion. If you think that vanilla ice cream is better than pistachio, I will disagree, but we are both free to with no harm and no sense of right and wrong at all.

If you disagree about the basic science of AGW, you are either stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above - in exactly the same way you would be if you argued that 2+5 =89.

444 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:17pm

re: #417 Ferris

I'm sorry, I have to disagree there completely again.

Just on a basic level of physics, we're pumping out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We know full well that this is having an effect on the planet at large. To deny that it does is to deny the most basic understanding of atomic interactions between carbon and other atoms.

We already know this as a fact.

Sure, there are many other variables at play, but just on that alone we cannot be uncertain that it is having a major impact on the entire planet as a whole.

I'm sorry, but to deny that is to deny physics at a fundamental level.

445 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:34pm

There are some cool pictures of uranium ore out there: images.google.com...


I like this one: thestarguide.com...

446 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:43pm

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

FTR- I didn't bring the "flat Earth" stuff into the discussion. Charles did at #330.

447 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:08:51pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

We need a national initiative like the moon landing to get us on clean energy and develop the technology to remove excessive CO2 out of the atmosphere, but I agree it's looking pretty bleak.

I agree completely. We still have to try though.

448 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:09:03pm

McCain was reluctant to use his kids, and so was Biden.

Both have sons serving and don't use it as examples (that often) for their policy decisions.

449 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:09:12pm

re: #434 drcordell

Again. These are photos of Obama's family from the Presidential campaign. And while there are plenty, he did not walk out into EVERY SINGLE APPEARANCE HE MADE carrying his daughter in his arms.

Palin isn't running for office. She is trying to sell her hackneyed "biography" for personal financial gain. And yet at every single appearance she made, no matter what time she walked off the bus, Trig was carried out on stage in her arms. Without exception.

That is the difference.

Utter and complete bullshit. Every single campaign appearance she held her baby?

Bull Shit.

450 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:09:26pm

re: #437 Racer X

Mother Nature can be a bitch.

She generally is. We managed to avoid a lot of her bitchiness through technology. But that can't last long. We're actually pretty lucky to be alive when we are.

451 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:01pm

re: #428 marjoriemoon

Ok. (the 'dear' was nice - thx!) We agree on the long-term solutions 100%. I fault Gore for not aggressively seizing on a better short-term solution, one that has been proven effective in other countries.

The question of what we do while working on our long-term objectives shouldn't be ignored, especially by AGW evangelists.

452 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:18pm

re: #438 cliffster

I'll bet there are parents of children with Down's Syndrome that are absolutely thrilled to see someone widely-known proudly holding her special child up on stage.

I'm sure they were just as ecstatic when she cut special-ed funding in her state as governor, and used her child's disability as a cudgel to attack health care reform.

453 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:40pm

re: #434 drcordell

Again. These are photos of Obama's family from the Presidential campaign. And while there are plenty, he did not walk out into EVERY SINGLE APPEARANCE HE MADE carrying his daughter in his arms.

Palin isn't running for office. She is trying to sell her hackneyed "biography" for personal financial gain. And yet at every single appearance she made, no matter what time she walked off the bus, Trig was carried out on stage in her arms. Without exception.

That is the difference.

He didn't have them with him all the time? Why is he abandoning his children?

Of course not all the time. Just for the national photo ops and magazines.

You know, like props.

454 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:43pm

re: #411 lawhawk

Actually, it is a pretty good paradigm, because no state in the country gets anywhere near as much power from nuclear as France does.

Japan gets 30% of its electricity from nuclear.

The biggest hurdle in the US right now is where to put the waste. Reid has thwarted the opening of Yucca Mt., and reprocessing spent uranium isn't going to happen anytime soon in the US. Storing the waste in the national repository at Yucca Mt. would reduce costs to the utilities that are currently trying to store the waste at their facilities around the country (either dry casks or in containment pools, some of which have an annoying tendency to leak (see Indian Pt in NY)). The national repository has been paid for by the utilities via taxes taken out over the years, and Reid has personally held up the opening because it's in his home state, and yet he also has the audacity to keep it limping along because it generates a couple of jobs - just enough to take credit for, but not too many that would get the project to fruition.

Siting nuclear energy facilities around the country could begin with colocating with existing nuclear power plants, and could be done in conjunction with building a smart grid and electrification of rail in anticipation of high speed rail in certain locations.

But none of it is going to happen with the NIMBYots around; who not only don't want new nuclear power plants, but want to shut down existing ones (without saying where the power differential will come from).

I'm not really against nuclear, but I'm more pro-solar/wind.

Sorry we missed you during last night's conversation. You would have been a great addition :) Check it out. Click my name, do a recent comments search and you'll find it. Charles posted a great quote by Gore and his nuclear concerns there.

Gore wants to continue what we have. He's against building more plants, but he's not adamant against it. He just wants to develop other avenues.

455 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:45pm

re: #246 Ben Hur

I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

-Hillary Clinton before the left was against working moms.

And before the right loved them.

456 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:47pm

re: #415 Locker
Dammit! They'll have to be purged ASAP.

457 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:52pm

Gore debating? Is this the same Al Gore who couldn't best G.W. Bush in a debate with three tries?

458 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:10:59pm

bbl, leaving early to pick up a cute kid from school. simple joys...

459 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:11:12pm

re: #440 Aceofwhat?

Oops, my bad. (Marjorie - at least i was defending your honor)

I think advocating all of the above is intellectually honest. I just think that we ought to place them in order of their short-term applicability, which would put NP at the top of the list.

But we have to keep working on the others in the meantime. NP isn't eternally renewable...unless we can get fusion to work someday. Different subject entirely.

Well I think we can agree that it's going to be a combination solution. It will probably also include some kind of biofuel, like sugar cane in Brazil. Additionally I would like to see a ton of money dumped into alternative energy research.

460 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:11:32pm

re: #452 drcordell

I'm sure they were just as ecstatic when she cut special-ed funding in her state as governor, and used her child's disability as a cudgel to attack health care reform.

And if that's what we were discussing, that would be a very good point.

461 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:11:44pm

re: #336 bosforus

Ha ha. Thanks for getting back to me. I was browsing a car forum this morning and saw a RogueOne nick.

Someones trying to steal my gig? the butthole. I'm mostly a lurker everywhere else but this site is a little different.

462 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:11:55pm

re: #423 Ben Hur

The best part of the Obama's IMO. I hope the girls can stay somewhat sheltered through his administration. So far Michelle seems to be doing a good job of keeping the hounds at bay.

463 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:11:59pm

re: #393 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF Ptolemy did his calculation over 2000 years ago...

464 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:12:05pm

re: #459 Locker

aagh - my head is exploding!!! guess who likes huge tariffs on brazilian sugar cane...bbl...we'll pick this up later!

465 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:12:10pm

re: #457 Big Steve

Gore debating? Is this the same Al Gore who couldn't best G.W. Bush in a debate with three tries?

It'd be nice to have a debate that wasn't built around campaign soundbites & pandering. Since Gore isn't running for anything anymore and will be on the one topic he has been focused on for the last nine years, I think it would be good.

466 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:12:15pm

re: #449 Racer X
Even if she had carried Trig in her arms, I don't see a problem.
When my children were newborns, I didn't go a lot of places without them. Pretty much carried them everywhere I went like a purse.///
No one ever accused me of using 'em like props to break in line at the checkout.///

467 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:12:59pm

re: #382 marjoriemoon

France is the size of maybe Wisconsin. How can you compare the United States to one small country in Europe and declare we should become 90% nuclear? Ridiculous argument.

If we're going to spend the millions/billions we need for alternative energy, we should start with wind and solar, first. It just makes good sense.

How is relative size relevant?
And "it just makes good sense" really needs some factual support.

468 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:13:06pm

re: #401 Summer

I didn't bring it up. Ferris did. I merely responded to that meme. I couldn't agree more. =)

I know I was just elaborating on your excellent points :)

469 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:13:22pm

re: #390 Obdicut

That's a long way from "creating".

This is a bit dry reading but the dates should be of some help.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

470 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:14:03pm

re: #416 LudwigVanQuixote

Let's review Gore's statement again:

I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

I don't see any qualifiers about it's present form. I also don't see how the Internet has changed much since it's introduction in terms of it's protocols - they are virtually unchanged since their codification in the early 1980s, which grew out of the even older Arpanet that had been around proving it's usefulness for many years prior.

But continue trying to change the topic. You've already lost your original argument many times over, and the additional errors and contrivances are vaguely amusing, if tiresome.

471 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:14:15pm

re: #467 Spare O'Lake

How is relative size relevant?
And "it just makes good sense" really needs some factual support.

Also - France has 62 million people, Wisconsin has 5 million. Not a reasonable comparison at all for a multitude of reasons.

472 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:14:21pm

re: #468 LudwigVanQuixote

I know I was just elaborating on your excellent points :)

Which I royally screwed up when I first responded to him by saying I agree without specifying that I was only agreeing with the idea of questioning but solely based on science. =)

But thanks. =)

473 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:14:37pm

re: #444 Summer

I'm sorry, I have to disagree there completely again.

Just on a basic level of physics, we're pumping out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We know full well that this is having an effect on the planet at large. To deny that it does is to deny the most basic understanding of atomic interactions between carbon and other atoms.

We already know this as a fact.

Sure, there are many other variables at play, but just on that alone we cannot be uncertain that it is having a major impact on the entire planet as a whole.

I'm sorry, but to deny that is to deny physics at a fundamental level.

I'm sorry but that's simply argument by assertion. The whole point is there are people who don't necessarily go from "we're pumping out billions of tons of CO2" to "We know full well that this is having an effect on the planet at large".

That's kind of the point of the debate some want to have. Coincidence is not causality.*

I understand some think it's a slam dunk case, I'm just not sure why people who say, "you know there are other theories out there from solar activity to ocean currents to long term cycles" are ipso facto 'deniers'.

474 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:14:52pm

re: #402 Locker

White trash is at least as racial as the wokkie nic we saw from a comment about Obama on another blog. if a Obama racial comment would be deleted I would hope a "white (insert insult)" as fast as a post with the "N" word. One of those 3...2...1... moments.

475 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:15:05pm

re: #462 DaddyG
I am not sure how thrilled Sasha was to have her biology test grade pimped out by Daddy in a speech to make a political point.
I hope Michelle tore him one for that.

476 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:15:12pm

re: #469 Bobibutu

That's a long way from "creating".

This is a bit dry reading but the dates should be of some help.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Dude, I'm well-versed in the history of the internet. Which is why I think it's important to give Gore his due for what he did do at funding, popularizing, and mainstreaming the internet. I posted a quote from the man most heavily identified as 'the' inventor of the internet who gives Gore heaps of credit as well.

477 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:15:16pm

re: #449 Racer X

Utter and complete bullshit. Every single campaign appearance she held her baby?

Bull Shit.

Every single appearance she has made on her book tour, she has carried Trig in her arms, at least from what I have seen.

478 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:15:27pm

re: #422 MKelly

98%!! Then how come he got so much wrong in AIT.

ummm what did he get so wrong about AGW seriously? Really what?

His biggest error was in creating confusion between carbon rises in past epochs. Some times it was not the primary driver, other times it was. It is certainly the primary driver right now.

So other than that, what did he get wrong?

479 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:15:28pm

re: #464 Aceofwhat?

aagh - my head is exploding!!! guess who likes huge tariffs on brazilian sugar cane...bbl...we'll pick this up later!

I don't know! Man you could at least give me a link to read while you are away. WTF am I suppose to do now, thumb wrestle myself?!

480 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:16:16pm

re: #476 Obdicut

Dude, I'm well-versed in the history of the internet. Which is why I think it's important to give Gore his due for what he did do at funding, popularizing, and mainstreaming the internet. I posted a quote from the man most heavily identified as 'the' inventor of the internet who gives Gore heaps of credit as well.

Also, he was a lot more important than the other nimrod from Alaska... Senator Ted 'It's a series of tubes!' Stevens.

481 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:17:46pm

re: #477 drcordell

Every single appearance she has made on her book tour, she has carried Trig in her arms, at least from what I have seen.

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.

Idiot.

482 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:18:00pm

re: #466 tradewind

Even if she had carried Trig in her arms, I don't see a problem.
When my children were newborns, I didn't go a lot of places without them. Pretty much carried them everywhere I went like a purse.///
No one ever accused me of using 'em like props to break in line at the checkout.///

That's why you pinch them before you get in line. They start screaming and everyone begs you to go first. //

483 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:18:30pm

re: #470 SixDegrees

You've already lost your original argument many times over, and the additional errors and contrivances are vaguely amusing, if tiresome.

And if all else fails, keep slipping in that SATTV4U2 insists on "trying to deny his contributions." even though my #130 was 100% accurate

484 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:18:48pm

re: #459 Locker

I got issues with biofuel as long as its fuel instead of food farming. Maing it from mulch or algae or non food crops seems fine. But to divert corn seems totally insane to me.

485 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:18:51pm

re: #482 DaddyG

That's why you pinch them before you get in line. They start screaming and everyone begs you to go first. //

That's why you use ducktape and leave them taped up to the wall at home so they don't get into trouble...

///SARC///

486 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:18:54pm

re: #382 marjoriemoon

France is the size of maybe Wisconsin. How can you compare the United States to one small country in Europe and declare we should become 90% nuclear? Ridiculous argument.

If we're going to spend the millions/billions we need for alternative energy, we should start with wind and solar, first. It just makes good sense.


That's good but how soon can we go off fossil fuels and depend on solar and wind? We need a bridge. We need all the technologies we have the capacity of implementing right now.

487 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:19:11pm

re: #481 Racer X

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification.

Idiot.

I don't see you providing evidence to the contrary, fuckwad. Go find me a picture of Palin stepping off her book tour bus NOT holding Trig.

488 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:19:23pm

re: #317 tradewind

I'm still wondering what turned Al Gore's intellectual curiosity light on... he flunked out of divinity school, and dropped out of law school to avoid flunking out, all the while during the Gore-Bush campaign being described as the more intelligent candidate.
Hmmm, Double Vandy dropout vs Harvard MBA. That's a tough one.

Hey, don't you have some gay smears about Kevin Jennings to repeat?

489 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:19:35pm

Gore's environmental adviser responded to the false claims about "Inconvenient Truth" here:

[Link: blog.washingtonpost.com...]

I'm almost ashamed to say that I believed a lot of the right wing noise about Gore's film at one time. Now I know that almost all of the criticisms of the film were dishonest and/or distorted misrepresentations.

490 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:19:47pm

re: #443 LudwigVanQuixote

If you disagree about the basic science of AGW, you are either stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above

Right. Because science simply won't put up with skepticism, unorthodoxy or questioning. It is, after all, absolutely, 100% true as delivered from the ivory heights to the filthy, unwashed hands of the ungrateful, stinking masses below. All you ignorant, mentally unstable morons need to just shut the fuck up and get back in your holes while the scientists tell you what to think, and stop trying to pretend you're capable of doing any thinking for yourself, especially when it's even slightly in discord with The One And Only Truth That Can Ever Be.

...

Oh, wait. That's not exactly a scientific attitude, is it?

In fact, that's the attitude of an asshole.

491 Jadespring  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:19:51pm

re: #425 cliffster

When one doesn't like someone, they are very willing to take something that is very ho-hum and try to manufacture a reason to go nuts about it. I think this quote is an example of that. Perhaps a bit evasive, but certainly not "unbelievably stupid".

And when someone likes someone they are very willing to take something that is just ridiculous and pass it off as something ho-hum.

And no I'm am not going crazy about it unless you think shaking ones head and chuckling at it means going crazy. That's you projecting your assumptions. And you're right it was evasive and that's what POLS when do when they're faced with questions that they don't want to answer or don't know how to answer. However a non-stupid evasion answer only works if it doesn't make you look even more clueless.

492 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:20:15pm

re: #487 drcordell

I don't see you providing evidence to the contrary, fuckwad. Go find me a picture of Palin stepping off her book tour bus NOT holding Trig.

Have you seen every appearance?

Moron.

A lot of nerve having "Dr" in your nic and be that stupid.

493 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:20:20pm

re: #487 drcordell

I don't see you providing evidence to the contrary, fuckwad. Go find me a picture of Palin stepping off her book tour bus NOT holding Trig.

ummm,,, what should she be doing with HER child, storing him in the luggage racks?

494 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:20:28pm

re: #371 Jaerik


When did the world go so insane?

As soon as humans learned how to write, it was all downhill from there.

495 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:20:42pm

re: #442 SixDegrees

Can you name any ignorant medievals who believed the earth was flat? I've looked into this in some depth, and haven't found that it was ever a widely held belief in any era. See my note above; the notion that Columbus "disproved" this notion seems to be pure fiction, invented by Washington Irving.

You may be right on that. I honestly do not know what the public perception of the shape of the Earth was in general in medieval Europe. I was allowing for the possibility that someone believed that then.

I know for a fact that Ptolemy's calculation was rather well known to the scholastics of the medieval period. So it is certain that the educated class had the idea that the Earth was round. I also know that Ptolemy was not the first to come up with that notion, he just has the first really good calculation of it that I know of done some 2300 years ago. The other Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Arabic philosophers/proto-scientists who wrote about the roundness of the Earth were also pretty well known in Europe.

496 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:20:51pm

re: #484 Rightwingconspirator

I got issues with biofuel as long as its fuel instead of food farming. Maing it from mulch or algae or non food crops seems fine. But to divert corn seems totally insane to me.

Corn is wildly inefficient now too. Though Brazil has been extremely successful with sugarcane, we have been beholden to a giant gift we give to the one family that controls almost all of the US sugarcane business. We put huge tariffs on foreign sugarcane and that keeps this family in their private jets and us undersupplied in a good source of ethanol raw materials.

497 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:20:53pm

re: #460 cliffster

And if that's what we were discussing, that would be a very good point.

Even if it's untrue.

498 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:21:07pm

re: #473 Ferris

I'm sorry but that's simply argument by assertion. The whole point is there are people who don't necessarily go from "we're pumping out billions of tons of CO2" to "We know full well that this is having an effect on the planet at large".

That's kind of the point of the debate some want to have. Coincidence is not causality.*

I understand some think it's a slam dunk case, I'm just not sure why people who say, "you know there are other theories out there from solar activity to ocean currents to long term cycles" are ipso facto 'deniers'.

The majority of those other "theories" so far have already been discredited or proven to be false or minor influences at best.

The vast majority of scientists working on this already have the basis of a working model. They are tweaking it each day with more data, but they are building on facts.

I didn't make any assertions, I simply pointed to the facts. We are pumping out billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere on a phenomenal rate, and we know how carbon interacts on a basic level with oxygen. This isn't in dispute.

499 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:21:07pm

re: #454 marjoriemoon

I would argue that Gore's policies are akin to strangulation of the economy because all those alternative energy sources - wind, thermal, and solar, are incapable of providing the amount of power needed to wean the nation off coal/gas/oil. Much of the country isn't situated to maximize solar, wind, or thermal. Waiting for those technologies to mature may take decades, time that we don't have.

Nuclear technologies are mature, and new technologies make nuclear power safer and more efficient than prior generations.

At the same time, you've got people trying to kill wind power because it might kill migratory birds, affect vistas and scenery, may cause too much noise, etc. so they delay those plans.

If we are to truly wean ourselves off oil/coal in short order, the only way is to go nuclear precisely because it can produce large amounts of power on a small footprint - especially compared to the large areas needed to generate 1mw of power for wind or solar. Also, seeing how land use issues are a huge concern, particularly out West, taking such amounts of land for solar or wind power is bound to create problems.

500 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:21:10pm

re: #483 sattv4u2

You've already lost your original argument many times over, and the additional errors and contrivances are vaguely amusing, if tiresome.

And if all else fails, keep slipping in that SATTV4U2 insists on "trying to deny his contributions." even though my #130 was 100% accurate

Ignorance and divisiveness, they name is Ludwig.

501 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:21:17pm

re: #475 tradewind

I am not sure how thrilled Sasha was to have her biology test grade pimped out by Daddy in a speech to make a political point.
I hope Michelle tore him one for that.

The idea of Michelle tearing me a new one scares the crap out of me. She is a formidable woman (and I'm not just talking upper body strength). It probably keeps President Obama in line more often than we know!

502 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:21:26pm

re: #490 SixDegrees

Reading quite a bit into that, aren't you?

Are there reasons to disagree with the science of AGW other than what he wrote?

503 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:22:41pm

re: #485 Cineaste

That's why you use ducktape and leave them taped up to the wall at home so they don't get into trouble...

///SARC///

My #2 on the list of jokes never to make near a colleague in child protective services. /

504 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:23:14pm

re: #477 drcordell

Every single appearance she has made on her book tour, she has carried Trig in her arms, at least from what I have seen.

I can understand how a mother carrying her baby in her arms is very strange.

505 Summer Seale  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:23:14pm

Anyway, I'm off to lunch. Later. =)

506 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:23:17pm

re: #484 Rightwingconspirator

I got issues with biofuel as long as its fuel instead of food farming. Maing it from mulch or algae or non food crops seems fine. But to divert corn seems totally insane to me.

Well I think we have a corn surplus and we always have had one. On the other hand I, the things I've seen about corn ethanol seem to indicate it's not a good choice. The break even points on the energy it produces vs the energy required to make it seem to be very close together. It also requires a LOT of water and energy to grow.

507 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:23:24pm

re: #337 tradewind

So your contention is that 98% of Gore's dialogue in An Inconvenient Truth is factual?
Okey dokey.

Gore Derangement Syndrome.

