Author Topic: Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore (Read 4668 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #195 on:** June 23, 2006, 08:16:58 AM »

I'm not sure that "everyone" feels that they are "centrist"... I do feel that a lot of people who hold radical right wing and left wing views feel that they know what is best for individuals and..... worse... that they are being "fair" about it.

Fox news is great in that it allows people a choice and a balance to the normal far left only news. It should be watched with that in mind and we should be grateful that it exists. Some... who would want only the lefty party line to be expressed by the media, would want fox news gone.

lazs

Dos Equis · « **Reply #196 on:** June 23, 2006, 01:43:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I'm not sure that "everyone" feels that they are "centrist"... I do feel that a lot of people who hold radical right wing and left wing views feel that they know what is best for individuals and..... worse... that they are being "fair" about it.

Fox news is great in that it allows people a choice and a balance to the normal far left only news. It should be watched with that in mind and we should be grateful that it exists. Some... who would want only the lefty party line to be expressed by the media, would want fox news gone.

lazs

Ironic comment, given that the GOP coordinates every year to kill the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding and destroy PBS. I don't know of a single liberal who has ever advocated censorship of FOX News. We just make fun of it.

lukster · « **Reply #197 on:** June 23, 2006, 02:19:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dos Equis
Ironic comment, given that the GOP coordinates every year to kill the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding and destroy PBS. I don't know of a single liberal who has ever advocated censorship of FOX News. We just make fun of it.

You make it sound like the left/socialist/liberal media is being kept down by the big bad GOP man. Did you forget about CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN? Won't even mention the predominantly socialist press.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #198 on:** June 23, 2006, 02:22:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
You make it sound like the left/socialist/liberal media is being kept down by the big bad GOP man. Did you forget about CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN? Won't even mention the predominantly socialist press.

If you look at the USA Today logo upside down and squint, it becomes a portrait of Trotsky.

Please. Tell that to the Knight-Ridder shareholders.

bj229r · « **Reply #199 on:** June 23, 2006, 10:41:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dos Equis

This is great. Thanks GTaRA2. You got it. Except the part about me. You don't have to listen to me, just listen to the people whose science is based in fact and empirical studies. And take note of the Bob Carter's of the world, who go to work for "Competitive Enterprise" groups that are really funded by Exxon.

Is that so hard? To know who is buttering your bread and to think for yourself and do a bit of research? I found out Bob Carter was an Exxon shill in about 2 minutes.

As for religion. Well... it's very premise is flawed. Don't accept anything on faith.

So if the scientist isn't employed by a 'proper'left-leaning group, his findings are null and void? You make the point that many on the right have been saying: the topic of global warming, for many scientists, is more a compilation of their left-leaning political views than it is science--you get to punish big business AND the United States all at once. The only sure fact is that the world's temperature has gone up 1 degree over the last century...someone will have to explain to me why -26 degrees instead of - 27 degrees is killing Polar Bears

Jackal1 · « **Reply #200 on:** June 24, 2006, 08:07:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
The only sure fact is that the world's temperature has gone up 1 degree over the last century...someone will have to explain to me why -26 degrees instead of - 27 degrees is killing Polar Bears

I don`t think it is the temp that`s getting them. I think it`s from eating too much salted horse meat.

lazs2 · « **Reply #201 on:** June 24, 2006, 09:31:47 AM »

LOL dos ekk... you are such a socialist that you don't even see it in yourself..

Booo Hoooo mean old republicans want to kill funding for PBS!!!

I am fine with either party killing funding for both PBS and Fox news.

So go ahead and kill all the funding for fox news. Why should I support PBS with my money? Why should I hve to pay for them to get their lefty view out on the air?

If it is any good then they don't need to be subsidized. But then... you probly feel that school vouchers are wrong too.

I know you figure that government should be able to control globval climatic changes and that we should pay em to do it.

lazs

Dos Equis · « **Reply #202 on:** June 27, 2006, 01:29:13 PM »

Uh-oh, 'ol Al got 5 stars from over 100 scientists.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science

I guess they ALL must be liberal, huh?

Yeager · « **Reply #203 on:** June 27, 2006, 01:48:03 PM »

Uh-oh, 'ol Al got 5 stars from over 100 scientists.
====
how many scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #204 on:** June 27, 2006, 09:09:00 PM »

Richard S. Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Quote

Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen

Shuckins · « **Reply #205 on:** June 27, 2006, 10:49:01 PM »

Yeager,

In response to your question "How many scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?" I would submit the following reply:

They would probably never actually get around to screwing a new bulb in.

The group of scientists would first have to study the phenomenon of the light bulb, formuate a hypothesis of why or how it works, study similar phenomena in other environments, test their hypothesis on both a random and a control group, observe the results, draw conclusions from their results, publish a paper and then submit said paper to a peer review board, conduct a series of lectures in various countries to win support for their study and its conclusions, and finally, start a new study to determine what impact said lightbulb would have upon the environment.

Lastly, they would probably, ultimately conclude that the lightbulb was NOT a result of "intelligent design."

Regards, Shuckins

beet1e · « **Reply #206 on:** June 28, 2006, 05:16:15 AM »

...always cracks me up the way some people pooh-pooh science, despite a huge swathe of scientific achievement in the last 100 years alone, but place absolute faith in a Deity.

Shuckins · « **Reply #207 on:** June 28, 2006, 06:11:59 AM »

Beetle, it was a JOKE son! A FUNNY! A Yuk Yuk!

You've lost the ability to appreciate a good har-dee-har!

You're built too low to the ground...that one went right BYE ya!

You're educated beyond your CAPACITY!

Pay ATTENTION boy!

Nice kid, but he doesn't listen to a word ya say.

Regards, Shuckins

Jackal1 · « **Reply #208 on:** June 28, 2006, 08:55:37 AM »

LOL Shuckins

"I say, I say , I say boy. That ain`t no chicken. "

lazs2 · « **Reply #209 on:** June 28, 2006, 08:57:00 AM »

allways cracks me up when people place so much faith in the theories of scientists even when allmost every long range theory/prediction they have ever agreed on turned out to be false or mostly so.

They seem to be very narrowly focused group of people who can't adapt rapidly to new information or even a lot of information when it comes to making long range predictions.

Sci fi writers have a better record for predicting the future.

lazs