Just because Rush Limbaugh said that does not mean that it is true. I often disagree with tenguy and prntr, but I respect their intelligence, their knowledge, and their intellectual integrity. You have not earned that respect.

 

I say tomato you say tomahto. lol

 

And Rush Limbaugh. He has built a career on telling reactionaries lies that they want to believe.

 

It's nothing but a form of entertainment and advertising outlet that keeps people hating jews, muslims, atheists, etc so that the right wing can get their way.

 

We better send Al Gore over to China , so that he can stop them, but then again,,maybe you should re-read the posted links with a semi- open mind and not worry about China.

 

Honestly I'm just not to concerned with anything having to do with global warming. Even if it is fake, it is still causing many companies to research technology that will keep us from being so dependent on oil. If you can't agree that saving money by switching to solar panels or hybrid cars is a good thing than I am done with this conversation.

 

I do and will agree with alternative energy sources, I have nothing against that, what I am against is the major crisis that the media and the politicians are making this minor problem out to be. Alternative energies are a good idea,,but fossil fuels cannot and should not be ruled out along with nuclear energy.

 

Well of course they can't be ruled out but us as a people should certainly take into account the effects that they have on the environment. Both sides, left and right have their own techniques to distract the people especially through the media. I stay away from all national news. I trust NPR and BBC as credible news outlets. Other than that I am not scared to get my information from having to read a great deal of information. The problem with America is they are so lazy they would rather not watch the president's speech and just listen to what Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have to say about it. The viewers of these programs are probably not the type of people to do the research for themselves.

 

They don't do it themselves, they have people that are trained to do it ,,just like your NPR and BBC media outlets.


I dont listen to Obama, simply because I'm sick of hearing his voice.

 

Im not saying NPR and BBC are flawless, I am just saying they are a bit more credible than lets say, Fox News and CNN.

If that is the case, read the speech.

 

Ace, most of it comes from right here:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

Proof you ain't got.

 

REALLY???

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2007/10/30/45214.html



This just fucked up your theory on that.

And here is a touch of reality

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12535

 

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked

List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Sen. James M. Inhofe once famously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." It's a deliciously concise phrase – so well said, in fact, that it demands repeating, because it is so sure of itself, and so wrong...

But it takes a Hercules up to 12 labors-worth of boredom to prove it. Our Hercules is Mark V. Johnson, who works for AOL's Propeller.com. He endured 413 labors, one for each supposed expert on Inhofe's list, so you wouldn't have to.

Here's a quick breakdown of Johnson's findings:
Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
49 are retired
44 are television weathermen
20 are economists
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.

 

When one reads a controversial point of view that is amply footnoted, one should study the footnotes.

Once I read a book by D. James Kennedy, who was a prominent religious right televangelist. He mentioned a report that Pontius Pilate sent to the Emperor Tiberius attesting to the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. Such a report, if valid, would be highly significant. This mention was footnoted. However, the footnote merely pointed to another book written by another contemporary author of the religious right.

Another time I found a book that argued that soy beans and soy bean products were unhealthful. It too was amply footnoted. However, none of the footnotes pointed to reputable sources.

The consensus of the experts is more likely to be true than false. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.

 

Footnotes are often used to provide the appearance of great factual weight behind an assertion. But I always had the view that if the footnote really contributed anything valuable to the author's position, he/she wouldn't have relegated them to footnote status. I think, for the most part, that they should only be used to document a source, and endnotes work better for that purpose.

 

The sad thing is, no matter how many times we respond to these things and document the facts, we always have to start again a few days later at square one. Sometimes it's the same person reviving the lie...sometimes it's a different person. But the lie lives on.