508 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:24:14pm

Oops, gotta go - the wife's putting up the Christmas tree Giant Cat Toy, and the new kitten is fascinated...

509 Slap  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:24:29pm

re: #474 Rightwingconspirator

Despite being guilty of using it, I have to agree. My mom grew up in a family whose economic circumstances, even in darkest smelliest Florida, were regularly described with that epithet. She never said much about it, but it was clear it was as hurtful to her as the N-epithet would be to a black person.

That said, I do recall when Willie Nelson hosted SNL a number of years ago, they did a series of "Great Moments in White Trash History" skits that were pretty funny. They each described a set of circumstances (8 marriages, etc.) that were pretty awful, and finished with the line, "But, they was good people."

510 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:24:36pm

Here is the truth on AGW

511 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:24:48pm

re: #492 Racer X

Have you seen every appearance?

Moron.

A lot of nerve having "Dr" in your nic and be that stupid.

I'm reading through press accounts and photos right now... haven't seen a single one yet that doesn't mention/show that she walked off the bus holding Trig. If you're so goddamn certain that I'm a liar, the proof should be quite easy to find, shouldn't it?

512 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:25:30pm

re: #490 SixDegrees

Right. Because science simply won't put up with skepticism, unorthodoxy or questioning. It is, after all, absolutely, 100% true as delivered from the ivory heights to the filthy, unwashed hands of the ungrateful, stinking masses below. All you ignorant, mentally unstable morons need to just shut the fuck up and get back in your holes while the scientists tell you what to think, and stop trying to pretend you're capable of doing any thinking for yourself, especially when it's even slightly in discord with The One And Only Truth That Can Ever Be.

...

Oh, wait. That's not exactly a scientific attitude, is it?

In fact, that's the attitude of an asshole.

You are correct, science doesn't put up with blind skepticism, non-scientific unorthodoxy or faith based questions. If you want to question science, the use the scientific method to produce some data and I'm quite sure you'll get a debate.

513 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:25:43pm

re: #487 drcordell

I don't see you providing evidence to the contrary, fuckwad. Go find me a picture of Palin stepping off her book tour bus NOT holding Trig.


While you are waiting for your response to your polite request can you explain the substantive difference between showing a child off at a campaign event vs. at a book signing other than "politicians are expected to show off their families" (paraphrase). Or was that the extent of your reason for criticizing Palin but not the Obamas?

514 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:26:07pm

Note this point about the UK lawsuit trying to force schools not to show Gore's film:

The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Our experience is that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.

This is very important for people to realize. Many of the most public anti-AGW figures are being funded specifically to hoodwink the public and spread confusion about this issue for one simple reason -- to protect the short term profits of the energy industries.

515 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:26:11pm

re: #498 Summer

I didn't make any assertions, I simply pointed to the facts. We are pumping out billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere on a phenomenal rate, and we know how carbon interacts on a basic level with oxygen. This isn't in dispute.

But it doesn't inevitibly follow that that interaction is the cause of climate change.

516 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:26:24pm

re: #510 Gordon Marock

Dude, why are you spamming the blog that you think agrees with the climate 'skeptics', but doesn't?

517 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:26:35pm

Nowegian Paulians and Pelestinians join forces to protest Obama's peace prize...
Nobel Peace Prize to Obama

Youtube Video
518 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:26:44pm

re: #510 Gordon Marock

Stop spamming this thread with that link or I'll block your account. Four times is more than enough.

519 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:26:52pm

re: #502 Obdicut

Reading quite a bit into that, aren't you?

Are there reasons to disagree with the science of AGW other than what he wrote?

He never gave any reasons for disagreeing with it. He simply dismissed any and all criticism of it as something only a troglodyte would engage in.

Which runs counter to how science is conducted.

Please don't waste my time arguing that those on the opposite side are unscientific. That's not the topic I'm discussing, which is Ludwig's hypocrisy and irrationality.

The kitten awaits. Later.

520 subsailor68  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:27:03pm

re: #506 Locker

Well I think we have a corn surplus and we always have had one. On the other hand I, the things I've seen about corn ethanol seem to indicate it's not a good choice. The break even points on the energy it produces vs the energy required to make it seem to be very close together. It also requires a LOT of water and energy to grow.

Hi Locker! And, IIRC, it's not easily transportable. I seem to remember reading that it breaks down in the pipeline, and needs to be transported by truck (or rail) - in which case, it seems to me, we either use fossil fuels or burn part of the ethanol product itself to get it to market. (Smarter folks than I can probably explain it better.)

521 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:27:12pm

re: #509 Slap

Despite being guilty of using it, I have to agree. My mom grew up in a family whose economic circumstances, even in darkest smelliest Florida, were regularly described with that epithet. She never said much about it, but it was clear it was as hurtful to her as the N-epithet would be to a black person.

That said, I do recall when Willie Nelson hosted SNL a number of years ago, they did a series of "Great Moments in White Trash History" skits that were pretty funny. They each described a set of circumstances (8 marriages, etc.) that were pretty awful, and finished with the line, "But, they was good people."

There was a period in the 90s when being 'white trash' was briefly rallied as a cultural/victimization option for college girls. Annoying as hell.

522 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:27:14pm

re: #494 RogueOne

As soon as humans learned how to write, it was all downhill from there.


It plateaued at television then rocketed downward when the internet became commercially viable.

523 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:27:28pm

re: #495 LudwigVanQuixote

I honestly do not know what the public perception of the shape of the Earth was in general in medieval Europe

Didn't stop you from making a point about it though, did it?
{sigh}

524 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:27:46pm

re: #512 Locker

You are correct, science doesn't put up with blind skepticism, non-scientific unorthodoxy or faith based questions. If you want to question science, the use the scientific method to produce some data and I'm quite sure you'll get a debate.

Pity that Ludwig can't see things that way.

525 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:27:52pm

re: #518 Charles

Stop spamming this thread with that link or I'll block your account. Four times is more than enough.

OK, OK! I'll stop, sorry!

526 Diamond Bullet  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:01pm

Whenever I think of Gore (and I actually voted for him), I think of the Al Gore Simpsons parody where Lisa buys some of his books at the discount store and, through a vast government tracking network, an aide runs into Gore's VP office and tells him "Someone finally bought a copy of your book, sir." Then Gore with a straight face puts on the "Celebration" music, and answers the lyrics by saying in a monotone that he would indeed celebrate good times.

Needless to say, a debate straightlaced Gore and the lipstick pigged hockey barracuda mom would indeed be hilarious. Better still would be the point where Palin's wackiness got Gore so hot and bothered that they finally just end up making out on national television.

527 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:10pm

re: #509 Slap


That said, I do recall when Willie Nelson hosted SNL a number of years ago, they did a series of "Great Moments in White Trash History" skits that were pretty funny. They each described a set of circumstances (8 marriages, etc.) that were pretty awful, and finished with the line, "But, they was good people."

My grandfather married five times, but that was mostly because his wives ept getting fed up and leaving.

528 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:30pm

re: #471 Cineaste

As I noted above, you can roughly compare France to California in terms of relative size and population, but national comparisons are also useful.

France power statistics are here. France has 59 reactors. The entire US has 109.

If the US were to provide nuclear power on a per capital basis equal to France, we should have roughly 350 nuclear power plants (1 plant per million people, which is close to the 59 plants for 61 million people).

If we were to achieve that level of usage, US emissions would drop precipitously, and would enable the most polluting coal power stations to be decommissioned, would allow for electrification of rail, and provide a power base for electric cars - all on a smaller power generating footprint and one that is eco-friendly.

529 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:44pm

re: #519 SixDegrees

There isn't any good scientific criticism of AGW, though, so I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with him.

And he gave 'ignorance' as one of the main reasons why people criticize AGW-- and it's true. A lot of that ignorance is caused by disinformation spread by the anti-AGW groups, but it still leaves a lot of people in a state of ignorance.

530 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:51pm

re: #496 Cineaste

That is a damnable shame.

531 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:54pm

re: #440 Aceofwhat?

Oops, my bad. (Marjorie - at least i was defending your honor)

I think advocating all of the above is intellectually honest. I just think that we ought to place them in order of their short-term applicability, which would put NP at the top of the list.

But we have to keep working on the others in the meantime. NP isn't eternally renewable...unless we can get fusion to work someday. Different subject entirely.

I updinged you for defending my honor :p

532 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:28:55pm

re: #511 drcordell

I'm reading through press accounts and photos right now... haven't seen a single one yet that doesn't mention/show that she walked off the bus holding Trig. If you're so goddamn certain that I'm a liar, the proof should be quite easy to find, shouldn't it?

OK. If I find One will you shut up?

533 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:29:10pm

re: #516 Obdicut

Dude, why are you spamming the blog that you think agrees with the climate 'skeptics', but doesn't?

Because I think it sums up my position about the topic.

534 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:29:21pm

re: #476 Obdicut

Dude, I'm well-versed in the history of the internet. Which is why I think it's important to give Gore his due for what he did do at funding, popularizing, and mainstreaming the internet. I posted a quote from the man most heavily identified as 'the' inventor of the internet who gives Gore heaps of credit as well.

Glad you are well-versed on it. I worked on it in the mid 60s. I never heard of Al Gore till well over a decade or more later. Granted all my stuff was military and classified. Give him all the credit there is for shifting from military to civilian use.
We were sending data packets back and forth half way round the world via computer routinely in the mid 60s.

535 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:29:43pm

re: #515 Ferris

But it doesn't inevitibly follow that that interaction is the cause of climate change.

Yes, it does.

536 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:29:46pm

re: #520 subsailor68

Hi Locker! And, IIRC, it's not easily transportable. I seem to remember reading that it breaks down in the pipeline, and needs to be transported by truck (or rail) - in which case, it seems to me, we either use fossil fuels or burn part of the ethanol product itself to get it to market. (Smarter folks than I can probably explain it better.)

Hey man if your nick is accurate thank you for serving and props for being able to handle that Navy nuclear program. They recruited me heavy out of high school but I just couldn't get my head around being 300 feet under water in a nuclear powered tuna can. Scary!

537 tradewind  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:30:07pm

re: #488 WindUpBird
I'm sorry you're having a bad day... please don't kick any dogs on your way home.///

538 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:30:08pm

re: #526 Diamond Bullet

Whenever I think of Gore (and I actually voted for him), I think of the Al Gore Simpsons parody where Lisa buys some of his books at the discount store and, through a vast government tracking network, an aide runs into Gore's VP office and tells him "Someone finally bought a copy of your book, sir." Then Gore with a straight face puts on the "Celebration" music, and answers the lyrics by saying in a monotone that he would indeed celebrate good times.
Needless to say, a debate straightlaced Gore and the lipstick pigged hockey barracuda mom would indeed be hilarious. Better still would be the point where Palin's wackiness got Gore so hot and bothered that they finally just end up making out on national television.

I think Tipper would react badly.

539 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:30:18pm

re: #526 Diamond Bullet

Needless to say, a debate straightlaced Gore and the lipstick pigged hockey barracuda mom would indeed be hilarious. Better still would be the point where Palin's wackiness got Gore so hot and bothered that they finally just end up making out on national television.

We could call it the THRILLA' IN WASILLA!

540 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:30:34pm

re: #519 SixDegrees

He never gave any reasons for disagreeing with it. He simply dismissed any and all criticism of it as something only a troglodyte would engage in.

Which runs counter to how science is conducted.

Please don't waste my time arguing that those on the opposite side are unscientific. That's not the topic I'm discussing, which is Ludwig's hypocrisy and irrationality.

The kitten awaits. Later.

Debate technique
If you don't agree with me, i'll call you names. Then later in the thread i'll admit something you said was right, and I was wrong, but I'll still call you names !

541 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:31:09pm

re: #478 LudwigVanQuixote

ummm what did he get so wrong about AGW seriously? Really what?

His biggest error was in creating confusion between carbon rises in past epochs. Some times it was not the primary driver, other times it was. It is certainly the primary driver right now.

So other than that, what did he get wrong?

Ludwig, maybe you can clear this up for me. On this morning's thread someone linked to a 2006 US government report which had a graph that showed that human activity accounted for approx. 3% of GW. When scientists then identify human activity as the "primary driver" isn't that a bit misleading? I thought it would have been more accurate for them to state the percentage (or range of percentages) or at least to call it something akin to "the straw that broke the camel's back".
Would you not agree that characterizing a "straw" as the "primary driver" is not very scientific and is in fact dishonest?

542 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:31:21pm

re: #537 tradewind

I'm sorry you're having a bad day... please don't kick any dogs on your way home.///

Why do you hate gays? /

543 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:31:42pm

re: #513 DaddyG

While you are waiting for your response to your polite request can you explain the substantive difference between showing a child off at a campaign event vs. at a book signing other than "politicians are expected to show off their families" (paraphrase). Or was that the extent of your reason for criticizing Palin but not the Obamas?

Obama had his family make limited campaign appearances. As any Presidential candidate must. Not showing up with your family to some campaign stops would be a media shitstorm.

Palin is not campaigning for anything. She is on a for-profit book tour. And at every stop she has brought Trig along. Which is great, good for her. She can afford to bring him along, why not. But at every stop she has walked off the bus for her initial photo op carrying him like a prop. She then poses for pictures with him, and then hands him off to an aide who then whisks him back onto the bus or wherever they put him. What purpose does this serve?

544 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:32:32pm

re: #532 Racer X

OK. If I find One will you shut up?

Gladly, because I would be wrong. But let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

545 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:32:32pm

re: #529 Obdicut

While calling someone ignorant might be accurate, in the corse of a debate like this, it is rarely successful in bring people about to accepting the truth. It offends people, and usually causes them to dig in their heels. This makes it even harder to get through to them. Belittling people isn't the best way to sway them to your line of thinking.

546 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:32:34pm

re: #534 Bobibutu

That's fine. I'm just pointing out the internet is an area that Gore deserves congratulations, but it was turned into something to attack him for, and that's phony and dumb. He did do good work in helping the growth of the internet.

547 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:32:49pm

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

548 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:32:50pm

re: #532 Racer X

OK. If I find One will you shut up?

Only as long as it takes to move the goalposts. /

549 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:33:01pm

re: #543 drcordell

She does it to piss you off.

550 subsailor68  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:33:27pm

re: #536 Locker

Hey man if your nick is accurate thank you for serving and props for being able to handle that Navy nuclear program. They recruited me heavy out of high school but I just couldn't get my head around being 300 feet under water in a nuclear powered tuna can. Scary!

Thanks! (But to be honest, it really was a lot of fun - at least when you're twenty.) And 300 feet or more down was much more comfortable than bouncing around on the surface!

It's one of the reasons I kind of favor the nuclear power option in the mid term. I lived, slept, and ate within a few feet of a reactor for years, and I still don't glow in the dark!

;-)

551 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:33:55pm

re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

Independent, critical thought is teh hard.

552 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:34:28pm

re: #549 cliffster

She does it to piss you off.

Personally I don't care what she does with her son for profit. It's just another reflection of how absolutely shameless she is. Anything she can do to make a quick buck she will do. Exploit her family, lie, whatever it takes.

553 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:34:28pm

re: #490 SixDegrees

Oh, wait. That's not exactly a scientific attitude, is it?

In fact, that's the attitude of an asshole.

Wow, and somehow I am the one accused of losing it all the time and calling names. For the record, I give as good as I get, but it usually takes me a while to start properly swinging, so..

The inability to process accepted facts of science is called stupid and delusional. It is willfully blind. You are not some brave soldier for the truth reasonably disagreeing or being all maveriky and unorthodox. You are a simply spouting denier language in a foolish attempt to present yourself as something more noble and intellectually honest than you are.

We know what we know. Some things are no longer open for debate.

Let me give you a short list:

1. CO2 is a GHG. That means if you hit it with IR, it must cause warming because it must trap and release IR. The first measurements of this were in 1896. The full explanation of why CO2 must do this came with quantum theory in the 20's. This has not been contradicted once by any observation. However millions of observations since have confirmed both the absorption spectra of CO2 and QM.

2. We have dumped gigatons of it into the atmosphere. As a result there must be warming. This is an unavoidable consequence of point 1.

3. The less ice you have the less light gets reflected back into space. Since energy is conserved, that light gets absorbed and warms things up. If you deny that sunlight can warm things, sit in the sun. This creates a feedback. Less ice means gets warmer means less ice. This too is inescapable.

4. Less ice also means more methane release from bogs in Canada and Siberia. Methane is an even worse GHG and it will create an even more drastic warming feedback that will repeat steps one two and three with another gas. If you doubt this, look at any of the videos on you-tube that have gouts of flame coming up from holes dug in the ice by Russian scientists.

So no, you are not just disagreeing. You are not some righteous educated fellow who has some point to be made that got shouted down my the mean scientist. So don't hand me that shit.

554 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:34:47pm

re: #451 Aceofwhat?

Ok. (the 'dear' was nice - thx!) We agree on the long-term solutions 100%. I fault Gore for not aggressively seizing on a better short-term solution, one that has been proven effective in other countries.

The question of what we do while working on our long-term objectives shouldn't be ignored, especially by AGW evangelists.

"Dear" was meant affectionately, not condescending, just so you know.

Why chose France as an example? (I have nothing against France!) Why not chose Sweden as a model? They are so very green in Sweden! They also pay a lot of tax, but the are totally clean and green.

[Link: www.sweden.gov.se...]

Check it out dude. This will start you off:

Electricity production in Sweden is basically fossil-free. Approximately half of the electricity production comes from hydropower and the remainder is provided by nuclear power.

Despite rising industrial output, the use of oil has fallen from more than 70 % of the total energy supply in 1970 to around 30 % today. This is mainly due to diversification of fuels and more efficient use of energy.

The share of renewable energy sources in the Swedish energy system has increased rapidly during the past decade, from 22 % of the total energy supply in 1994 to 28 % today. Biomass accounts for the greater part of the increase. Wind energy has increased from negligible in 1994 to almost 1 TWh today.

555 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:07pm

re: #548 DaddyG

Only as long as it takes to move the goalposts. /

Har Har Har Har

556 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:07pm

THE THRILLA IN WASILLA

main event

Al "The Bore" Gore vs. Sarah "Caribou Spice" Palin on Global Warming

under card
Christopher "The AnNihilist" Hitchens vs. James "The Family Man" Dobson on Does God Exist

rodeo clown entertainment provided by
Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann

Any other suggestions?

557 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:08pm

re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

Probably the same reason people think Beck is credible on gold. The talking points are delivered by people they trust.

558 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:08pm

re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

The same reason why companies pay over a million dollars for a 30 second commercial during the Superbowl.

559 rich7041  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:24pm

Starting to sound like HuffPo. This has devolved into what Charles claims to hate: just bashing from one side or the other. Anyone could debate & defeat Palin. But why won't Gore debate someone who has legitimate concerns? The jury is still out, like it or not.

560 [deleted]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:51pm
561 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:35:55pm

re: #551 Sharmuta

Independent, critical thought is teh hard.

It's also embarrassing to admit you were fooled. It takes time, literally, to change your mind, for a lot of people. It rarely happens overnight.

562 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:00pm

re: #544 drcordell

Gladly, because I would be wrong. But let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

You can exhale.

First image on google.

563 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:01pm

re: #528 lawhawk

California generates about 14% of its power from nuclear. 45% is from natural gas.

That's with a population of 36 million.

564 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:24pm

re: #514 Charles

Note this point about the UK lawsuit trying to force schools not to show Gore's film:

This is very important for people to realize. Many of the most public anti-AGW figures are being funded specifically to hoodwink the public and spread confusion about this issue for one simple reason -- to protect the short term profits of the energy industries.

Pinocchio Time for Al Gore

Fact-Checker responded:

[Link: blog.washingtonpost.com...]

The Facts

Earlier this month, on the day former Vice President Gore won the Nobel peace prize, we ran an item reporting that a British judge had found various "errors" in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. We invited readers to debate the question whether Gore may have exaggerated some points in the movie to draw attention to global warming. Readers responded with more than 700 comments, many of them vituperative. The Fact Checker was accused of everything from "Nobel Prize envy" to being part of a right-wing "propaganda machine" worthy of Joseph Goebbels.

At the time, I (it's probably time to abandon the royal "we") did not take a position on the accuracy or inaccuracy of either the Gore movie or the judge's critique. Now that the smoke has cleared away a bit, I feel more confident about reaching some conclusions. I do so with no pretense of scientific expertise, merely as a detached and hopefully fair-minded non-expert who has listened to both sides make their case.

The first point to make is that I am unimpressed by ad hominem attacks of the kind that Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider engaged in above. So what if the plaintiff in the British case was "funded by...fossil fuel interests" or Gore has "ties" to the environmental lobby? What has that got to do with a factual debate about the accuracy of specific statements in a movie? In this case, it is doubly irrelevant--unless you believe that the judge is also the tool of "fossil fuel interests."

Our mission statement (the plural is appropriate here because it was endorsed by Washington Post muckety-mucks) included the following promise to readers: "We will stick to the facts of the issue under examination and pay no attention to ad hominem attacks. The identity or political ties of the person or organization making a charge is irrelevant: all that matters is whether their facts are accurate or inaccurate." If I ever break that vow, I hope that readers will call me on it.

Onto the matter at hand. Contrary to Kreider's assertion, the judge did talk about "errors" in the Gore movie, and did not always put quotation marks around the word error, as some readers maintained. See points 18 and 19 in his judgment available in full here. In deciding that the movie could be shown in British schools, he agreed that Gore's presentation was "broadly accurate." At the same time, he insisted on new teacher guidance, including the following points:

565 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:28pm

re: #514 Charles

Note this point about the UK lawsuit trying to force schools not to show Gore's film:

This is very important for people to realize. Many of the most public anti-AGW figures are being funded specifically to hoodwink the public and spread confusion about this issue for one simple reason -- to protect the short term profits of the energy industries.

That is the righteous truth. The irony of it is, they claim a vast left wing conspiracy while the reality is a small, well funded and vocal rightwing conspiracy of certain moneyed parties and their political cronies.

566 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:32pm

re: #562 Racer X

You can exhale.

First image on google.

Zip it, Cordell..

567 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:39pm

re: #559 rich7041

Starting to sound like HuffPo. This has devolved into what Charles claims to hate: just bashing from one side or the other. Anyone could debate & defeat Palin. But why won't Gore debate someone who has legitimate concerns? The jury is still out, like it or not.

So you say that Palin's points are illegitimate? She is just echoing the standard line for AGW skeptics/deniers.

568 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:43pm

re: #556 Cineaste

THE THRILLA IN WASILLA

main event

Al "The Bore" Gore vs. Sarah "Caribou Spice" Palin on Global Warming

under card
Christopher "The AnNihilist" Hitchens vs. James "The Family Man" Dobson on Does God Exist

rodeo clown entertainment provided by
Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann

Any other suggestions?

Oh man, can we have it hosted in a metal caged octagon?

569 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:46pm

I'm turning off the contact form now, because there's a hate-filled obsessed freak using it to send one angry message after another -- about creationism and global warming.

570 Slap  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:49pm

re: #527 SanFranciscoZionist

Stephen Fry recently said he wanted to add another internet abbrev:

ROTFLYWST.

YWST: Yet While Still Typing.

A psychic upding to ya.

571 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:36:56pm

re: #532 Racer X

re: #548 DaddyG

re: #549 cliffster

I'd like an answer from the good DR re: my 493

572 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:37:21pm

re: #564 Ben Hur

Oh yeah, that's a good defense: "So what?"

573 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:37:54pm

re: #568 drcordell

Oh man, can we have it hosted in a metal caged octagon?

Fair enough - but the padding will be with angel's wings...

///

574 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:38:18pm

re: #572 Charles

Oh yeah, that's a good defense: "So what?"

That's the same excuse the Discovery Institute used to defend themselves after The Wedge was leaked.

575 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:38:18pm

re: #562 Racer X

You can exhale.

First image on google.

Fair is fair he said with the bus... Sarah and bus no trig

576 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:38:19pm

re: #562 Racer X

You can exhale.

First image on google.

Maybe you need to go back and read what I said. The entire reason it's explicitly clear she is using him as a prop is because she holds him only when she is stepping off of her tour bus. She holds him while stepping off the bus, has all of the photos snapped, and then immediately hands him off to an aide.

That is why it's clear she is simply exploiting him for PR. Because she isn't "parenting him 24/7" as some have previously suggested. If that were the case he would be in a baby buggy behind the table where she is signing books.

577 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:38:34pm

re: #510 Gordon Marock

LOL you mean the lies of the web posted by kooks hunh?re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

Because they like these special interest groups. You would get more traction with the wingnuts if ACORN hated AGW :)

578 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:38:58pm

re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

Because that goes both ways on almost every issue.

There are environmental lobbies just like energy lobbies.

There's a lot of grant money, etc at stake for people involved in global warming studies, credits, taxes, (Gore has made a motherload of it), just like there is a lot of money at stake for the energy co's.

Each side uses that argument against the other with the same frequency.

579 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:39:14pm

re: #566 cliffster

Zip it, Cordell..

Oh yeah ,, bet she has trig under the table, ready to pull him out as soon as she KNOWS the camera is there!!

//dr mode off

580 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:39:52pm

This is nice. Bing.com is celebrating Hannukah. Happy Hannukah to everyone out there who celebrates the holiday!

They seem to go out of their way to find gorgeous photos to put on their entry page.

581 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:39:54pm

re: #576 drcordell

Maybe you need to go back and read what I said. The entire reason it's explicitly clear she is using him as a prop is because she holds him only when she is stepping off of her tour bus. She holds him while stepping off the bus, has all of the photos snapped, and then immediately hands him off to an aide.

That is why it's clear she is simply exploiting him for PR. Because she isn't "parenting him 24/7" as some have previously suggested. If that were the case he would be in a baby buggy behind the table where she is signing books.

Trig should meet Blanket.

582 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:40:23pm

re: #539 Cineaste

We could call it the THRILLA' IN WASILLA!

I'm trying, but I just can't make 'rumble' and 'tundra' rhyme.

583 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:40:48pm

It's getting too hot in here for me. I will always fall back on my willingness to accept the fact that I may be, and often am, wrong about things, and I adjust accordingly. By the way, did anyone read that article I linked? Happy Hanukkah.

584 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:40:48pm

re: #572 Charles

Oh yeah, that's a good defense: "So what?"

It's not my defense.

Was just making sure that everyone got the whole picture and that there was a response to Gore's response.

585 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:04pm

re: #580 lawhawk

This is nice. Bing.com is celebrating Hannukah. Happy Hannukah to everyone out there who celebrates the holiday!

They seem to go out of their way to find gorgeous photos to put on their entry page.

We're lighting our candles in 45 minutes! (they should have had a pic with jut 1 candle lit). I bet tomorrow will be a google menorah...

586 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:12pm

re: #493 sattv4u2

ummm,,, what should she be doing with HER child, storing him in the luggage racks?

If she's bringing him along because she's actively parenting him the whole, then carry him along wherever she goes.

If she's just bringing him along because she wants to be around him when she isn't making public appearances, leave him on the bus.

If she's bringing him along to actively exploit his disability for her monetary and political gain, she'll carry him off the bus, pose for pictures, and then hand him off immediately once the flashbulbs stop popping.

Guess which scenario actually happens?

587 Bob Dillon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:13pm

re: #546 Obdicut

That's fine. I'm just pointing out the internet is an area that Gore deserves congratulations, but it was turned into something to attack him for, and that's phony and dumb. He did do good work in helping the growth of the internet.

Agreed - lots of congratulations for his good work in it's growth and expansion into education and finally to it's use by the general public. Not it's creation.

588 Racer X  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:20pm

re: #579 sattv4u2

Oh yeah ,, bet she has trig under the table, ready to pull him out as soon as she KNOWS the camera is there!!

//dr mode off

Dude. He was there. Every time she stepped off the bus. She's evil.

589 rich7041  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:22pm

re: #567 Cineaste

I'm not saying Palin (or Gore for that matter) doesn't have a legitimate point. I'm just saying that Palin is not a good debater (and neither is Gore.) But he has been ducking debates for years, so why would he agree to debate Palin other than that he thinks he would win.

590 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:38pm

re: #577 LudwigVanQuixote

LOL you mean the lies of the web posted by kooks hunh?re: #547 Charles


Because they like these special interest groups. You would get more traction with the wingnuts if ACORN hated AGW :)

wait, does that mean ACORN is or is not a special interest group?

591 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:51pm

re: #576 drcordell

What would you have her do with Trig, her son, as she, his mother, is stepping off a bus?

Leave him in the LUGGAGE RACK? Lock him in the bathroom?

592 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:41:56pm

re: #553 LudwigVanQuixote

Thanks for your input last month when I thought that the destruction of rain forests contributed to AGW...I've read some articles recently that pointed out that the environment destruction of rain forests has caused a rise in CO2 globally.
Hope today finds you well

593 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:42:10pm

re: #589 rich7041

I'm not saying Palin (or Gore for that matter) doesn't have a legitimate point. I'm just saying that Palin is not a good debater (and neither is Gore.) But he has been ducking debates for years, so why would he agree to debate Palin other than that he thinks he would win.

Just out of curiosity, which debates has he dodged? I genuinely wasn't aware.

594 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:42:13pm

re: #578 Ben Hur

Because that goes both ways on almost every issue.

There are environmental lobbies just like energy lobbies.

There's a lot of grant money, etc at stake for people involved in global warming studies, credits, taxes, (Gore has made a motherload of it), just like there is a lot of money at stake for the energy co's.

Each side uses that argument against the other with the same frequency.

No, it's not the same. One side has an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. The other side has an overwhelming amount of money from special interest groups, and an overwhelming amount of bullshit.

This isn't a legitimate "debate." It's a deliberate campaign of disinformation. The groups who are doing it have been at it for a long time, and many of them got their start doing the same thing for the tobacco industry -- tricking the public into disbelieving the evidence that tobacco smoking causes cancer LONG after the scientific evidence was clear.

595 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:42:39pm

re: #582 SanFranciscoZionist

Rumble in Bell Buckle
Shootout in Shelbyville

596 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:42:42pm

re: #559 rich7041

Starting to sound like HuffPo. This has devolved into what Charles claims to hate: just bashing from one side or the other. Anyone could debate & defeat Palin. But why won't Gore debate someone who has legitimate concerns? The jury is still out, like it or not.

Ah, for the good old days.

1 Rich704110/14/2007 1:38:59 pm PDT
Charles - I appreciate the way you run this blog. You're right about these nuts.
597 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:42:42pm

re: #591 sattv4u2

What would you have her do with Trig, her son, as she, his mother, is stepping off a bus?

Leave him in the LUGGAGE RACK? Lock him in the bathroom?

See #586 genius. Why does she carry him off the bus, have her picture taken and then immediately hand him to someone who puts him back on the bus?

598 Diamond Bullet  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:42:54pm

re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

The problem is that the same could be said of Al Gore and what the NY Times charitably describes as his "dual role" as both advocate of green technology and investor in green technology.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

It's the whole "green billionaire" thing. This was what I found most troubling about the East Anglia emails -- the sausage making nature of the whole affair. There are clearly self-interested advocates on both sides, and finding the disinterested middle ground is not easy or obvious.

599 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:43:03pm

re: #556 Cineaste

THE THRILLA IN WASILLA

main event

Al "The Bore" Gore vs. Sarah "Caribou Spice" Palin on Global Warming

under card
Christopher "The AnNihilist" Hitchens vs. James "The Family Man" Dobson on Does God Exist

rodeo clown entertainment provided by
Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann

Any other suggestions?

Tipper and Michelle Bachman as ring girls in bathing suits.

600 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:43:24pm

re: #576 drcordell

re: #575 DaddyG

Zip it!

601 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:43:49pm

re: #594 Charles

Precisely correct. The anti-AGW side has never offered factual evidence or study that contradicts the factual record.

602 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:43:50pm

re: #420 SixDegrees

Not really. Nuclear power has the tremendous advantage of being extremely well understood, and being capable of producing prodigious amounts of electricity right now, off the shelf. The same cannot be said for either solar or wind power. While attractive in many ways, they simply aren't capable of producing the amounts of energy that will be demanded in the future without extensive development, and the way forward toward overcoming many of these shortcomings is along an unknown path.

China is aggressively pursuing nuclear power development. So are many other countries. It's an easy step to take that produces large results quickly, without reliance on unpredictable breakthroughs that other alternatives require.

I'm not a fan of monolithic solutions to this problem, and certainly welcome investment in a number of alternative energy sources going forward. In fact, I'd prefer to see a diversified energy solution, rather than relying on a sole source. But nuclear is an enormously viable option, and dismissing it is unrealistic.

The one thing I didn't understand Gore was when he talked about nuclear arms and nuclear energy. In my little layman's head, I thought it was a big deal to convert a nuclear energy plant into a nuclear arms plant. You have to reprocess the uranium or the uranium into plutonium? Something like that. Anyway, it's not easy and takes years and lots of material.

Personally, I think a bridge from nuclear to solar/wind would be ok, unless we (as American are prone to do) would fall back on our laurels and say, "Gee this nuclear ain't so bad, so let's just stop here." And yea, the waste is an enormous concern. The waste for me is the biggest concern. Clean energy, but not really green energy.

603 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:43:52pm

OT: Watch Beck get all defensive and make it sound like he's not trying to rile people up.

Beck Denies He Has Inspired Any Violence: ‘Where Is The Evidence? … Show It To Me’

604 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:43:57pm

re: #600 cliffster

re: #575 DaddyG

Zip it!

Someone's been watching Austin Powers a bit too frequently...

605 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:44:56pm

re: #601 Cineaste

Precisely correct. The anti-AGW side has never offered factual evidence or study that contradicts the factual record.

Their factual evidence is that the pointy-headed elitist libruls believe it, so they must be wrong. Everything in American politics has basically been distilled down to it's culture war, wedge issue essence by the GOP.

606 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:45:35pm

re: #586 drcordell

If she's bringing him along because she's actively parenting him the whole, then carry him along wherever she goes.

If she's just bringing him along because she wants to be around him when she isn't making public appearances, leave him on the bus.

If she's bringing him along to actively exploit his disability for her monetary and political gain, she'll carry him off the bus, pose for pictures, and then hand him off immediately once the flashbulbs stop popping.

Guess which scenario actually happens?

They should put you on a panel.

Which czar do you want to be?

The I can't do so I lecture to others czar?

The I don't have any, but I'll tell you how to raise yours czar?

The Parents of Down's Syndrome kids should stay at home and not embarrass themselves czar?

Seriously, on what level, theoretically or practically, do you have a right to dictate to anyone anywhere how to raise their children.

Why do you hate women and think that they are only fit to stay home and take care of women?

Why is it that only urban elites are cool for letting foreign workers take care of their kids so they can lunch and go to the Reebok Club and not work?

607 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:45:53pm

re: #597 drcordell

See #586 genius. Why does she carry him off the bus, have her picture taken and then immediately hand him to someone who puts him back on the bus
?

And you know this , how!?!?!


Does he go back into the PROPS bag? Shoves him in the fridge to cool off until the next stop? Do they duct tape his mouth so the people outside the bus don't hear him struggle and complain that he was "handed to someone"?

608 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:45:54pm

re: #559 rich7041

Starting to sound like HuffPo. This has devolved into what Charles claims to hate: just bashing from one side or the other. Anyone could debate & defeat Palin. But why won't Gore debate someone who has legitimate concerns? The jury is still out, like it or not.

1. The jury is not still out.

2. We don't normally debate science issues. When we do, it goes poorly.

3. Gore, as far as I know, has not refused or declined offers of debate from people in a position to discuss the issue. Or from Sarah, for that matter.

609 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:46:39pm

re: #602 marjoriemoon

It's not so much that nuclear power plants can produce nuclear weapons materials, but that the enrichment infrastructure can be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Depending on the reactor style, it can produce plutonium, which could be used for weapons, but it's a difficult separation process.

Currently, many civilian nuclear reactors are being fueled with uranium that was previously enriched to weapons grade but mixed to lower it to civilian levels (far cheaper than trying to enrich from raw form). That's where much of the former weapons grade uranium from decommissioned nuclear warheads has gone.

610 [deleted]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:47:11pm
611 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:47:39pm

re: #605 drcordell

Their factual evidence is that the pointy-headed elitist libruls believe it, so they must be wrong. Everything in American politics has basically been distilled down to it's culture war, wedge issue essence by the GOP.

awww, and I was just starting to listen to you...

612 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:47:39pm

re: #606 Ben Hur

They should put you on a panel.

Which czar do you want to be?

The I can't do so I lecture to others czar?

The I don't have any, but I'll tell you how to raise yours czar?

The Parents of Down's Syndrome kids should stay at home and not embarrass themselves czar?

Seriously, on what level, theoretically or practically, do you have a right to dictate to anyone anywhere how to raise their children.

Why do you hate women and think that they are only fit to stay home and take care of women?

Why is it that only urban elites are cool for letting foreign workers take care of their kids so they can lunch and go to the Reebok Club and not work?

Jesus Christ. Take a breath and go back and read what I read. I'm not telling her how to parent her child. I'm not telling her to stay at home. I'm not telling her to abandon her child.

I'm telling her that she's making it REAL apparent that she's using her disabled child as a fucking PROP.

613 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:49:01pm

re: #547 Charles

It's a bit amazing to me that people just don't seem to want to get the simple point that the majority of public AGW "skeptics" are funded by energy industries.

Speaking for myself, if I find out that someone is promoting a particular agenda in a deceptive way because they're being paid by big multinational corporations, that tends to make me lose all respect for that agenda.

Why are so many people willing to be led by the nose by special interest groups?

Ok this one is gonna get me in trouble but... the right side folks are aligned with business and have a large religious base. It does not seem like Christianity is a model which encourages one to question or think independently. There is one right answer to everything, you don't know it and only the "leadership/priesthood" can decide how the "faithful" are suppose to react.

Once the leadership sets the stake in the ground, the faithful follow, tenaciously and without question.

614 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:49:02pm

re: #586 drcordell

If she's bringing him along because she's actively parenting him the whole, then carry him along wherever she goes.

If she's just bringing him along because she wants to be around him when she isn't making public appearances, leave him on the bus.

If she's bringing him along to actively exploit his disability for her monetary and political gain, she'll carry him off the bus, pose for pictures, and then hand him off immediately once the flashbulbs stop popping.

Guess which scenario actually happens?

Maybe she is proud of him, and she wants everyone to know it. Especially other parents of Down's kids. What you're saying is more ho-hum Palin attacking, and it's actually quite hateful.

Now, when she starts going off on Trig and Death Panels, that's bad stuff. There are times when the Palin attacks are just manufacturing outrage, and times when it's legitimate. I'd suggest practicing objective thinking so you can tell the difference.

615 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:49:22pm

re: #606 Ben Hur


Why is it that only urban elites are cool for letting foreign workers take care of their kids so they can lunch and go to the Reebok Club and not work?

Please don't go there.

616 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:49:30pm

re: #601 Cineaste

Precisely correct. The anti-AGW side has never offered factual evidence or study that contradicts the factual record.

And they never will. They're not interested in doing any actual research -- they're interested in nit-picking tiny details and pulling out of context and smearing.

This is another thing the anti-AGW groups and creationists have in common: neither of them actually do any original research. Instead they parasitically prey on the real research and use any tiny discrepancy they find to attempt to discredit all of the real science.

And they're not subject to any oversight or transparency. Whereas, climate scientists are subject to the (at times) very harsh criticism of their peers. If a scientist makes a mistake in a piece of published research, it's almost certainly going to be discovered, because other scientists will advance their careers by pointing it out. There are consequences in the scientific community for making mistakes or deliberately faking data.

In the anti-AGW community, there are never any consequences. They just move on to the next false claim.

617 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:49:53pm

re: #467 Spare O'Lake

How is relative size relevant?
And "it just makes good sense" really needs some factual support.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost in the posts.

I expounded on Makes Good Sense before and was lazy to repeat it.

1. It's green and clean. Helps the environment/helps us.
2. Creates jobs for generations down the road
3. Curbs out dependence on foreign oil.

I think it would be far easier to build/utilize/maintain nuclear energy for a country that is very small in size, than a country like us, that's the size of a continent. It just means more of everything. More reactors, more waste.

618 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:50:00pm

re: #606 Ben Hur

Why is it that only urban elites are cool for letting foreign workers take care of their kids so they can lunch and go to the Reebok Club and not work?

GAZE...

Those evil "urban elites" with their fancy "edumacashun" and "money". Since when is it "us" and "them"? She uses him as a prop, so what. Every politician does. Why, at the end of every debate, do the families get up on the stage. It's all a photo op. But get off your low-horse with the class warfare bullshit.

619 rich7041  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:50:06pm

re: #608 SanFranciscoZionist

I guess the jury is not still out because you say it's not.

620 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:50:18pm

re: #613 Locker

Ok this one is gonna get me in trouble but... the right side folks are aligned with business and have a large religious base. It does not seem like Christianity is a model which encourages one to question or think independently. There is one right answer to everything, you don't know it and only the "leadership/priesthood" can decide how the "faithful" are suppose to react.

Once the leadership sets the stake in the ground, the faithful follow, tenaciously and without question.

Christianity is a big, biiig tent.

621 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:50:59pm

re: #543 drcordell

Obama had his family make limited campaign appearances. As any Presidential candidate must. Not showing up with your family to some campaign stops would be a media shitstorm.

Palin is not campaigning for anything. She is on a for-profit book tour. And at every stop she has brought Trig along. Which is great, good for her. She can afford to bring him along, why not. But at every stop she has walked off the bus for her initial photo op carrying him like a prop. She then poses for pictures with him, and then hands him off to an aide who then whisks him back onto the bus or wherever they put him. What purpose does this serve?

So your reasons for the selective outrage are threefold...

1. The purpose of the event (political ok, profit making bad)
2. The expectations of others (If people expect it of me as a candidate I can use my kids as props, if I do it for other reasons then its bad)
and 3., you don't know where the child goes when mom is signing the books. (Let's hope they don't leave him in there alone with the keys/)

622 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:01pm

re: #541 Spare O'Lake

Ludwig, maybe you can clear this up for me. On this morning's thread someone linked to a 2006 US government report which had a graph that showed that human activity accounted for approx. 3% of GW. When scientists then identify human activity as the "primary driver" isn't that a bit misleading? I thought it would have been more accurate for them to state the percentage (or range of percentages) or at least to call it something akin to "the straw that broke the camel's back".
Would you not agree that characterizing a "straw" as the "primary driver" is not very scientific and is in fact dishonest?

I have no idea what that 3% is or came from. Such a number sounds either patently absurd or patently taken out of context. It is likely both, unless the original "paper" was some denier site, at which part all bets are off.

I apologize for reposting this science, but since it really is simple to understand, and it is worth looking at again. I will also add some facts.

If you buy these facts, you must buy that AGW is real.

Let me give you a short list:

1. CO2 is a GHG. That means if you hit it with IR, it must cause warming because it must trap and release IR. The first measurements of this were in 1896. The full explanation of why CO2 must do this came with quantum theory in the 20's. This has not been contradicted once by any observation. However millions of observations since have confirmed both the absorption spectra of CO2 and QM.

2. We have dumped gigatons of it into the atmosphere. As a result there must be warming. This is an unavoidable consequence of point 1.

3. The less ice you have the less light gets reflected back into space. Since energy is conserved, that light gets absorbed and warms things up. If you deny that sunlight can warm things, sit in the sun. This creates a feedback. Less ice means gets warmer means less ice. This too is inescapable.

4. Less ice also means more methane release from bogs in Canada and Siberia. Methane is an even worse GHG and it will create an even more drastic warming feedback that will repeat steps one two and three with another gas. If you doubt this, look at any of the videos on you-tube that have gouts of flame coming up from holes dug in the ice by Russian scientists.

5. We have killed off huge amounts of oceanic and terrestrial photsynthesizers through oceanic pollution, deforestation and other human activities. What would scrub the CO2 from the air has been drastically reduced.

6. CO2 stays up there for centuries. Unlike water vapor, it does not condense and rain back to earth after giving off it's heat in the upper atmosphere. As a result, it is always up there trapping and re-radiating IR.
This is one of the reasons it is a primary driver.

7. There is no significant change in solar activity, or orbital variation that has enough energy to account for the observed changes in climate. Again since energy is conserved, this must be ruled out. There is no significant increase in volcanic activity either. However, we have direct spectral measurements of continued increase of CO2. Since we have been burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates for over a century, it is not hard to figure out where all the carbon is coming from. Further, as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling. Yet, we are warming.

8. So called "natural" shifts in temperature take hundreds or even thousands of years to do their thing. We see the significant changes in climate in less than a century.

623 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:07pm

Comments that consist of link dumps to denial sites are going to be deleted.

624 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:08pm

re: #556 Cineaste

THE THRILLA IN WASILLA

main event

Al "The Bore" Gore vs. Sarah "Caribou Spice" Palin on Global Warming

under card
Christopher "The AnNihilist" Hitchens vs. James "The Family Man" Dobson on Does God Exist

rodeo clown entertainment provided by
Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann

Any other suggestions?

Rodeo clown entertainment! Bahaha! Outfuckingstanding!

625 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:15pm

re: #607 sattv4u2

And you know this , how!?!?!

Does he go back into the PROPS bag? Shoves him in the fridge to cool off until the next stop? Do they duct tape his mouth so the people outside the bus don't hear him struggle and complain that he was "handed to someone"?

I know this because there is a video of it HAPPENING

Youtube Video

I don't know that he isn't thrown into a dungeon, but I'm fucking assuming that he ended back up on the massive RV that they arrived on and departed on. Call it a stretch, but I don't know where else he would go.

Now will you STFU? After there is empirical proof she only holds Trig for about 10 seconds after walking off the bus?

626 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:23pm

re: #613 Locker

just ,,, damn!

{sigh}

627 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:23pm

re: #619 rich7041

I guess the jury is not still out because you say it's not.

Sure. I run the world, and I say the jury is not out.

Gosh, you're a dork, arentcha?

628 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:32pm

Is there a nickname for the AGW equivalent of the "Gish Gallop"?

629 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:51:33pm

re: #594 Charles

No, it's not the same. One side has an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. The other side has an overwhelming amount of money from special interest groups, and an overwhelming amount of bullshit.

This isn't a legitimate "debate." It's a deliberate campaign of disinformation. The groups who are doing it have been at it for a long time, and many of them got their start doing the same thing for the tobacco industry -- tricking the public into disbelieving the evidence that tobacco smoking causes cancer LONG after the scientific evidence was clear.

It makes it difficult for a lay person to distinguish between the two sides.

Each has the same answers to the other side.

I here skeptics say that they have the science. It's hard to tell whose using whose rhetoric against them (if you catch my drift).

I have seen "handbooks" online designed to either "help you in a debate against a skeptic" or "help you in a debate against a believer (don't know what the correct term is)."

For every list of climatologists, etc supporting, there is a list not supporting, or those who has become skeptics.

630 rich7041  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:52:21pm

re: #627 SanFranciscoZionist

Quick come-back, Potsie.

631 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:52:57pm

re: #630 rich7041

Quick come-back, Potsie.

Ah, someone's in a mood.

632 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:53:29pm

re: #629 Ben Hur

If you read the scientific sources, you know who is bringing the science to the table and who is bringing lies.

633 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:53:54pm

re: #629 Ben Hur


For every list of climatologists, etc supporting, there is a list not supporting, or those who has become skeptics.

This is not true. Or rather, the list supporting is miles long, the list against, a moth-eaten scrap of paper with a waitress' phone number scribbled on it. And it's a fake number.

634 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:54:13pm

re: #621 DaddyG

So your reasons for the selective outrage are threefold...

1. The purpose of the event (political ok, profit making bad)
2. The expectations of others (If people expect it of me as a candidate I can use my kids as props, if I do it for other reasons then its bad)
and 3., you don't know where the child goes when mom is signing the books. (Let's hope they don't leave him in there alone with the keys/)

The outrage is because he is blatantly used for a photo op, and then disappears completely once that photo op is done.

Watch the video again...

Youtube Video

Palin walks off the bus, poses for pictures with Trig, hands him off to an aide less than 10 seconds after walking off the bus. Why wake him up and bring him off the bus if she's just going to hand him to some dude?

635 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:54:39pm

re: #612 drcordell

Jesus Christ. Take a breath and go back and read what I read. I'm not telling her how to parent her child. I'm not telling her to stay at home. I'm not telling her to abandon her child.

I'm telling her that she's making it REAL apparent that she's using her disabled child as a fucking PROP.

I understand exactly what you are saying. And it's been well established that EVERYONE does it.

You have a problem either because she's a non-liberal woman, and Trig is disabled.

My post stands.

636 rich7041  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:54:41pm

re: #631 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry. If it was just sarcastic, I missed it. Hard to catch inflection in the printed word. But you started the name-calling.

637 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:54:46pm

re: #629 Ben Hur

It makes it difficult for a lay person to distinguish between the two sides.

Each has the same answers to the other side.

I here skeptics say that they have the science. It's hard to tell whose using whose rhetoric against them (if you catch my drift).

I have seen "handbooks" online designed to either "help you in a debate against a skeptic" or "help you in a debate against a believer (don't know what the correct term is)."

For every list of climatologists, etc supporting, there is a list not supporting, or those who has become skeptics.

It always comes down to hearts & minds.

638 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:54:57pm

re: #625 drcordell

Now will you STFU?

No,, I won't. I want to see EVERY time she got off a bus she had Trig in her arms, as you stated

You showed me ONE
I'll wait!

639 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:55:26pm

re: #616 Charles

There are consequences in the scientific community for making mistakes or deliberately faking data.

I am having trouble reconciling this comment with the meme that anti-AWG scientists are funded by energy concerns and therefore automatically tainted. Regardless of where one gets funding, if one publishes in a credible peer reviewed journal the research should stand on its own merits.

640 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:55:28pm

re: #592 HoosierHoops

Thanks for your input last month when I thought that the destruction of rain forests contributed to AGW...I've read some articles recently that pointed out that the environment destruction of rain forests has caused a rise in CO2 globally.
Hope today finds you well

Always happy to see you Hoosier. The destruction of rain forests is a big deal, However, the biggest problem is in killing off of ocean algae. Most of the photosynthesis on the Earth actually occurs in the sea.

Another feedback of AGW is ocean anoxia. As the COS rises and gets absorbed into the oceans, it changes ph and kills algae. This so far is less of an issue than the fact that we are so good at killing the oceans with pollution of other kinds, however, it will eventually become a dominant effect if things do not change.

641 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:55:56pm

re: #629 Ben Hur

For every list of climatologists, etc supporting, there is a list not supporting, or those who has become skeptics.

bullshit

Let's just call that statement what it is. Bullshit. There is no list of scientists that is within several orders of magnitude the size of the number of scientists who support the data and theories behind AGW.

Ignorance may be bliss, but don't bring a rubber band to a gun fight Ben.

642 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:56:01pm

re: #613 Locker

Ok this one is gonna get me in trouble but... the right side folks are aligned with business and have a large religious base. It does not seem like Christianity is a model which encourages one to question or think independently. There is one right answer to everything, you don't know it and only the "leadership/priesthood" can decide how the "faithful" are suppose to react.

Once the leadership sets the stake in the ground, the faithful follow, tenaciously and without question.

That's is, barf it all up.

643 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:56:33pm

re: #603 JasonA

OT: Watch Beck get all defensive and make it sound like he's not trying to rile people up.

Beck Denies He Has Inspired Any Violence: ‘Where Is The Evidence? … Show It To Me’

...and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far. I will be very surprised if we make it through 8 years of Obama without domestic terrorism from these folks. They are whipped up into such a frenzy. They are scared out of their minds. It's not going to end well.

644 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:56:41pm

re: #636 rich7041

Sorry. If it was just sarcastic, I missed it. Hard to catch inflection in the printed word. But you started the name-calling.

True. You, however, suggested that I was in charge of the jury on global warming, and the power just went to my head.

Why do you feel the jury is out, and who gets to be the jury?

645 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:57:05pm

re: #576 drcordell

If that were the case he would be in a baby buggy behind the table where she is signing books.

Weren't you just saying she shouldn't have him in front of shouting crowds? Besides he's not an infant like he was during the campaign, he is now a toddler. Having him in a bus with a nanny is going to be a heck of a lot more fun for him while mom is signing books than being stuck in a stroller.

You hit it on the head of the nail when you admitted your lack of experience with parenting. I can only hope you are blessed with the same generous amount of insightful advice you offer now when you do become one.

646 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:57:07pm

re: #590 brookly red

wait, does that mean ACORN is or is not a special interest group?

No I mean that if ACORN though AGW was evil and lies and so did the ACLU or any of the normal groups that the right loves to hate, the right would be all for questioning the agenda to discredit the science. However, the oil lobby is beloved by the right.

647 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:57:10pm

re: #499 lawhawk

That's all quite true, but I'd have to listen to Gore again on the subject. It doesn't make sense to me that he would seek to strangle the economy just to go green. He's been doing this for 30 years, environmental issues. So something seems to be missing here somewhere.

648 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:57:12pm

re: #224 Aceofwhat?

This again?

I told Cato above, and i'll say it again - criticizing someone's use of their kid and hypothesizing crudely about how they might use their kid (even if the hypothesis is based on past evidence) are two different things.

We're better humans for treading lightly here.

I have no wish to be better than you.

649 [deleted]  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:57:46pm
650 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:57:49pm

re: #633 Obdicut

This is not true. Or rather, the list supporting is miles long, the list against, a moth-eaten scrap of paper with a waitress' phone number scribbled on it. And it's a fake number.

Right, and the answer to that would be, because they know what side their toast is buttered on.

Who's going to get the funding?:

I am a biologist studying bullfrogs.

I am an environment biologist studying the effects of global warming on bullfrogs.

It's absolutely an industry.

I probably come down somewhere in the middle.

I believe in conservation and giving my money to the LED light bulb company rather than Oil rich Arabs.

I can almost argue both sides equally.

I know it's frustrating.

651 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:02pm

re: #634 drcordell

The outrage is because he is blatantly used for a photo op, and then disappears completely once that photo op is done.

What was that part about you not having children? So I guess that would mean that you can't speak intelligently on the impact that little photo-op has on parents of children with Down's. Yes?

652 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:32pm

Ben-

Two good scientific sites to learn more about AGW

[Link: climate.nasa.gov...]

[Link: www.aip.org...]

If you read these sites, even a little, it becomes clear who is being honest with the science and who is not.

653 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:34pm

re: #609 lawhawk

It's not so much that nuclear power plants can produce nuclear weapons materials, but that the enrichment infrastructure can be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Depending on the reactor style, it can produce plutonium, which could be used for weapons, but it's a difficult separation process.

Currently, many civilian nuclear reactors are being fueled with uranium that was previously enriched to weapons grade but mixed to lower it to civilian levels (far cheaper than trying to enrich from raw form). That's where much of the former weapons grade uranium from decommissioned nuclear warheads has gone.

Ok. Interesting. Gore mentioned it also as a concern, but I'm not sure I agree with him there. Or maybe I didn't understand what he was saying (which is probably more like it).

654 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:46pm

re: #514 Charles

Note this point about the UK lawsuit trying to force schools not to show Gore's film:

This is very important for people to realize. Many of the most public anti-AGW figures are being funded specifically to hoodwink the public and spread confusion about this issue for one simple reason -- to protect the short term profits of the energy industries.


Interesting.

655 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:51pm

re: #648 Cato the Elder

I have no wish to be better than you.

Likewise. but i wish to be better tomorrow than i was today.

656 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:58pm

re: #649 Mikko_Sandt

These days it seems that every post is either about climate change or Sarah Palin (or some other known right-wing nut).

Copenhagen Conference one big reason for the former. As for the latter, she still seems to be a media darling regardless of what she is saying or doing.

657 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:58:58pm

re: #633 Obdicut

This is not true. Or rather, the list supporting is miles long, the list against, a moth-eaten scrap of paper with a waitress' phone number scribbled on it. And it's a fake number.

And I can't accept the "funded by so and so" argument because both sides are well funded.

658 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:59:25pm

re: #646 LudwigVanQuixote

No I mean that if ACORN though AGW was evil and lies and so did the ACLU or any of the normal groups that the right loves to hate, the right would be all for questioning the agenda to discredit the science. However, the oil lobby is beloved by the right.

So the AGW funding by BP and Shell fall where, somewhere in the middle? Oil companies are evil unless they are funding studies you approve?

659 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:59:38pm

re: #647 marjoriemoon

He probably doesn't see it as strangulation, since he's at the epicenter of trying to make a buck on the carbon credit scam, which merely shifts where COx is emitted.

I see nuclear as a way to reduce COx and other emissions period. No shifting of emissions, but severely reducing emissions in a way that doesn't harm the economy, and which could provide a much cleaner environment at the same time.

660 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 12:59:41pm

re: #657 Ben Hur

And I can't accept the "funded by so and so" argument because both sides are well funded.

Nasa is well funded by you and me.

661 recusancy  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:00:27pm

re: #267 brookly red

well at one time it was Russia, no?

And at one time her ancestors were monkeys. Is she an expert in that?

662 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:01:03pm

re: #649 Mikko_Sandt

That wasn't a complaint, was it?

663 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:01:07pm

re: #653 marjoriemoon

you still on this? excellent! i picked up my cute little girl from school and i'm excited to be back...

664 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:01:19pm

What, I finally toss in a comment and the thread dies?

665 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:01:43pm

re: #635 Ben Hur

I understand exactly what you are saying. And it's been well established that EVERYONE does it.

You have a problem either because she's a non-liberal woman, and Trig is disabled.

My post stands.

I highly doubt everyone does it. I KNOW that there are lots of people who do it but don't cry like a baby claiming their children are being attacked if anyone calls them on it. Professional victim-hood it very transparent imo.

666 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:01:56pm

re: #578 Ben Hur

not so,

But rather than talking politics, why not just look at the real science? It is not hard to understand the basic arguments for why we know this is the case. If you look into that yourself, you can pretty easily tell who is talking fact and who is talking fiction.

To win, to legitimately win, the AGW debate, the denier side needs to somehow explain how all those gigatons of carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere has no effect.

They can not do that. They can not explain away quantum mechanics and absorbed spectra. They can not explain away the fact that energy is still conserved.

The best they can do is try to falsely claim that something else might be a bigger effect. However, all of that has been very thoroughly discredited. It is not the sun or the orbit of the Earth or volcanoes doing this. So what is it?

Well heres's a hint - ALL THOSE GIGATONS OF CO2 WHICH WE KNOW MUST MAKE THINGS WARMER!

667 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:01:59pm

re: #646 LudwigVanQuixote

No I mean that if ACORN though AGW was evil and lies and so did the ACLU or any of the normal groups that the right loves to hate, the right would be all for questioning the agenda to discredit the science. However, the oil lobby is beloved by the right.

thank you, for explaining...

668 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:02:26pm

re: #643 Killgore Trout

...and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far. I will be very surprised if we make it through 8 years of Obama without domestic terrorism from these folks. They are whipped up into such a frenzy. They are scared out of their minds. It's not going to end well.

I prefer not to dwell on it.

669 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:02:42pm

re: #659 lawhawk

He probably doesn't see it as strangulation, since he's at the epicenter of trying to make a buck on the carbon credit scam, which merely shifts where COx is emitted.

I see nuclear as a way to reduce COx and other emissions period. No shifting of emissions, but severely reducing emissions in a way that doesn't harm the economy, and which could provide a much cleaner environment at the same time.

I don't understand this view of Al Gore as a "money-grubbing, don't give a shit about the U.S or anybody but himself". I don't know where it comes from. Because he had a fancy house and didn't live in a hovel? Or that BS about how much energy this house in Tennessee generated?

670 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:03:16pm

re: #663 Aceofwhat?

you still on this? excellent! i picked up my cute little girl from school and i'm excited to be back...

Egads, it's been that long??? I've been trying to take a break and it just keeps pulling me back in.

671 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:03:30pm

OT: Wanna know where Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura are?

Quetta, Pakistan, and the Pakistani government is copacetic with it. They've turned a suburb into a Taliban-Islamist mini-state. The ISI helped fund this no less.

672 RogueOne  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04:05pm

Cya folks, try to play nice.

673 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04:08pm

re: #638 sattv4u2

Now will you STFU?

No,, I won't. I want to see EVERY time she got off a bus she had Trig in her arms, as you stated

You showed me ONE
I'll wait!

Hahahahahahaha talk about moving the goalposts. I'm supposed to track down a video of every single Palin appearance now?

You just saw Grand Rapids...

Here's the press account from Indiana:
[Link: www.indy.com...]
"She got off the bus holding her youngest son, 19-month-old Trig."

Here's video from Cincinnati showing the same Trig handoff:

Youtube Video

Here's Trig being paraded around by the same aide in Rochester:

Youtube Video

I think that should be sufficient, I'm not going to pull video from every stop on her damn tour.

674 Ojoe  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04:13pm

re: #649 Mikko_Sandt

So?

Go off topic. I.E. :
A video with BOTH Dolly Parton & Bagpipes.

675 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04:24pm

re: #665 Locker

I highly doubt everyone does it. I KNOW that there are lots of people who do it but don't cry like a baby claiming their children are being attacked if anyone calls them on it. Professional victim-hood it very transparent imo.

She was attacked for having her kids with her on campaign etc, or even having a job at all because of her children.

676 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04:39pm

re: #657 Ben Hur

And I can't accept the "funded by so and so" argument because both sides are well funded.

that is so true in just about every issue.

677 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:04:49pm

re: #666 LudwigVanQuixote

not so,

But rather than talking politics, why not just look at the real science? It is not hard to understand the basic arguments for why we know this is the case. If you look into that yourself, you can pretty easily tell who is talking fact and who is talking fiction.

To win, to legitimately win, the AGW debate, the denier side needs to somehow explain how all those gigatons of carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere has no effect.

They can not do that. They can not explain away quantum mechanics and absorbed spectra. They can not explain away the fact that energy is still conserved.

The best they can do is try to falsely claim that something else might be a bigger effect. However, all of that has been very thoroughly discredited. It is not the sun or the orbit of the Earth or volcanoes doing this. So what is it?

Well heres's a hint - ALL THOSE GIGATONS OF CO2 WHICH WE KNOW MUST MAKE THINGS WARMER!

800 year lag.

678 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:05:20pm

re: #651 cliffster

What was that part about you not having children? So I guess that would mean that you can't speak intelligently on the impact that little photo-op has on parents of children with Down's. Yes?

Ah, so now the argument shifts from "it's not a photo op!!!" to "well maybe that photo op is for parents of downs kids!!!"

Gotcha.

679 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:05:58pm

re: #635 Ben Hur

You have a problem either because she's a non-liberal woman, and Trig is disabled.

Why do you say this when he's made it completely obvious, over numerous posts that his problem is with her opportunism combine with her playing the victim and falsely accusing people of attacking her children?

If you have a problem with one of his arguments, fine, but to continue to insist that he must REALLY mean what you typed above is dishonest.

680 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:06:07pm

Sorry for the OT, but CBS is reporting that al Libi is the HVT who received his Christmas goose yesterday:

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

681 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:06:31pm

re: #673 drcordell

I don't think that you've gone overboard, and I don't think those arguing with you have, either.

However, I do think it's a remarkably trivial argument. Palin's use of her family as a prop is one that is similar to many other politicians. Some politicians-- as noted by some of the people you're arguing with-- refrain from using their family, and are to be commended for it. However, using your family as a prop is perfectly standard.

I don't think you're going to prove anything about Palin that isn't already apparent: Palin is the most important thing to Palin.

682 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:06:34pm

Noted climatologist Sarah Palin would get clobbered in such a debate because THEY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO FACTS!

683 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:06:48pm

re: #669 marjoriemoon

Because he talked for a long time about how to live with a smaller carbon footprint all while living the high life with a big house. That was until it got LEED approval (one of only a few houses in the nation to do so).

However, his continued use of flying around the world severely undercuts his walk softly and make a small carbon footprint mantra since flying by private jet all over the world produces more CO2 than an average American does in a year. It's hypocritical, and I'm more than willing to call him out on it.

I also consider his carbon trades to be a mirage of reducing carbon emissions because they merely shift the emissions to others.

684 Girth  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:07:04pm

re: #673 drcordell

Hey drcordell, I don't like her and I tend to agree with the position that you've been taking in this thread, but after lurking in this thread for quite some time, I really think you should just drop it.

Just my two cents.

685 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:07:12pm

re: #660 Sharmuta

Nasa is well funded by you and me.

/well so is ACORN,

but seriously I think NASA could be better funded still.

686 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:07:21pm

re: #658 RogueOne

So the AGW funding by BP and Shell fall where, somewhere in the middle? Oil companies are evil unless they are funding studies you approve?

NO not at all,

Legitimate peer reviewed science published in respectable journals with mountains of clear evidence to back it up is always "approved" even if they get it wrong.

Research that was funded by special interests looking for a certain result before they started, and then only published (if at all) in the whispering circles of those who already have an interest is not science. It's very simple.

687 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:07:40pm

re: #673 drcordell

Hahahahahahaha talk about moving the goalposts. I'm supposed to track down a video of every single Palin appearance now?

You just saw Grand Rapids...

Here's the press account from Indiana:
[Link: www.indy.com...]
"She got off the bus holding her youngest son, 19-month-old Trig."

Here's video from Cincinnati showing the same Trig handoff:

Here's Trig being paraded around by the same aide in Rochester:
I think that should be sufficient, I'm not going to pull video from every stop on her damn tour.

I don't understand.

First you say she shouldn't expose him to all the noise, crowds, flashing lights, etc, then you say she shouldn't "hand him off" while she has to speak to the crowds and noise and flashes.

Where's the video of the guy handing Trig back when she's done?

688 recusancy  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:07:43pm

re: #383 SanFranciscoZionist

I disagree on the sole point that she is not 'white trash'. First, I hate that term, and secondly, she's a middle-class woman with a college degree, who is playing the victim card like she thought it might go out of style.

She's a millionaire now. She's upper class.

689 Mocking Jay  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:07:44pm

re: #681 Obdicut

it's a remarkably trivial argument



My sentiment exactly. You need to pick your battles.

690 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:08:08pm

re: #669 marjoriemoon

I don't understand this view of Al Gore as a "money-grubbing, don't give a shit about the U.S or anybody but himself". I don't know where it comes from. Because he had a fancy house and didn't live in a hovel? Or that BS about how much energy this house in Tennessee generated?

well that was the first iteration of RW smears that later evolved into more classy remarks about wookies.

691 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:08:16pm

re: #669 marjoriemoon

I don't understand this view of Al Gore as a "money-grubbing, don't give a shit about the U.S or anybody but himself". I don't know where it comes from. Because he had a fancy house and didn't live in a hovel? Or that BS about how much energy this house in Tennessee generated?

He's a smart guy that people can't imagine having a beer with and lock box.

692 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:09:24pm

re: #639 Big Steve

I am having trouble reconciling this comment with the meme that anti-AWG scientists are funded by energy concerns and therefore automatically tainted. Regardless of where one gets funding, if one publishes in a credible peer reviewed journal the research should stand on its own merits.

Name an anti-AGW article that was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

There are thousands and thousands of pro-AGW articles in scientific journals.

Again, the situation is not even remotely equivalent.

693 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:09:40pm

re: #622 LudwigVanQuixote

Acually it IS a US DOE report.
Please have a look at Table 3 at p.27 of the pdf file and then get back to me.
[Link: www.eia.doe.gov...]
Thanks.

694 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:09:47pm

re: #678 drcordell

Ah, so now the argument shifts from "it's not a photo op!!!" to "well maybe that photo op is for parents of downs kids!!!"

Gotcha.

Actually, the argument is the same. You don't have kids, you aren't on the bus, you don't have any perspective at all on the situation. You know absolutely nothing about it, so why are you judging? This has been the argument the whole time.

695 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:10:18pm

re: #679 Locker

Why do you say this when he's made it completely obvious, over numerous posts that his problem is with her opportunism combine with her playing the victim and falsely accusing people of attacking her children?

If you have a problem with one of his arguments, fine, but to continue to insist that he must REALLY mean what you typed above is dishonest.

That's how I see it.

She get special criticism, reserved for her. A hypocritical double standard.

It's not just because he's being "used as a prop."

Maybe it's because he thinks it's effective.

And people have been attacking her children and her and her about having Trig at all, or working while having kids, or Trig specifically.

The garbage is not confined to Hot Air.

696 jaunte  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:11:08pm

re: #692 Charles

Just unwrapped a copy of James Hoggan's Climate Cover-up.
Thanks for the recommendation.

697 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:11:21pm

Comments complaining about what is posted or not posted at LGF are going to be deleted.

AS ALWAYS.

698 LemonJoose  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:11:31pm

Just because Sarah Palin is an idiot doesn't mean Al Gore is right about global warming.

I'd like to se a debate between Al Gore and this guy:

Bjorn Lomborg discusses global warming (Part 1 of 4):

Youtube Video
699 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:11:49pm

re: #569 Charles

I'm turning off the contact form now, because there's a hate-filled obsessed freak using it to send one angry message after another -- about creationism and global warming.


Ah gee Charles what will they do with the rest of their day?/

700 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:12:19pm

re: #692 Charles

Name an anti-AGW article that was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

There are thousands and thousands of pro-AGW articles in scientific journals.

Again, the situation is not even remotely equivalent.

Isn't that one of the points of Climate-gate? That there was pressure NOT to allow peer review of a skeptical papers.

701 ED 209  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:12:28pm

Wow, so many comments on this thread- must be nasty out.

702 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:12:39pm

re: #698 LemonJoose

Just because Sarah Palin is an idiot doesn't mean Al Gore is right about global warming.

I'd like to se a debate between Al Gore and this guy:

Bjorn Lomborg discusses global warming (Part 1 of 4):

[Video]

About Bjorn Lomborg -- anyone tempted to believe he's a credible "expert" should read through the material on this website:

Lomborg Errors

His books are amazingly full of errors and misleading statements. He's not a climate scientist -- in fact, the only academic training he has is in political science and game theory, and he's published a grand total of exactly ONE scientific paper -- on game theory, not climatology.

More on Lomborg's background and climate change denial claims:

The Lomborg Story

703 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:12:57pm

re: #698 LemonJoose

Lomborg is not very credible. He's a game theorist with no climatology background.

He asks a valid question in a disingenuous way.

704 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:13:00pm

re: #677 Ben Hur

800 year lag.

Not presently at all. That is just false. You are just wrong. Look at the Keeling curves and look at the temp data. The temps are rising in lockstep with the concentrations this century.

In other epochs too there was not always a lag either. There were periods of extreme ice age where the warming factor was CO2 release from volcanoes - however, those took millenia for enough CO2 to accumulate and do what we did in a century.

Now could you go back and try to explain away all the other scientific points I took a very long time to type?

Part of what does get me steamed is it is not as if I don't have a life. I think it is important to explain the science. Once I do though, and spend a long time doing it, it would be polite to consider it and not respond with a false one liner.

705 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:13:23pm

re: #692 Charles

Name an anti-AGW article that was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

There are thousands and thousands of pro-AGW articles in scientific journals.

Again, the situation is not even remotely equivalent.

Do you consider Climate Research a peer reviewed journal?

706 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:13:34pm

re: #700 Ben Hur

Isn't that one of the points of Climate-gate? That there was pressure NOT to allow peer review of a skeptical papers.

No, there was not. I've posted several articles debunking this false claim -- didn't you read any of them?

707 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:13:45pm

re: #666 LudwigVanQuixote

Well heres's a hint - ALL THOSE GIGATONS OF CO2 WHICH WE KNOW MUST MAKE THINGS WARMER!

OK, I'm trying to not be a dick about this but...

Using SI prefixes on non-SI units of measurement makes my ass twitch.

Tons are not SI at all. Tonnes are not "official SI" but accepted within SI as a synonym for megagram.

708 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:14:53pm

re: #479 Locker

I don't know! Man you could at least give me a link to read while you are away. WTF am I suppose to do now, thumb wrestle myself?!

Sorry dude. i'm back.

Want hypocrisy? Got it.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

McCain realized that it was cost-effective to import brazilian sugar cane because you get so much more ethanol per pound compared to corn.

Obama, Daschle, Grassley...wanted to keep the tariff that adds cost to ethanol made from brazilian sugar cane.

hy. po. crites. two dems and a repub, selling out AGW as soon as it's convenient.

709 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:14:57pm

re: #705 Big Steve

Do you consider Climate Research a peer reviewed journal?

Climate Research (journal):

In 2003, an article partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas. The article reviewed previous papers and concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium". In reaction half of the journal's editorial board, including chief editor Hans von Storch, resigned in protest of deficiences in the peer-review processes in use at the journal. Von Storch later stated that climate change sceptics "had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common".

710 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:15:24pm

re: #695 Ben Hur

That's how I see it.

She get special criticism, reserved for her. A hypocritical double standard.

It's not just because he's being "used as a prop."

Maybe it's because he thinks it's effective.

And people have been attacking her children and her and her about having Trig at all, or working while having kids, or Trig specifically.

The garbage is not confined to Hot Air.

We aren't talking about anyone else or any other website. I'm talking about drcordell. Will you PLEASE just address the fact that she uses her kids as props then cries that her children are being attacked.

Let's say it one more time so maybe you'll address it instead of ignoring it:

She uses her kids as props and then cries that her children are being attacked when it's HER BEHAVIOR that's being attacked.

Would you please, for the love of ... well someone, address the forking point?

711 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:16:08pm

re: #704 LudwigVanQuixote

Not presently at all. That is just false. You are just wrong. Look at the Keeling curves and look at the temp data. The temps are rising in lockstep with the concentrations this century.

In other epochs too there was not always a lag either. There were periods of extreme ice age where the warming factor was CO2 release from volcanoes - however, those took millenia for enough CO2 to accumulate and do what we did in a century.

Now could you go back and try to explain away all the other scientific points I took a very long time to type?

Part of what does get me steamed is it is not as if I don't have a life. I think it is important to explain the science. Once I do though, and spend a long time doing it, it would be polite to consider it and not respond with a false one liner.

I didn't mean to give the impression that that was my answer.

But that's the answer given to that argument.

Give my 10 miunutes (not really, cause I'm not doing it now) and I'll get you an answer to Keeling Curves, or to article that there has been 10X more co2 in the past and it was cooler, or that Mt St Helens produce more greenhouse gasses in one week that mankind in 1000 years.

My point is, there always is an answer to each side. The trick (haha) is finding where it stops.

712 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:17:07pm

re: #706 Charles

No, there was not. I've posted several articles debunking this false claim -- didn't you read any of them?

About that quote specifically? Not that I recall. I recall the "trick" post.

May have been the weekend.

713 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:17:13pm

re: #711 Ben Hur

The trick is listening to the scientists. It's a pretty easy trick.

Give it a shot.

714 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:17:42pm

re: #708 Aceofwhat?

Sorry dude. i'm back.

Want hypocrisy? Got it.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

McCain realized that it was cost-effective to import brazilian sugar cane because you get so much more ethanol per pound compared to corn.

Obama, Daschle, Grassley...wanted to keep the tariff that adds cost to ethanol made from brazilian sugar cane.

hy. po. crites. two dems and a repub, selling out AGW as soon as it's convenient.

Well I took a look and it seems like it was protectionism for Corn ethanol. Right?

715 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:18:13pm

re: #670 marjoriemoon

Egads, it's been that long??? I've been trying to take a break and it just keeps pulling me back in.

I feel the same way. it's a compliment to our fellow reptilians.

716 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:18:26pm

re: #634 drcordell

The outrage is because he is blatantly used for a photo op, and then disappears completely once that photo op is done.

So if that is your prime objection why is your criticizm selective in the case of the Obama's using the kids as props in post-election events? Simply becasue it is demanded of them by virtue of others expectations?

BTW- I did watch the video and the handler seemed very happy to get Trig in his arms. I couldn't see trigs face but I'd say the kid is lucky not to touch the ground between mom and the crew.

717 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:19:03pm

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Youtube Video
718 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:19:27pm

re: #714 Locker

Well I took a look and it seems like it was protectionism for Corn ethanol. Right?

exactly. so if you're an AGW proponent, shouldn't protectionism be one of the first principles that you jettison?. thanks, Barack.

719 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:20:04pm

This was cool: cnn.com - Celebrating an American Trailblazer


In 1909, Alice Ramsey blazed a path across America's landscape and society. Millions of women have followed in her tracks, few more precisely than Emily Anderson exactly 100 years later.
720 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:20:42pm

re: #625 drcordell

I know this because there is a video of it HAPPENING

[Video]I don't know that he isn't thrown into a dungeon, but I'm fucking assuming that he ended back up on the massive RV that they arrived on and departed on. Call it a stretch, but I don't know where else he would go.

Now will you STFU? After there is empirical proof she only holds Trig for about 10 seconds after walking off the bus?

re: #576 drcordell

Maybe you need to go back and read what I said. The entire reason it's explicitly clear she is using him as a prop is because she holds him only when she is stepping off of her tour bus. She holds him while stepping off the bus, has all of the photos snapped, and then immediately hands him off to an aide.

That is why it's clear she is simply exploiting him for PR. Because she isn't "parenting him 24/7" as some have previously suggested. If that were the case he would be in a baby buggy behind the table where she is signing books.


And what would you say about that?

721 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:21:02pm

re: #710 Locker

We aren't talking about anyone else or any other website. I'm talking about drcordell. Will you PLEASE just address the fact that she uses her kids as props then cries that her children are being attacked.

Let's say it one more time so maybe you'll address it instead of ignoring it:

She uses her kids as props and then cries that her children are being attacked when it's HER BEHAVIOR that's being attacked.

Would you please, for the love of ... well someone, address the forking point?

No.

I think politicians on campaigns, magazine covers, etc, use their kids as props.

Trig is a baby. Are her other kids with her? No? That's not because their not disabled, it's because they're older than 1 1/2.

722 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:21:04pm

re: #718 Aceofwhat?

exactly. so if you're an AGW proponent, shouldn't protectionism be one of the first principles that you jettison?. thanks, Barack.

I don't know man it doesn't seem like you can just jettison anything in politics and have no repercussions. Especially a middle of the road kind of person as our President seems to be, currently.

723 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:21:27pm

re: #664 RogueOne

What, I finally toss in a comment and the thread dies?

The common element in all your dysfunctional relationships is you! /

724 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:21:48pm

re: #721 Ben Hur

No.

I think politicians on campaigns, magazine covers, etc, use their kids as props.

Trig is a baby. Are her other kids with her? No? That's not because their not disabled, it's because they're older than 1 1/2.

So you refuse to answer the point and decide to answer some question no one asked. WTF man?

725 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:21:54pm

And again, she was, and is being attacked for having her disabled child with her.

Apparently because it must be effective.

726 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:21:55pm

re: #613 Locker

Ok this one is gonna get me in trouble but... the right side folks are aligned with business and have a large religious base. It does not seem like Christianity is a model which encourages one to question or think independently. There is one right answer to everything, you don't know it and only the "leadership/priesthood" can decide how the "faithful" are suppose to react.

Once the leadership sets the stake in the ground, the faithful follow, tenaciously and without question.

Yeah. A lot of it boils down to saying

If you disagree about the basic tenets of my religion, you are either stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above

which is a minor modification of #443, which stated

If you disagree about the basic science of AGW, you are either stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above

Both statements are faith based and unscientific, in that both are unfalsifiable, absolutist, pig-headed nonsense that provide and allow for only one right answer to everything that only the leadership can provide to the faithful, who will also decide how the faithful ought to react.

727 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:22:09pm

re: #713 Obdicut

The trick is listening to the scientists. It's a pretty easy trick.

Give it a shot.

Science is like medicine, sometimes people want a 2nd opinion...

728 Blueheron  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:22:48pm

re: #580 lawhawk

This is nice. Bing.com is celebrating Hannukah. Happy Hannukah to everyone out there who celebrates the holiday!

They seem to go out of their way to find gorgeous photos to put on their entry page.


That is beautiful :) Thanks :)

729 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:23:17pm

re: #722 Locker

I don't know man it doesn't seem like you can just jettison anything in politics and have no repercussions. Especially a middle of the road kind of person as our President seems to be, currently.

really? i think politicians jettison anything on a regular basis and there aren't enough repercussions. that's why this tariff kills me. we're subsidizing ethanol with my tax money because we don't want to buy it cheaper from Brazil? screw that.

730 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:23:24pm

re: #704 LudwigVanQuixote

Why bother appealing to evidence? You've already stated the the science cannot be falsified and is beyond question and reproach.

Just tell him to shut the fuck up and be done with it.

731 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:23:39pm

re: #694 cliffster

Actually, the argument is the same. You don't have kids, you aren't on the bus, you don't have any perspective at all on the situation. You know absolutely nothing about it, so why are you judging? This has been the argument the whole time.

I haven't done a lot of things that I have an opinion on. I don't need to have tried heroin to think it's a bad idea.

732 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:25:17pm

re: #724 Locker

So you refuse to answer the point and decide to answer some question no one asked. WTF man?

Man, what part of NO don't you understand?

you asked:

Will you PLEASE just address the fact that she uses her kids as props then cries that her children are being attacked.

and I said, NO. As in no, she doesn't use her KID, not kids, KID, the disable KID, in the singular, TRIG as a PROP. He is with her because he is a special needs, you know what, fuck that, not even that is important, he is with her because HE CAN"T CRAWL.

Is that clear enough? NOT A PROP, A BABY.

Those who think he is a PROP, or PHOTO OP, do so because he is DISABLED, and it bothers them that this evokes sympathy, or probably something ridiculous about choice or something.

SHE DOES NOT USE HIM AS A "PROP."

733 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:26:21pm

re: #727 brookly red

Science is like medicine, sometimes people want a 2nd opinion...

Then ask another scientists, not some random dude working for Exxon-Mobil.

If you need a second opinion from a doctor, you go to another doctor, not a dowser.

734 LemonJoose  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:26:57pm

OK, I'll bite. What then is this guy's major flaw that makes him not credible:

MIT Prof. of Meteorology Richart Lindzen:

Youtube Video

Lindzen goes even further than Lomborg in terms of questioning the "consensus".

735 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:27:02pm

re: #713 Obdicut

The trick is listening to the scientists. It's a pretty easy trick.

Give it a shot.

Everyone's got theirs and each calls the others quacks, or in the pocket, etc etc.

736 Girth  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:27:02pm

I demand that Sarah Palin debate...a shrubbery!

She could just say Ni! to Gore all day long and it would carry just as much content as the drivel she would spew.

Oh, and no one at the Oxford Union would understand her, because they speak English.

737 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:27:19pm

re: #732 Ben Hur

Well it makes them feel so good to hate her, why deprive them of that.

738 Ovoid  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:27:51pm

I'm a agw skeptic. I'd hate to see this debate. Obviously Gore, who has made warming his life work, could walk all over her. When I see a debate, I want it to be between people who can each articulate their position in the best possible way. This would be a set-up for those who would throw popcorn from their seats.

I have to register my protest to the level of invective and namecalling that has become de rigeur on this blog toward those who disagree with the articles of faith. Why should I be linked with nazis and called an idiot because of an honest different of opinion? It is both disgusting and tiresome.

Also, I find disingenuous the constant red herrings brought in. I don't care what Palin or some Saudi leader says; their stance on a science issue is immaterial. We all have seen people weigh-in on issues who are used as proxies to belittle others in the debate. This stands instead of debate and is hardly useful.

739 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:27:52pm

re: #732 Ben Hur

SHE DOES NOT USE HIM AS A "PROP."

She simply holds him when exiting her bus, takes photos with him and then hands him to someone else.

Youtube Video
740 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:29:10pm

re: #735 Ben Hur

This is not true. Why do you believe that it is?

741 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:29:13pm

re: #710 Locker

We aren't talking about anyone else or any other website. I'm talking about drcordell. Will you PLEASE just address the fact that she uses her kids as props then cries that her children are being attacked.

Let's say it one more time so maybe you'll address it instead of ignoring it:

She uses her kids as props and then cries that her children are being attacked when it's HER BEHAVIOR that's being attacked.

Would you please, for the love of ... well someone, address the forking point?


I have several times and I've asked why the selective outrage that doesn't include other politicians using their kids as a prop. The only answers I got were that she appears to do it more (which is debatable) and she does it for commercial gain rather than running for office. (So why not outrage over Michelle's use of the girls in post-election photo ops for fashion shows and magazine covers?)
This selective outrage stinks of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

BTW- the next time you downding me you might give me the courtesy of actually responding to my post.

742 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:29:36pm

re: #726 SixDegrees

Both statements are faith based and unscientific, in that both are unfalsifiable, absolutist, pig-headed nonsense that provide and allow for only one right answer to everything that only the leadership can provide to the faithful, who will also decide how the faithful ought to react.

Well, I agree about the observation of 443 but you did take it out of context. If you read that whole comment the point is pretty clear. If a specific problem or opposition to a scientific fact is considered and proven to be false, it's "stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above" to continue to put forth the same discredited opposition over and over. It's also dishonest as it's a direct attempt to sow seeds of doubt.

743 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:29:55pm

re: #738 Ovoid

I don't care what Palin or some Saudi leader says; their stance on a science issue is immaterial.

And yet, you'll accept the word of dishonest people paid by the energy industries without question.

744 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:30:45pm

re: #739 drcordell

She simply holds him when exiting her bus, takes photos with him and then hands him to someone else.


[Video]

Yes, because she has work to do.

She can't breastfeed, sign books, give speeches, and churn butter all at once.

745 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:31:00pm

re: #693 Spare O'Lake

Acually it IS a US DOE report.
Please have a look at Table 3 at p.27 of the pdf file and then get back to me.
[Link: www.eia.doe.gov...]
Thanks.

Wow you really misread that table - or at least waht it means.

Obviously there was CO2 in the atmosphere before human industrialization. It is not that there is only 3% of CO2 caused by human activities, but rather, through the decade of the 90's we increased the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 3%.

You could also have looked at table two.

Pre-industrial (1750) Atmospheric Concentration. . 278
1998 Atmospheric Concentration . . . 365
Average Annual Change, 1990-1999 . . . 1.5a
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) . . . 50–200b

Notice that in 100 years, we have caused a nearly 50% increase in total CO2.

What happened was you fell for someone who utterly cherry picked and took something out of context in order to say the exact opposite of what the report said. What bothers me about you is that you didn't take the time to look at table two, or even understand what table three was saying before you brought it - as if there really were some sort of question.

This was the 2007 report. It's a fine report.

It has also since been updated.

Check it out:

[Link: ftp.eia.doe.gov...]

746 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:31:10pm

re: #732 Ben Hur

Man, what part of NO don't you understand?

you asked:

Will you PLEASE just address the fact that she uses her kids as props then cries that her children are being attacked.

and I said, NO. As in no, she doesn't use her KID, not kids, KID, the disable KID, in the singular, TRIG as a PROP. He is with her because he is a special needs, you know what, fuck that, not even that is important, he is with her because HE CAN"T CRAWL.

Is that clear enough? NOT A PROP, A BABY.

Those who think he is a PROP, or PHOTO OP, do so because he is DISABLED, and it bothers them that this evokes sympathy, or probably something ridiculous about choice or something.

SHE DOES NOT USE HIM AS A "PROP."

Yes. She does. Do you need to have the death panel comment quoted for you again?

747 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:32:03pm

re: #739 drcordell

She simply holds him when exiting her bus, takes photos with him and then hands him to someone else.

Sometimes mothers like to be photographed with their children, just saying.

748 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:32:53pm

re: #707 ArchangelMichael

OK, I'm trying to not be a dick about this but...

Using SI prefixes on non-SI units of measurement makes my ass twitch.

Tons are not SI at all. Tonnes are not "official SI" but accepted within SI as a synonym for megagram.

Really, are you saying that 1000kg is not a metric ton? Not to be a dick, but if you are going to be that pedantic, you need to get it right :)

749 recusancy  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:33:07pm

re: #738 Ovoid

I'm a agw skeptic. I'd hate to see this debate. Obviously Gore, who has made warming his life work, could walk all over her. When I see a debate, I want it to be between people who can each articulate their position in the best possible way. This would be a set-up for those who would throw popcorn from their seats.

I have to register my protest to the level of invective and namecalling that has become de rigeur on this blog toward those who disagree with the articles of faith. Why should I be linked with nazis and called an idiot because of an honest different of opinion? It is both disgusting and tiresome.

Also, I find disingenuous the constant red herrings brought in. I don't care what Palin or some Saudi leader says; their stance on a science issue is immaterial. We all have seen people weigh-in on issues who are used as proxies to belittle others in the debate. This stands instead of debate and is hardly useful.

That's good that you aren't interested in hearing from anybody who is not in the relevant field of climate science. So that leaves you with very few, if any, AGW deniers to bring to the table. There isn't really a debate without Palin, Saudi's, Lomborg, etc..

750 drcordell  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:33:26pm

re: #744 Ben Hur

Yes, because she has work to do.

She can't breastfeed, sign books, give speeches, and churn butter all at once.

Following your logic she is:

A) Not using Trig as a photo prop

but

B) Too busy to be parenting him

So why the hell is she taking him off the bus in the first place, just to hand him off 30 seconds later? Oh, that's right... for the PHOTO OP.

751 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:33:43pm

re: #741 DaddyG

I have several times and I've asked why the selective outrage that doesn't include other politicians using their kids as a prop. The only answers I got were that she appears to do it more (which is debatable) and she does it for commercial gain rather than running for office. (So why not outrage over Michelle's use of the girls in post-election photo ops for fashion shows and magazine covers?)
This selective outrage stinks of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

BTW- the next time you downding me you might give me the courtesy of actually responding to my post.

I just gave you a different answer. You quoted it. Why don't you address it? I don't care why she does it. I don't deny others do it. My problem is her claiming folks are attacking her children when they are attacking her. Care to address it now?

752 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:35:37pm

re: #554 marjoriemoon

"Dear" was meant affectionately, not condescending, just so you know.

I know - i was being honest! it was a nice touch.

about the rest of your post re: Sweden. i think they burn a lot of biofuels, and to be honest, i need to read up more on how good of a job they're doing in keeping the particulate waste out of the atmosphere. it's not all about CO2, right;)

they use some solar energy, and here i would certainly support more R&D on our part...long-term solution, right?

they actually use less wind power than many other European countries.

They also make decent use of Geothermal heat, which makes good sense in their climate. I think that's a function of their geology...i need to look up how well we do at taking advantage of our geothermal capabilities.

in all, though, don't forget how much stuff they burn in Sweden to keep the lights on. nuclear energy = less particulate pollution, imho, although as i said, now i want to read about how much they actually emit up there.

good stuff. what's next?

753 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:35:44pm

re: #691 Basho

He's a smart guy that people can't imagine having a beer with and lock box.

LOL I don't agree at all, but I still thought it was funny.

754 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:35:45pm

re: #740 Obdicut

This is not true. Why do you believe that it is?

It's what I see in this debate.

It's hard to filter. Don't give me a list of UN scientists and don't give me a list of oil scientists.

Don't give me a botanist. Or a vet.

From all the info presented here, I find similar info refuting (and vice-versa) elsewhere.

I wasn't kidding earlier. There are manuals on-line from both camps on how to answer the other's claims.

755 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:36:16pm

re: #711 Ben Hur

That is an easy trick to do if you follow the logical consequences of what is true science - i.e. energy is conserved and CO2 really is a GHG to their logical conclusions. Just because the anti-science side always has some new bit of bullshit, does not mean that they have any real points or that you have to take this on faith between two camps. Look at the actual facts yourself from first principles.

First principles are things like, so what make the Earth warm.

The Earth is presently getting warmer.

Think it through for yourself.

I have given you all the pieces. Fact check them if you think I am lying. Then put it together yourself. That is how the scientists do it.

756 shai_au  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:36:25pm

Very late to the thread here, but anyway... I would very much love to see more debates about issues such as these. Like those BBC Intelligence Squared debates, but more frequent. Opinion-makers everywhere need to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak - not just Sarah Palin.

757 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:36:37pm

re: #751 Locker

I just gave you a different answer. You quoted it. Why don't you address it? I don't care why she does it. I don't deny others do it. My problem is her claiming folks are attacking her children when they are attacking her. Care to address it now?

/ I don't think that's good for my children... now where have I heard that before?

758 simoom  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:37:09pm

re: #58 Ben Hur

"Fist-gate?"

"Fist-gate" because "Why'd - they - rent - a - table - to - Planned - Parenthood - who - had - Dental - Dam - making - kits - which - we - bet - could - also - be - used - for - sodomy - and - that - will - make - our - homophobic - audience - freak - out - so - let's - go - with - that - gate" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

759 Toronto  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:37:41pm

This sounds like a wonderful idea.

760 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:37:48pm

re: #746 Locker

Yes. She does. Do you need to have the death panel comment quoted for you again?

Different issue and she deserved to be criticized for that comment. However that is not the subject of the tastleless joke that started this discussion.

...and again why the selective outrage. Can you show me where you criticized Obama for using his childs grade card as a political prop?

761 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:38:08pm

re: #757 brookly red

/ I don't think that's good for my children... now where have I heard that before?

Were you really replying to me or was that a mis-reply? Sorry just trying to grasp what you are saying and I'm clueless. Sorry.

762 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:38:17pm

re: #730 SixDegrees

Why bother appealing to evidence? You've already stated the the science cannot be falsified and is beyond question and reproach.

Just tell him to shut the fuck up and be done with it.

Dude are you off your meds today? I said that we know what we know and made a case for it.

Umm I'm sorry, but the notion that the Earth orbits the sun is not really up for debate either.

However, since you have nothing to contribute at all to this other than a meltdown, I'll just tell you to shut up thank you.

763 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:38:39pm

re: #735 Ben Hur

Everyone's got theirs and each calls the others quacks, or in the pocket, etc etc.

Not that I give a shit, but how do you down ding an observation.

Really.

Do you disagree that both sides call the other side nuts?

764 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:38:49pm

re: #759 Toronto

This sounds like a wonderful idea.

Welcome, pseudo-hatchling.

765 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:38:57pm

re: #760 DaddyG

Different issue and she deserved to be criticized for that comment. However that is not the subject of the tastleless joke that started this discussion.

...and again why the selective outrage. Can you show me where you criticized Obama for using his childs grade card as a political prop?

Can you show me where Obama complained about people attacking his children when they were really attacking him?

766 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:39:26pm

A debate between Palin and Gore on climate change? What a terrible idea. Both contestants are pitiful choices to represent their cases. Why not have James Hansen debate Bjorn Lomborg? That way, the case for letting things ride for a while until we get better at alternative energy, and for spending some money on mitigation in the meantime, could be pitted against the case for getting the ball rolling now with alternative energy, (including a huge ramp-up in production of nuclear energy, and that, including breeder reactors and a plutonium fuel cycle) could be debated by participants who know at least a little about the issues.

There isn't any room for reasoned debate on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There isn't any room for reasoned debate about whether the glaciers are in retreat. There isn't any room at all for debate on whether human CO2 emissions are the main cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

The only sensible thing to be debated is what should we do about it. Is it a sensible choice to kick the climate up into an effectively tropical regime, all the way to the subarctic? Whyever would we worry about that, when as we all know, the future is a long ways off and the thousand generations that will have to put up with the new climate are unable to vote?

I take it back. The only sensible debate topic is over the means to the necessary end of reining in our CO2 emissions and moving over to other sources of energy.

767 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:39:41pm

re: #754 Ben Hur

What would actually convince you? You seem to be taking the attitude that because there are two sides, you can't decide between them.

Even though one side has scientific consensus, and the other side has the occasional creationist meteorologist.

To me, that's a very strange way of thinking that the sides are equal.

768 Soap_Man  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:39:46pm

re: #744 Ben Hur

Yes, because she has work to do.

She can't breastfeed, sign books, give speeches, and churn butter all at once.

That would be quite a sight. :)

769 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:39:47pm

re: #755 LudwigVanQuixote

That is an easy trick to do if you follow the logical consequences of what is true science - i.e. energy is conserved and CO2 really is a GHG to their logical conclusions. Just because the anti-science side always has some new bit of bullshit, does not mean that they have any real points or that you have to take this on faith between two camps. Look at the actual facts yourself from first principles.

First principles are things like, so what make the Earth warm.

The Earth is presently getting warmer.

Think it through for yourself.

I have given you all the pieces. Fact check them if you think I am lying. Then put it together yourself. That is how the scientists do it.

Mars is getting warmer.

(I can't do this now, but you catch my drift, they always have an answer. Where does the merry go round stop?)

770 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:40:07pm

Why do I think Sarah Palin uses her special needs child as a political prop?

And I do think that. For me, it's not about the photo ops. It's about disgusting statements like this:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

I can't see how anyone can claim that this statement is not a cynical, fear-mongering ploy, and she used her own child to do it.

771 Girth  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:40:37pm

CNN reporting one of al-Qaeda's core leadership killed in a Predator attack.

Bye-bye asshole.

772 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:41:10pm

It's funny how according the "science is settled" crowd the other side is simply dismissed as either arguing from bad faith, lying, bought and paid for, or riddled with errors.

While the people they agree with never appear to have made a single misstep, misstatement and are always right.

You'd get the idea from reading these threads that it's the Super Pure vs. Subhuman Cretins.

It's almost like one side is faith based or something.

773 Gearhead  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:41:37pm

re: #771 Girth

CNN reporting one of al-Qaeda's core leadership killed in a Predator attack.

Bye-bye asshole.

Saleh Al Somali - external operations chief

774 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:42:05pm

re: #743 Charles

Jumping in late, if you don't mind - occupied on my nuclear soapbox as usual.

Isnt there a degree of involvement that would add some differentiation to your statement?

For example, Lindzen may be wrong (and i appreciate all of the links you gave me a few weeks ago...as you can see, i was knocked off of the fence with your help) but in 1996 he received a small dollop from Exxon.

That's not funding leading the research, that's research in motion that attracted a sponsor.

Whereas someone who derives a significant percentage of their backing from Exxon, imho, would be 'funded by Exxon'.

Just adding some degrees. Lindzen may well be proven wrong via analysis, but several years ago many AGW proponents argued that he was wrong because of the 1996 study.

In short - funding, and the sources thereof, can be a taint, but we need to be mindful of the size of the brush that we paint with here...it doesn't cover well when it's too broad.

775 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:42:29pm

re: #770 Charles

Why do I think Sarah Palin uses her special needs child as a political prop?

And I do think that. For me, it's not about the photo ops. It's about disgusting statements like this:

I can't see how anyone can claim that this statement is not a cynical, fear-mongering ploy, and she used her own child to do it.

I can agree with that, and I pointed out how McCain and Biden refrain from referencing their kids in their policy speeches, etc.

But her baby is with her on "tour" because he is a baby, and not as a prop.

Just my 2 agarote.

776 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:43:14pm

re: #761 Locker

Were you really replying to me or was that a mis-reply? Sorry just trying to grasp what you are saying and I'm clueless. Sorry.

Yes & no snark, hence the /tag, I think the entire discussion dealing with a mother's relationship with her child is kinda not some place we should be going.

777 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:43:19pm

re: #755 LudwigVanQuixote

Are you actually saying that the ordinary, more-intelligent-than-average non scientist can look at "first principals" about the climate and come to any rational conclusions? For the limited link-following I've done, everything I've seen is quantitative (temperatures rising) and not qualitative (what is making it go up). And that's citing scientists work. How is some average schmuck supposed to think through the mechanics?

778 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:43:44pm

re: #738 Ovoid

I'm a agw skeptic. I'd hate to see this debate. Obviously Gore, who has made warming his life work, could walk all over her. When I see a debate, I want it to be between people who can each articulate their position in the best possible way. This would be a set-up for those who would throw popcorn from their seats.

I have to register my protest to the level of invective and namecalling that has become de rigeur on this blog toward those who disagree with the articles of faith. Why should I be linked with nazis and called an idiot because of an honest different of opinion? It is both disgusting and tiresome.

Also, I find disingenuous the constant red herrings brought in. I don't care what Palin or some Saudi leader says; their stance on a science issue is immaterial. We all have seen people weigh-in on issues who are used as proxies to belittle others in the debate. This stands instead of debate and is hardly useful.

You're no nazi and no idiot. You're quite perceptive about how wrong-headed the proposed debate would be. But you haven't had time or inclination, it seems, to read up on the science. With your powers of reasoning, you'd eventually put the jigsaw puzzle together and see that the AGW case is actually quite strong.

Try "The Long Thaw, how humans are changing the next 100,000 years of Earth's Climate", by David Archer.

779 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:43:51pm

re: #751 Locker

My problem is her claiming folks are attacking her children when they are attacking her. Care to address it now?

Yes, even though is a different topic than the one I took umbrage too. She does have a valid point in the case of her older daughters. If you are referring to a particular quote about people attacking Trig or the circumstances of his birth please link it so we can be sure we're discussing the same topic.

780 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:44:27pm

re: #769 Ben Hur

Mars is not getting warmer. That was debunked. NEXT?

Also, how about you look at the actual other facts.

Like I said to win, to legitimately win, the other side needs to explain away the effects of a nearly 50% rise in CO2 in our atmosphere and the fact that it is still growing.

781 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:45:31pm

re: #770 Charles

I can see the difference between that and "she takes pictures with him". I can't believe others who can't.

782 kilroy  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:45:35pm

re: #775 Ben Hur
She's pretty close to the Michael Jackson use of babies, thank goodness she's only walking off a bus.

783 Kronocide  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:45:53pm

re: #772 Ferris

It's funny how according the "science is settled" crowd the other side is simply dismissed as either arguing from bad faith, lying, bought and paid for, or riddled with errors.
It's almost like one side is faith based or something.

The other side is arguing from bad faith, lying, bought and paid for, and riddled with errors.

It's the side of 'everything but the science.'

784 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:46:00pm

re: #774 Aceofwhat?

In short - funding, and the sources thereof, can be a taint, but we need to be mindful of the size of the brush that we paint with here...it doesn't cover well when it's too broad.

On the contrary -- it's not possible to paint the energy industry's involvement in anti-AGW propaganda with "too broad a brush." They are behind almost ALL of it. Time after time after time, when I investigate the background of an anti-AGW "skeptic," I find connections to the energy industries.

I recommend you read Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Once you finish that book, you'll realize how deep this connection goes.

785 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:46:41pm

re: #748 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, are you saying that 1000kg is not a metric ton? Not to be a dick, but if you are going to be that pedantic, you need to get it right :)

No I'm saying 1000 kg is a metric ton, aka tonne, and not a ton, which is 2000 lbs. Hearing "giga" tacked on to an Imperial measurement hurts like listening to a Palin speech or a non-amusing Tony Soprano malapropism. Just one thing on my long list of, well... not pet peeves, but as George Carlin put it "major psychotic fucking hatreds".

786 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:46:58pm

Oh and as far as 'the deniers' being funded by evil corporations...we all do realize that big companies like GE are among the biggest proponents of AGW because they stand to make a lot of money when governments mandate certain technologies.

And speaking of governments...they fund many (most?) of the research into Climate Change. It's not like governments ever have an agenda. No, no, unlike the evil corporations we must not trust (correctly), governments are pure as the driven snow and should be given our complete and unquestioning support.

787 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:47:12pm

re: #772 Ferris

It's funny how according the "science is settled" crowd the other side is simply dismissed as either arguing from bad faith, lying, bought and paid for, or riddled with errors.

While the people they agree with never appear to have made a single misstep, misstatement and are always right.

You'd get the idea from reading these threads that it's the Super Pure vs. Subhuman Cretins.

It's almost like one side is faith based or something.

Oh, but the people I agree with do make errors, missteps, misstatements, and possibly they even tell lies once in a while. Evolution is good science, but Piltdown Man was a hoax. It's Human Reason, with all its faults, against human reason, with more mistakes and lies and misunderstandings, on the other side.

You-all are no worse specimens of humanity than we-all. But on this issue, we're basically correct, and you have got it wrong.

788 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:48:05pm

re: #752 Aceofwhat?

I know - i was being honest! it was a nice touch.

about the rest of your post re: Sweden. i think they burn a lot of biofuels, and to be honest, i need to read up more on how good of a job they're doing in keeping the particulate waste out of the atmosphere. it's not all about CO2, right;)

they use some solar energy, and here i would certainly support more R&D on our part...long-term solution, right?

they actually use less wind power than many other European countries.

They also make decent use of Geothermal heat, which makes good sense in their climate. I think that's a function of their geology...i need to look up how well we do at taking advantage of our geothermal capabilities.

in all, though, don't forget how much stuff they burn in Sweden to keep the lights on. nuclear energy = less particulate pollution, imho, although as i said, now i want to read about how much they actually emit up there.

good stuff. what's next?

I saw a bit on Nova (Mr. Moon tapes it) on Sweden's energy. I was kinda half listening, but I recall something about how the majority of their cars are electric, pure electric. It's such an incredible impact that their streets/highways are q u i e t. You don't hear anything. Wouldn't that be something? I love the Suedes.

Check out that site. I'm gonna read more too.

Not much going on otherwise LOL Ready to get my sorry arse home, behind another computer and tend to my Farmville lol

789 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:48:15pm

re: #786 Ferris

Yes. Every government on earth is involved in a conspiracy together. That's reasonable.

/

790 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:48:47pm

re: #777 cliffster

Are you actually saying that the ordinary, more-intelligent-than-average non scientist can look at "first principals" about the climate and come to any rational conclusions? For the limited link-following I've done, everything I've seen is quantitative (temperatures rising) and not qualitative (what is making it go up). And that's citing scientists work. How is some average schmuck supposed to think through the mechanics?

Please read my 622. I laid the basics all out pretty clearly. There are some other feedbacks I could discuss, but really that is enough of the story, that if you don't believe I am lying that you should be able to put it together for yourself.

And here is where I mark myself as an actual scientist. Go fact check my claims.

CO2 really is a GHG, look up what that really means. Get down with the concept. Then ask yourself what happens when you drastically increase the GHG concentration of a planetary atmosphere? Ask yourself that for real.

791 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:48:50pm

re: #770 Charles

You're right, it is. Fie to those who say otherwise. What i want Locker and DeathStar to hear me say is that it is not an invitation to join her in using her kids tastelessly. Comment on her use, as you did - completely fair. Go farther, as Darth did - for me, that's one step too far.

I don't want to see my friends here (that would be nearly all of you) tempted to ape boorish behavior. The only way to help Palin look a little more sympathetic WRT her kids is to make tasteless comments about things that she didn't actually do.

just sayin.

792 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:49:01pm

re: #776 brookly red

Yes & no snark, hence the /tag, I think the entire discussion dealing with a mother's relationship with her child is kinda not some place we should be going.

Well I'm glad that's not what I'm talking about then. I'm talking about Sarah Palin using a false, victim posture and claiming comments about her are attacks on her children. She can take her kid where she wants, feature him in photo ops and related with him any way she wants. It's personal.

However, to claim that "the left", "the liberal media" or "insert convenient opponent here" are attacking her children when the comments are about her behavior bother me because it's complete bullshit.

Just to demonstrate:

Example of criticizing the child: "Trig is a jerk, he steals sippy cups from other children".

Example of criticizing the parent: "Sarah Palin shouldn't have Trig outside without a jacket."

So if I, the media or anyone else says "Sarah Palin shouldn't have Trig outside without a jacket" and she responds about the horrible attacks on her children and family, it pisses me off.

793 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:49:10pm

re: #709 Charles

Journal of Non- Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006, "Does a Global Temperature Exist?" Christopher Essex, et. al..."A given
temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously,making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed." J. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics

I used to have a subscription to this journal back when I was a practicing engineer, and always thought it pretty credible.

794 Girth  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:49:14pm

re: #785 ArchangelMichael

Upding for George Carlin reference.

795 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:49:35pm

re: #784 Charles

you've rarely steered me wrong. i'll pause on this topic until i've read it.

thx for the recommendation.

796 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:49:59pm

re: #789 Obdicut

Yes. Every government on earth is involved in a conspiracy together. That's reasonable.

/

/yes! & they call it the UN.

797 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:50:15pm

re: #152 Sharmuta

Bush's "Strategery" was also from SNL.

Actually, that faux-Bushism was the title of a pro-Bush book. GWB liked the word and later used it in a joking manner.

798 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:50:56pm

re: #772 Ferris

So what's your anti-AGW argument that isn't

...from bad faith, lying, bought and paid for, or riddled with errors...


?

799 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:52:03pm

re: #767 Obdicut

What would actually convince you? You seem to be taking the attitude that because there are two sides, you can't decide between them.

Even though one side has scientific consensus, and the other side has the occasional creationist meteorologist.

To me, that's a very strange way of thinking that the sides are equal.

I don't pay attention to the creationists when it comes to science.

That's no brainer.

No sides are equal, and I know this can be infuriating to someone more scientifically aware, for lack of a better term, than I am, but I am sharing with you the stuff I run into when reading about AGW, etc. There are pro-science scientists that aren't convinced that humans are causing the warming. The goal is not to find evidence of warming, but the CAUSE of the warming.

Hopefully it all won't hinge on this guy:

[Link: www.eatliver.com...]

800 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:52:14pm

re: #788 marjoriemoon

I saw a bit on Nova (Mr. Moon tapes it) on Sweden's energy. I was kinda half listening, but I recall something about how the majority of their cars are electric, pure electric. It's such an incredible impact that their streets/highways are q u i e t. You don't hear anything. Wouldn't that be something? I love the Suedes.

Check out that site. I'm gonna read more too.

Not much going on otherwise LOL Ready to get my sorry arse home, behind another computer and tend to my Farmville lol

Farmville > debating energy sources on LGF??? Sinner//

801 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:52:50pm

re: #789 Obdicut

Be careful near open flames, your strawman collection might catch fire.

Just curious though but why isn't exactly as ludicrious to think the pro-AGW crowd is one big conspiracy?

Personally, I don't buy conspiracy theories but if one side can be accused of it, surely the other side can as well.

802 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:53:39pm

re: #793 Big Steve

Ok, so first off, that article really doesn't disprove anything about AGW. And second off, do you think journals like Nature, Science and Phys Rev are credible?

Do you think that the National Academy is credible?

What about the Royal Society - you know where Newton used to hang out?

What do the papers from there say?

803 ArchangelMichael  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:53:42pm

re: #797 Dark_Falcon

Actually, that faux-Bushism was the title of a pro-Bush book. GWB liked the word and later used it in a joking manner.

Yeah but Will Ferrel said it on SNL 6 years before that, parodying the debates between Bush and Gore and I think it was used jokingly by Bush Administration insiders for awhile before the book as well.

804 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:53:51pm

re: #770 Charles

Why do I think Sarah Palin uses her special needs child as a political prop?

And I do think that. For me, it's not about the photo ops. It's about disgusting statements like this:


I can't see how anyone can claim that this statement is not a cynical, fear-mongering ploy, and she used her own child to do it.

I agree with the inappropriateness of her comment. I also think the criticism of her photo ops with Trig is over the top and borders on Palin Derangement Syndrome. Just as criticisms of Michelle Obama and the kids taking part in photo ops would be over the top ctitisism and ODS.

805 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:54:04pm

re: #780 LudwigVanQuixote

Mars is not getting warmer. That was debunked. NEXT?

Also, how about you look at the actual other facts.

Like I said to win, to legitimately win, the other side needs to explain away the effects of a nearly 50% rise in CO2 in our atmosphere and the fact that it is still growing.

What's the CO2 saturation point? And where's the hot spot?

(again, don't go all LVQ up in my face, just asking what I know the other side asks. and I have to jet for Chanukah)

806 LemonJoose  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:54:22pm

re: #789 Obdicut

So groups of political leaders have never in the history of man made huge mistakes based on popular, fashionable but inaccurate "consensus" beliefs?

807 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:54:39pm

re: #790 LudwigVanQuixote

Please read my 622. I laid the basics all out pretty clearly. There are some other feedbacks I could discuss, but really that is enough of the story, that if you don't believe I am lying that you should be able to put it together for yourself. ...

You missed the point of what I was saying. I'm saying the climate is complicated. There's no way just any person on the streets can draw any meaningful conclusion no matter how many facts you give them. The best way for said person on the streets to get manipulated would be to give them a handful of facts, and a conclusion supported by those facts. They couldn't see through any problem with the conclusion.

808 brookly red  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:55:20pm

re: #792 Locker

Well I'm glad that's not what I'm talking about then. I'm talking about Sarah Palin using a false, victim posture and claiming comments about her are attacks on her children. She can take her kid where she wants, feature him in photo ops and related with him any way she wants. It's personal.

However, to claim that "the left", "the liberal media" or "insert convenient opponent here" are attacking her children when the comments are about her behavior bother me because it's complete bullshit.

Just to demonstrate:

Example of criticizing the child: "Trig is a jerk, he steals sippy cups from other children".

Example of criticizing the parent: "Sarah Palin shouldn't have Trig outside without a jacket."

So if I, the media or anyone else says "Sarah Palin shouldn't have Trig outside without a jacket" and she responds about the horrible attacks on her children and family, it pisses me off.

Well you are entitled to your opinion too, mine is that kids are off limits.

809 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:55:21pm

re: #805 Ben Hur

What's the CO2 saturation point? And where's the hot spot?

(again, don't go all LVQ up in my face, just asking what I know the other side asks. and I have to jet for Chanukah)

interesting how you refuse to look at a clearly laid out scientific argument and think it through. Look, follow the argument already the pieces are there.

All you are doing is refusing to think about them.

And I have to go too :)

810 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:55:52pm

re: #803 ArchangelMichael

Yeah but Will Ferrel said it on SNL 6 years before that, parodying the debates between Bush and Gore and I think it was used jokingly by Bush Administration insiders for awhile before the book as well.

There are lots of drawbacks about Bush, but one thing i always admired was how often he could take a joke, especially as often as he was hammered in the press and elsewhere. Obama could double his likeability with a similar tactic, je pense.

811 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:55:53pm

re: #799 Ben Hur

What I and others have suggested is you read some credible sources like NASA and AIP. I think once you do that, you will have a more clear understanding that we do know the cause of the warming.

This is a good place to start and it's not too long:

A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

812 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:55:57pm

re: #772 Ferris

You're partially right. Ludwig and Charles have faith in well-documented and well-organized evidence, of which there is a mountain of that supports the idea of AGW. Your reaction is to irrationally attack that evidence without actually trying to refute it and then turn butthurt when they call BS on you. You're seriously registering on the meter right now:

Youtube Video
813 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:56:15pm

re: #798 bosforus

Gee, next you'll be asking me when I stopped beating my wife.

Here's a hint, if you actually want to engage someone (and granted most people don't want that on this subject), ask slightly less loaded questions.

814 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:56:38pm

re: #801 Ferris

Be careful near open flames, your strawman collection might catch fire.

Just curious though but why isn't exactly as ludicrious to think the pro-AGW crowd is one big conspiracy?

Personally, I don't buy conspiracy theories but if one side can be accused of it, surely the other side can as well.

You're just trolling now, right?

815 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:56:53pm

re: #807 cliffster

You missed the point of what I was saying. I'm saying the climate is complicated. There's no way just any person on the streets can draw any meaningful conclusion no matter how many facts you give them. The best way for said person on the streets to get manipulated would be to give them a handful of facts, and a conclusion supported by those facts. They couldn't see through any problem with the conclusion.

The basics are not that complicated. You do not need to know the intriguing quantum chemistry of mercury fulminate for instance to know how a gun works.

Just look at the basic facts and think it through for yourself.

Why is that such an unreasonable demand?

816 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:01pm

re: #811 Sharmuta

What I and others have suggested is you read some credible sources like NASA and AIP. I think once you do that, you will have a more clear understanding that we do know the cause of the warming.

This is a good place to start and it's not too long:

A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

NASA? Hansen? mmmBop?

817 abbyadams  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:05pm

Look, I'm going to throw this in there about research.

It is a tremendously competitive profession. There is only so much money to go around, and if you lose a grant, you lose your livelihood.

When Charles says that peer review is harsh, he's exactly right. Because if you don't publish or contribute, your funding gets lost and is then free for someone else to take. No one is more critical of science than other scientists.

There seems to be in some places the impression that the scientific community is some old boys' and gals' club. That is simply not true.

818 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:18pm

re: #675 Ben Hur

She was attacked for having her kids with her on campaign etc, or even having a job at all because of her children.

Yes. And on the flip side, she was treated like a revolutionary madonna for having the 'courage' to have five darling children, and liberal women were trashed for their imaginary disapproval of her.

819 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:30pm

re: #792 Locker

I'm with brookly. And that's not what Darthstar said. Commenting on boorish behavior can be within the limits. I'd put DS' comment out of the limit.

pardon me if we've crossed this point before...still trying to catch up...

820 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:44pm

HAPPY CHANUKAH TO THE LIZARD NATION!

Peace.

BH.

821 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:50pm

re: #802 LudwigVanQuixote

Ok, so first off, that article really doesn't disprove anything about AGW. And second off, do you think journals like Nature, Science and Phys Rev are credible?

Do you think that the National Academy is credible?

What about the Royal Society - you know where Newton used to hang out?

What do the papers from there say?

The question posed by Charles was name one, repeat one, skeptical article printed in a credible peer reviewed journal. I was not arguing against AWG of which I personally am NOT a skeptic. So next time follow the thread instead of going into auto-attack mode.

822 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:57:59pm

re: #779 DaddyG

Yes, even though is a different topic than the one I took umbrage too. She does have a valid point in the case of her older daughters. If you are referring to a particular quote about people attacking Trig or the circumstances of his birth please link it so we can be sure we're discussing the same topic.

I'm talking about stuff like this:

msn.com...

ew.com...

huffintonpost.com...

823 Ben Hur  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:58:13pm

re: #818 SanFranciscoZionist

Silence!

Sufganiote time!

824 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:58:21pm

re: #809 LudwigVanQuixote

interesting how you refuse to look at a clearly laid out scientific argument and think it through. Look, follow the argument already the pieces are there.

All you are doing is refusing to think about them.

And I have to go too :)

See you later, Ludwig.

825 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:58:24pm

re: #800 Aceofwhat?

Farmville > debating energy sources on LGF??? Sinner//

So is Cafe World.

My name is Marjoriemoon and I'm a Zynga junkie.

826 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:58:32pm

re: #818 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. And on the flip side, she was treated like a revolutionary madonna for having the 'courage' to have five darling children, and liberal women were trashed for their imaginary disapproval of her.

I must have missed that news segment. I think she's been getting trashed pretty much from day one.

827 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:58:44pm

re: #816 Ben Hur

NASA? Hansen? mmmBop?

Ben I know you think that is clever. All you are doing is saying that some folks will go la lal alala I can't hear you when science is actually explained. Look at the basic facts laid out in this thread and process them.

The arguments are actually very straightforward.

828 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:58:57pm

re: #806 LemonJoose

So groups of political leaders have never in the history of man made huge mistakes based on popular, fashionable but inaccurate "consensus" beliefs?

what is consensus and what we ought to do are two very, very different topics. the only thing you get when you mix them is a crutch.

829 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:59:00pm

re: #814 Basho

Nope.

I simply gave your statement all the seriousness I felt it deserved.

I never said

Yes. Every government on earth is involved in a conspiracy together. That's reasonable.

I simply pointed out if you are going to question the motivations of one side, it's fair to consider the motivations of the other. The group conspiracy idea is yours and yes, is a strawman.

830 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:59:17pm

re: #808 brookly red

Well you are entitled to your opinion too, mine is that kids are off limits.

Could you at least acknowledge that there is a difference?

831 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:59:23pm

re: #688 recusancy

She's a millionaire now. She's upper class.

But she'll never be 'elite'. Or 'privileged'. And every woman with a white-collar job in an urban area will be.

832 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:59:44pm

re: #821 Big Steve

Except that article really isn't all that skeptical...

And wow everyone here seems to think that pointing out the flaws in their arguments is an attack.

833 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:59:55pm

re: #825 marjoriemoon

So is Cafe World.

My name is Marjoriemoon and I'm a Zynga junkie.

Sorry, dear - can you interpret? Zynga? I know of Farmville but i don't play.

834 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 1:59:55pm

re: #829 Ferris

Not my statement...

835 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:00:11pm

re: #799 Ben Hur

Name some of these pro-science scientists, who are unconvinced by AGW, then.

re: #806 LemonJoose

So groups of political leaders have never in the history of man made huge mistakes based on popular, fashionable but inaccurate "consensus" beliefs?

Like what?

836 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:00:14pm

OK Good holidays to all !

837 Locker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:01:01pm

Bla it's been fun but I get off an hour earlier on the Fridays when I work so it's time for the commute home.

Just to end on a good note I would like to say that I appreciate all of you (sockies excluded) and I seriously enjoy our debates and discussions. Peace ya'll.

838 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:01:21pm

re: #836 LudwigVanQuixote

OK Good holidays to all !

And to you as well.

839 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:01:37pm

re: #837 Locker

Bla it's been fun but I get off an hour earlier on the Fridays when I work so it's time for the commute home.

Just to end on a good note I would like to say that I appreciate all of you (sockies excluded) and I seriously enjoy our debates and discussions. Peace ya'll.

peace lock

840 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:01:58pm

re: #834 Basho

My applogies.

I got you confused with Obdicut

841 Bagua  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:02:26pm

re: #836 LudwigVanQuixote

OK Good holidays to all !

Joyful holiday to you as well!

842 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:02:29pm

re: #832 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that article really isn't all that skeptical...

And wow everyone here seems to think that pointing out the flaws in their arguments is an attack.

People are often thin-skinned these days. I think that many people feel that they need to be right to be seen as smart. In actuality, many of the smartest people get it wrong in their research quite a bit before they finally get it right. They just test their results before trumpeting them and make adjustments if they don't come out right.

843 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:02:48pm

re: #836 LudwigVanQuixote

OK Good holidays to all !

Peace out, LVQ. (insert favorite gang sign here)

844 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:03:33pm

re: #837 Locker

likewise.

845 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:03:58pm

re: #745 LudwigVanQuixote

Table 3. Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s
---Natural Human-Made Total
Carbon Dioxide
(Million Metric Tons of Gas) . . . 770,000 23,100 793,100

Ludwig, this table states that in the 1990s human-made CO2 accounted for 23,100/793,100x100= 2.91% of the total CO2 emissions.
Please do not insult my intelligence.

846 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:04:45pm

re: #832 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that article really isn't all that skeptical...

And wow everyone here seems to think that pointing out the flaws in their arguments is an attack.

There was no flaw in the argument, it just went over your head.

847 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:04:50pm

re: #833 Aceofwhat?

Sorry, dear - can you interpret? Zynga? I know of Farmville but i don't play.

The folks that created Farmville, Fishville (all the Villes), Cafe World, etc.

848 What, me worry?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:05:40pm

re: #833 Aceofwhat?

Sorry, dear - can you interpret? Zynga? I know of Farmville but i don't play.

My hubby is waiting for Bar World so he can get all his little fake people drunk and kick them out the bar.

849 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:06:29pm

re: #848 marjoriemoon

My hubby is waiting for Bar World so he can get all his little fake people drunk and kick them out the bar.

Ha! that definitely sounds like an upgrade over cafe world...

850 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:06:31pm

re: #777 cliffster

Are you actually saying that the ordinary, more-intelligent-than-average non scientist can look at "first principals" about the climate and come to any rational conclusions? For the limited link-following I've done, everything I've seen is quantitative (temperatures rising) and not qualitative (what is making it go up). And that's citing scientists work. How is some average schmuck supposed to think through the mechanics?

I've just been reading The Long Thaw by Archer and it gives some really good simple explanations by way of analogy. You'd have to get into the heavy duty science good and proper to understand from first principles just why CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there aren't any reputable scientists anywhere who will dispute that it is. A do-it-yourself science experiment on that point would be a matter of getting an IR light, an IR sensor, and some dry ice, and checking just how "bright" the light is when you shine it through a container filled with CO2 gas obtained by letting some dry ice sublimate inside that container. That's maybe too expensive and technical for your taste; it would be too expensive for my taste and also redundant from my point of view; I trust the other folks' measurements.

The math can also be difficult; doing it in any truly adequate detail is a huge challenge even with supercomputers. All we can say with back of the envelope calculations is that it would have to make some sort of measurable difference. Arrhenius, back around 1900, did the math as best he could manage with pencil and paper and got a conclusion that doubling CO2 would push up temperatures about 3 degrees Celsius. All the work done since then has tended to confirm that he'd got a good ballpark answer.

851 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:07:06pm

re: #822 Locker

I'm talking about stuff like this:

msn.com...

ew.com...

huffintonpost.com...


Yes. and she has a right to complain about the crap that was said during and after the campaign about her family. (i.e. oldest daughter as mother of Trig, Letterman joke about 14 y/o...) But that has nothing to do with my objection about the joke made above that implied she used Trig to avoid debate of issues.

The bottom line in the above discussion I was involved in was that she shouldn't have to be the subject of jokes for doing the same things the Obama's and other public figures have. The selective outrage reflects partisan lines and PDS/ODS.

852 DaddyG  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:09:01pm

re: #837 Locker

Bla it's been fun but I get off an hour earlier on the Fridays when I work so it's time for the commute home.

Just to end on a good note I would like to say that I appreciate all of you (sockies excluded) and I seriously enjoy our debates and discussions. Peace ya'll.

Later Locker - peace!

853 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:13:18pm

re: #845 Spare O'Lake

Table 3. Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s
---Natural Human-Made Total
Carbon Dioxide
(Million Metric Tons of Gas) . . . 770,000 23,100 793,100

Ludwig, this table states that in the 1990s human-made CO2 accounted for 23,100/793,100x100= 2.91% of the total CO2 emissions.
Please do not insult my intelligence.

You don't have any to insult. Once you've questioned, even by implication, the Absolute Truth as Delivered by Ludwig and Science, you're

either stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above

. (#443)

Unlike all other science, climate science cannot be falsified, according to Ludwig. It is 100%, unquestionably correct, and questioning it identifies you as lacking faith in it's Infinite Correctness and as a heretic.

Please don a hair shirt and begin to scourge yourself at once. In a carbon-neutral fashion.

854 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:13:30pm

re: #845 Spare O'Lake

Table 3. Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s
---Natural Human-Made Total
Carbon Dioxide
(Million Metric Tons of Gas) . . . 770,000 23,100 793,100

Ludwig, this table states that in the 1990s human-made CO2 accounted for 23,100/793,100x100= 2.91% of the total CO2 emissions.
Please do not insult my intelligence.

I don't know where you got that table. The fact of the matter is that world CO2 levels are up sharply, but the rise is smooth if you look at it year over year. Nothing in nature is doing anything it didn't do 200 or 400 or 1000 years ago. We are burning a lot of coal. Enough to more than account for the extra atmospheric CO2. The excess seems to have gone into the ocean (dissolved) and into regrowing the forests of North America. Currently, the atmospheric CO2 level is well over 25% higher than it would have been if we had not been using these fossil fuels.

Maybe THIS YEAR's CO2 emissions amount to only 3 percent of world atmospheric CO2. You could read your table again and check the caption. Or maybe, just maybe, the author of the article introduced an error along those lines.

It's NOT a point that's up for debate, that world CO2 levels are considerably higher than they were a century or two ago. We have the ice core bubbles. We have the facts. That bit of science is settled.

855 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:15:36pm

re: #813 Ferris

Gee, next you'll be asking me when I stopped beating my wife.

Here's a hint, if you actually want to engage someone (and granted most people don't want that on this subject), ask slightly less loaded questions.

I thought quoting you was a pretty fair way to get you to make an argument instead of just complaining about how the you see the argument's been handled. Guess not.

856 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:16:16pm

re: #853 SixDegrees

. (#443)

Unlike all other science, climate science cannot be falsified, according to Ludwig. It is 100%, unquestionably correct, and questioning it identifies you as lacking faith in it's Infinite Correctness and as a heretic.

Please don a hair shirt and begin to scourge yourself at once. In a carbon-neutral fashion.

AGW can be falsified if you can show that CO2 does not trap heat.

857 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:18:01pm

re: #856 Basho

AGW can be falsified if you can show that CO2 does not trap heat.

But not really, right? Isn't the point that the temperatures are going up? And, oh, btw, here's a few possible explanations, but if that's not right, then something else is..?

858 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:19:55pm

re: #857 cliffster

But not really, right? Isn't the point that the temperatures are going up? And, oh, btw, here's a few possible explanations, but if that's not right, then something else is..?

Err... we are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. How does that not raise global temperatures?

859 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:20:06pm

re: #853 SixDegrees

. (#443)

Unlike all other science, climate science cannot be falsified, according to Ludwig. It is 100%, unquestionably correct, and questioning it identifies you as lacking faith in it's Infinite Correctness and as a heretic.

Please don a hair shirt and begin to scourge yourself at once. In a carbon-neutral fashion.

Oh please. Ludwig and you both know better. The way you guys get your talking points is by ferreting out the marginal disagreements that scientists have about the exact details of AGW science, where necessarily some scientist is mistaken, and then hype that as a "the science is too uncertain" moment. By analogy,

doctors are uncertain whether smoking causes 93 percent of lung cancers, or only 91 percent.


--->

SCIENTISTS UNSURE OF SMOKING_CANCER LINK!!!


Ludwig really is 100 percent right that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There really isn't any way to disagree except to be wilfully ignorant. (I give you credit for being honest enough that you wouldn't pretend to disagree while agreeing, and for being smart enough that if you seriously sat down and tried to work it through, you would eventually see the logic. Wilfully ignorant is sometimes justifiable. I am wilfully ignorant of Major League Hockey, for instance. It's just too much trouble to learn.)

860 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:20:38pm

re: #858 Basho

Err... we are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. How does that not raise global temperatures?

Did you even read what I wrote?

861 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:21:51pm

re: #860 cliffster

Did you even read what I wrote?

I think you guys are just talking past each other. What Basho meant, I think, was that there IS a test you can use to falsify or prove the heat-trapping effects of CO2.

When scientists say, "This can be falsified", they don't mean, "You can disprove it," but, "If it weren't true, you could disprove it."

Does that make sense?

862 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:22:15pm

re: #855 bosforus

The problem is, every person who has pointed to other posibilities and research gets dismissed with attacks like those I outlined.

It's like saying "now that we dismissed all those other theories, why don't you tell us one that we won't dismiss out of hand".

It's clearly a stacked deck around here.

That's fine, most blogs have a point of view and an official or unofficial editorial policy, but I'm simply not interested in playing set up man for a round of "Look at the DENIER!"

863 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:23:39pm

re: #862 Ferris

Then why keep posting your tired stuff here?

864 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:24:20pm

re: #854 lostlakehiker

I don't know where you got that table. The fact of the matter is that world CO2 levels are up sharply, but the rise is smooth if you look at it year over year. Nothing in nature is doing anything it didn't do 200 or 400 or 1000 years ago. We are burning a lot of coal. Enough to more than account for the extra atmospheric CO2. The excess seems to have gone into the ocean (dissolved) and into regrowing the forests of North America. Currently, the atmospheric CO2 level is well over 25% higher than it would have been if we had not been using these fossil fuels.

Maybe THIS YEAR's CO2 emissions amount to only 3 percent of world atmospheric CO2. You could read your table again and check the caption. Or maybe, just maybe, the author of the article introduced an error along those lines.

It's NOT a point that's up for debate, that world CO2 levels are considerably higher than they were a century or two ago. We have the ice core bubbles. We have the facts. That bit of science is settled.

Wrong, carbon-breath. Follow my link and you will see it was a table in an official US DOE report which Ludwig admitted was a fine report.

In the 1990's only 3% of CO2 emissions were anthropogenic, while 97% were from natural sources.
Yet scientists have called human activity the primary driver of GW.
I say human activity may well be the straw that broke the camel's back, but it sure as heck was not the primary driver.
BTW, this does NOT mean that we should do nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but rather it only means that for reasons best known to them, scientists have used what appears to be a misleading term to characterize the data.

865 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:24:26pm

re: #856 Basho

AGW can be falsified if you can show that CO2 does not trap heat.

That would be one approach, among many. But that isn't my point, which is that Ludwig has announced that debate is to be shut down, that the conclusions in this case cannot be falsified and are not even subject to question, let alone falsification.

My argument is with taking the debate on climate completely outside the realm of science and placing it squarely within the realm of faith and absolutism, as Ludwig has done. And my position is that this is stupid and wrong.

I would also argue that, once the debate has been relegated to the realm of faith, constantly invoking science to shore up your position is hypocritical. If you're going to return the problem to the realm of science, then you have to play by science's rules, and falsifiability of hypotheses is central to the scientific method.

Asserting that debate simply isn't allowable is the most anti-scientific position I can imagine. It rankles and it's odious and it's the position of a mountebank when espoused by someone who claims elsewhere to uphold science.

866 Ovoid  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:25:04pm

re: #743 Charles

And yet, you'll accept the word of dishonest people paid by the energy industries with a question


Have you stopped beating your straw-man? This response goes farther to make my point than I could have.

867 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:25:18pm

re: #862 Ferris

Fair enough. And I apologize for not realizing that you had been involved for this entire thread. I thought you had just jumped in.

868 Ferris  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:26:12pm

re: #863 Obdicut

Because I do find the psychology of people who are so certain about things to be fascinating.

Everyone needs a hobby.

869 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:26:26pm

re: #859 lostlakehiker

Ludwig really is 100 percent right that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There really isn't any way to disagree except to be wilfully ignorant. (I give you credit for being honest enough that you wouldn't pretend to disagree while agreeing, and for being smart enough that if you seriously sat down and tried to work it through, you would eventually see the logic. Wilfully ignorant is sometimes justifiable. I am wilfully ignorant of Major League Hockey, for instance. It's just too much trouble to learn.)

No; my argument isn't with the science. It's with Ludwig's assertion that there is no science involved when he insists that there can be absolutely no dissent from his delivered wisdom. See above for more.

870 abolitionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:26:54pm

re: #330 Charles

When people thought the earth was flat, humanity hadn't even begun to understand the value of the scientific method. The amount of actual scientific knowledge at that time was easily expressed in a big round number: zero.

[snip]

I believe you exaggerate.

History of Geodesy

Hellenic world

Early ideas about the figure of the Earth held the Earth to be flat, and the heavens a physical dome spanning over it. Two early arguments for a spherical earth were that lunar eclipses were seen as circular shadows which could only be caused by a spherical Earth, and that Polaris is seen lower in the sky as one travels South.

The early Greeks, in their speculation and theorizing, ranged from the flat disc advocated by Homer to the spherical body postulated by Pythagoras — an idea supported one hundred years later by Aristotle. Pythagoras was a mathematician and to him the most perfect figure was a sphere.

Eratosthenes' measurement of the earth's circumference

"... We guess. ..." --Richard Feynman, describing one of the more mysterious steps in applying the scientific method.

871 cliffster  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:26:57pm

re: #861 Obdicut

I think you guys are just talking past each other. What Basho meant, I think, was that there IS a test you can use to falsify or prove the heat-trapping effects of CO2.

When scientists say, "This can be falsified", they don't mean, "You can disprove it," but, "If it weren't true, you could disprove it."

Does that make sense?

Ha, yes. I wasn't thinking in those terms. Thanks for the heads up.

872 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:27:29pm

re: #861 Obdicut

I think you guys are just talking past each other. What Basho meant, I think, was that there IS a test you can use to falsify or prove the heat-trapping effects of CO2.

When scientists say, "This can be falsified", they don't mean, "You can disprove it," but, "If it weren't true, you could disprove it."

Does that make sense?

Yes, the point is one can experiment on it to get answers. People just throw around the term falsification as if empirical evidence and cause and effect can be disproven.

873 recusancy  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:28:39pm

re: #866 Ovoid

Have you stopped beating your straw-man? This response goes farther to make my point than I could have.

See #749

874 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:30:16pm

re: #872 Basho

It's a good term, but it needs an explanation when you're not talking to a scientists, because the plain English meaning of it is, "You can show that it's not true", not "You could show it's not true if it weren't true".

It's kinda like explaining the theory vs. hypothesis thingy.

875 Basho  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:34:35pm

re: #865 SixDegrees


My argument is with taking the debate on climate completely outside the realm of science and placing it squarely within the realm of faith and absolutism, as Ludwig has done. And my position is that this is stupid and wrong.

I would also argue that, once the debate has been relegated to the realm of faith, constantly invoking science to shore up your position is hypocritical. If you're going to return the problem to the realm of science, then you have to play by science's rules, and falsifiability of hypotheses is central to the scientific method.

Asserting that debate simply isn't allowable is the most anti-scientific position I can imagine. It rankles and it's odious and it's the position of a mountebank when espoused by someone who claims elsewhere to uphold science.

Except it's not faith. Debate isn't allowable when one side has taken up the position of being contrarians and obstructionists.

876 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:37:45pm

re: #866 Ovoid

Have you stopped beating your straw-man? This response goes farther to make my point than I could have.

Yawn.

877 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:39:55pm

re: #875 Basho

Except it's not faith. Debate isn't allowable when one side has taken up the position of being contrarians and obstructionists.

Nor is it possible when the other side simply stakes out a position that they are absolutely and unquestionably correct, and announces that there will be no debate allowed because the matter is already settled.

This isn't science anymore. It's faith-based zealotry. And to be absolutely clear, I'll repeat myself: I'm singling out Ludwig for this criticism. Not anyone else. Not climate science in general. Not anything anyone, proponent or opponent of current climate hypothesis has stated. My criticism is that Ludwig has removed the argument from the realm of science and placed it in the realm of faith, and has demonstrated enormous hypocrisy in doing so.

878 bosforus  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:40:37pm

Ovoid the noid.

879 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:41:03pm

re: #877 SixDegrees

But the debate has been, scientifically, settled. It has been settled for quite some time.

880 iheartbolton  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:53:59pm

Right, and all deniers are funded by big oil.

But rent-seeking alarmist climate scientists are to be trusted without question.
Even if they undermine peer review and stonewall valid FOI requests.

881 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:59:36pm

re: #866 Ovoid

Have you stopped beating your straw-man? This response goes farther to make my point than I could have.

Boooring. I'm bored. Read earlier posts. Then read the book. then come back.

882 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:08:04pm

re: #879 Obdicut

But the debate has been, scientifically, settled. It has been settled for quite some time.

Science is never "settled." It always remains open to new data and new hypotheses. That the earth has warmed in recent times isn't science; it's simply a fact. Science comes into play in explaining why the warming is taking place. A new hypothesis could be offered tomorrow positing an entirely different mechanism for warming than any of those currently advocated; it could then be tested against reality to see if it held up or not. Likewise, new data, in this particular case, is constantly streaming in; no one, scientist or otherwise, can say with certainty that the next few year's worth of data won't make hash out of current hypothesis, or even of the evidentiary basis for them.

Newton's mechanics, for example, offer an absolutely superb mathematical model of orbital motion, one that is more than sufficient to predict the motion of all objects in the solar system with fantastic precision, and to guide satellites across the entire breadth of the system with sub-meter accuracy. Any hypothesis offered in place of Newton's has to at least match it's outstanding correlation with hundreds of years of accumulated observations of planetary motion, and even then might be rejected if all it did was equal Newton's predictions on the grounds of excess complexity. Or, it might win out, either because it was in some way simpler or more elegant, or because it explained new data or offered greater precision. And relativity did the latter (some would claim the former, as well) by providing an explanation for newly gathered data, along with some long-standing discrepancies between Newton and reality that had remained unexplained.

No one ever told Einstein to sit down and shut up, however, because the matter of planetary motion was "settled." No one told Wegener he was a fucktard because he posited a theory of movable continental plates. Well, actually, in Wegener's case some came quite close to such a response, but at the expense of the "settled" science of the day.

Insistence that the science behind climate is "settled" is grossly unscientific on it's face, and when flung down cavalierly as it so often is here it is even worse than that: it becomes deeply divisive and polarizing, as evidenced by comments like

If you disagree about the basic science of AGW, you are either stupid, ignorant, willfully blind, delusional or some combination of the above

which does nothing whatsoever to move the discussion forward, and is inherently averse to scientific inquiry in it's lofty dismissiveness and arrogance toward any opposing view, not to mention it's stereotyping and bigotry.

I think I know what you're trying to say here: that the science has been examined to the point where there aren't any apparent flaws in the measurements or the analysis that's been performed, and that several independent lines of inquiry have all tended to support each other. This places current hypothesis in the position of nicely explaining the data, but it does not make them unassailable, and it does not prevent new data from unseating them. And science remains completely open to the possibilities of the data taking an unforeseen turn, or of a new hypothesis being presented that explains the data as well, or better, than current ones. So the idea that the science is "settled" in some way is, simply, wrong in that it implies that science works in a way that it actually doesn't.

883 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:11:59pm

re: #882 SixDegrees

That was a long post.

The science is settled. CO2 added to atmosphere causes heating. Humans put out a lot of CO2.

There is an small chance that the current heating is not primarily caused by the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. It is a very small chance.

There is nothing at all wrong with saying the science is settled. CO2 acts in atmosphere to produce a greenhouse effect. That is completely settled science.

884 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:14:54pm

re: #883 Obdicut

That was a long post.

It was.

I guess you need to read it again.

885 iheartbolton  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:15:45pm

re: #883 Obdicut

do you agree that the medieval warm period was warmer than the past decade?

886 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:19:21pm

re: #884 SixDegrees

No, I really don't, dude. I understand you don't like Ludwig. I don't care.

You can say that science is settled. There's nothing wrong with doing so.

Do you think that the science of CO2 causing warming in atmosphere is somehow not settled?

887 ckb  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:44:54pm

re: #882 SixDegrees

which does nothing whatsoever to move the discussion forward, and is inherently averse to scientific inquiry in it's lofty dismissiveness and arrogance toward any opposing view, not to mention it's stereotyping and bigotry.

I think I know what you're trying to say here: that the science has been examined to the point where there aren't any apparent flaws in the measurements or the analysis that's been performed, and that several independent lines of inquiry have all tended to support each other. This places current hypothesis in the position of nicely explaining the data, but it does not make them unassailable, and it does not prevent new data from unseating them. And science remains completely open to the possibilities of the data taking an unforeseen turn, or of a new hypothesis being presented that explains the data as well, or better, than current ones. So the idea that the science is "settled" in some way is, simply, wrong in that it implies that science works in a way that it actually doesn't.

Absolutely wonderful post.

888 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 4:04:06pm

re: #886 Obdicut

No, I really don't, dude. I understand you don't like Ludwig. I don't care.

You can say that science is settled. There's nothing wrong with doing so.

Do you think that the science of CO2 causing warming in atmosphere is somehow not settled?

You're right. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it does retain heat in the earth's atmosphere. The role of CO2 in the "greenhouse effect" has been well understood for over 100 years. That's as "settled" as anything gets in science.

889 Teh Flowah  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 4:15:25pm

re: #884 SixDegrees

It was.

I guess you need to read it again.

That's because you're being pedantic. The phrase "the science is settled" doesn't have to mean forever, it can mean, as you already noticed, that the consensus is overwhelming and that no data out there questions it on a scientific level.

For laypeople, there is no difference between consensus and settled science.

For example, if you were to say that the Supreme Court settled a constitutional issue by making a ruling on it, that would be totally understood. If I were to be a prick about it, I'd say the statement was totally wrong. The Supreme Court overrules itself all the time. If not explicitly then they will find a way to distinguish cases and to obscure past decisions into oblivion so as to have the same effect as overruling it. This is ignoring the whole meta debate over why we as a society have decided that the Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is.

And yet, for the laypeople, to say that SCOTUS has settled the issue is enough. No need to get into semantics in my opinion.

890 Teh Flowah  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 4:17:10pm

re: #889 Teh Flowah

To add, you're just being a super anal scientist who hates it when non-scientists ask him to "prove something". Science can't prove anything. Every single scientific theory is always open to be disproved, but never provable. But to get hung up on such details when it is unnecessary, seems dumb.

891 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 5:17:05pm

re: #886 Obdicut

No, I really don't, dude. I understand you don't like Ludwig. I don't care.

You can say that science is settled. There's nothing wrong with doing so.

Do you think that the science of CO2 causing warming in atmosphere is somehow not settled?

No. And as usual, you've begun talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said and completely avoids the topic.

If you'd like to have a serious discussion rather than simply trolling, then pay attention and stay on topic instead of evading the issue at hand.

The topic, if you are really so dense, is climate science - not the simple physics of CO2. And your contention that climate science is a "settled" matter isn't even wrong; it is simply nonsensical in any scientific sense whatsoever, as previously discussed. You cannot make any prediction whatsoever about what future data may be like; you cannot even state an approximate certainty about whether it will trend the same, change, or if the latter in what direction. That lies in the future, and the future is unknown and unknowable. Nor can you say that other hypotheses will not be put forward that offer different models and predictions, because such hypotheses are also in the future and are by definition unknowable. Without such knowledge, you cannot form any opinion whatsoever concerning whether climate science is "settled" (which it can never be, because of the way science operates; see above) nor can you even develop an estimate of the certainty to which it is "settled."

Next time, when you've lost as badly as you have here, please refrain from putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. Although frankly, this seems to be beyond you; it's something you have done repeatedly now. If it's really that difficult for you to ascertain the topic under discussion and to follow along without allowing your stereotypes to insert hallucinations of things that were never said, perhaps you need to find a forum with an easier comprehension level.

892 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 5:17:27pm

re: #888 Charles

You're right. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it does retain heat in the earth's atmosphere. The role of CO2 in the "greenhouse effect" has been well understood for over 100 years. That's as "settled" as anything gets in science.

Please see my post, just above. This is starting to piss me off.

893 Roadkiller  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 5:32:42pm

I'm a little late to the party here, as usual, but I work all day and don't have a change to comment until the evening.

Anyway, my thought is that if Al Gore should debate anyone, it ought be Lord Monckton, who has been calling out the Goracle for years.

Unlike Gore and Monckton, Palin has not studied this issue with intensity and interest for the past 10 years. It would indeed be intersting if after ducking a debate with the knowledgeable Monckton for so many years, Al Gore and/or his supporters think he could/should beat up on the not-so-knowledgeable girl instead.

894 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 6:00:14pm

re: #893 Roadkiller

I'm a little late to the party here, as usual, but I work all day and don't have a change to comment until the evening.

Anyway, my thought is that if Al Gore should debate anyone, it ought be Lord Monckton, who has been calling out the Goracle for years.

Unlike Gore and Monckton, Palin has not studied this issue with intensity and interest for the past 10 years. It would indeed be intersting if after ducking a debate with the knowledgeable Monckton for so many years, Al Gore and/or his supporters think he could/should beat up on the not-so-knowledgeable girl instead.

"Lord" High Denier Monckton is a flat-out, raving kook, who appears on the Alex Jones conspiracy radio show. Here's what he wrote about AIDS in 1987:

... there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.

Not only a kook, a raving bigot. And a fraud as well. He's not a scientist, and he's been caught more than once lying and misrepresenting data to make his absurd, ludicrous claims about global warming.

You couldn't have picked a worse example of a climate change denier if you tried.

895 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 6:05:07pm

re: #892 SixDegrees

I what way is the greenhouse effect of CO2 not settled, then?

By your use of 'nothing is ever settled', you're not actually defending science. Science does consider things settled. It's settled that gravity can be approximated with the inverse square. It's settled that the genetic information on DNA is encoded on nucleotides, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. It is settled that uranium decays.

There are lots of things that are settled in science. More information about them can still be revealed, but that's not the same thing.

It is settled that CO2 in atmosphere traps more heat.

896 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 6:05:28pm

re: #892 SixDegrees

Please see my post, just above. This is starting to piss me off.

Sorry, man, I just do not agree with you on this. It's called "settled science" not because there's 100% certainty, but because the evidence is so overwhelming, and the consensus so broad that it's considered "settled" -- as far as anything ever is settled in science.

That doesn't mean there's no possibility at all that evidence might still be discovered that causes scientists to rethink the issues and revise their conclusions. It means that the evidence is so great it's extremely unlikely that this will ever happen.

897 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 6:10:24pm

re: #891 SixDegrees

Wow, I just noticed all of the personal attacks there.

You spent a lot of the thread attacking Ludwig, and now you're attacking me. I'm disagreeing with you, but I think I've managed to be polite about it. Is there any particular reason you need to accuse me of trolling so often? I think this is the third time you've done it.

I know that there is far more to climate science than just the effects of CO2 in atmosphere-- that's why there is the slight possibility that the current warming is not being driven by human activity. A very, very slight one.

But, regardless, CO2 still drives warming, and even if we were not the promoters of AGW, that science is still settled. And even if some revolutionary theory that showed some other reason for the current warming trend, it would do nothing to unsettle the fact that CO2 in atmosphere promotes warming. That is settled.

I also don't think declaring your opponent to have 'lost' is a useful or polite thing to do. And to me, your insistence that you can't ever say anything is settled in science is just solipsism, and not useful.

898 doubter4444  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 7:13:50pm

Hey Ludwig, welcome back

899 b_sharp  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 7:20:02pm

I know I'm late to the party, but why would anyone with more than two neurons to rub together want to waste time with somebody of the caliber of Palin?

900 b_sharp  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 7:24:21pm

re: #22 Jetpilot1101

How about we dispense with the niceties, set up a mud wrestling pit, let the strip down to their skivies and duke it out. That would be much more fun.

I'm sorry but that conjured up a visual I really want to scrub from my brain, so I had to down ding you.

901 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Dec 12, 2009 2:28:24am

re: #537 tradewind

I'm sorry you're having a bad day... please don't kick any dogs on your way home.///

Nice dodge, bigot


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 69 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1