May 29, 2007
Pelosi On Climate Change -- Right On Reality, Wrong On Cause
Nancy Pelosi just does not get it.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality," and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue.
Actually, Nancy, I know of very few folks who doubt climate change outright. What we question is the cause, the mechanism, behind it.
The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it.""It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland — it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.
Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005.
Yes, it has -- but has it been caused by human beings? Or has it been part of a cyclical change in climate that occurs over a 1000-1500 year period -- after all, have you never thought of why it was called GREENland by those who discovered it? The climate was much more temperate a millenia ago, while we are now coming out of a period which is often referred to by historians and climatologists as the Little Ice Age.
Oh, and by the way -- who rejected Kyoto? Try Bill Clinton, who never submitted it to the Senate -- and the unanimous Senate that expressed its opposition to the treaty in 1998.
Posted by: Greg at
05:20 AM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is more comedy gold. You, with all the knowledge inherent in being a rightwing blogger, assert that Pelosi, who gets advice from the leading scientists, "just doesn't get it." You get your advice from discredited fringe elements. Whom should we trust?
Posted by: Dan at Tue May 29 11:17:25 2007 (IU21y)
2
Dan, having studied the history of the matter, it is hard to make an argument that this is not part of a cyclical change.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 29 12:43:18 2007 (aLOwA)
3
I don't disagree that cyclical change may be playing a part, but this is faster and more intense that cyclical change, and it is pretty clear that man has enhanced the cyclical change, and that man can have an effect on it.
Posted by: Dan at Tue May 29 13:41:44 2007 (IU21y)
4
And given the history of cyclical change, I don't believe that we as a species have that great an impact upon it or the ability to reverse/minimize it. After all, human beings didn't make GREENland green the last time.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 29 23:09:27 2007 (Pwk48)
5
Your belief is charming, but no more factual than someone who believes that global warming is a plot by Cheney. The truth is that mankind has injected vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. (You do believe in chemistry, don't you? We agree that burning of fossil fuels produces CO2, don't we?)
Arguing that global warming is not a problem because temperatures have always fluctuated is like arguing that Andrea Yates is not guilty because children have drowned before.
Arguing that global warming is not a problem because temperatures have always fluctuated is like arguing that Andrea Yates is not guilty because children have drowned before.
Posted by: Dan at Tue May 29 23:36:03 2007 (IU21y)
6
Dan -- we are today seeing exactly what has happened in the past without human intervention. To argue that it is today caused by human intervention is an absurd religious view, but hardly science.
You are guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
You are guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed May 30 00:31:24 2007 (rcI03)
7
I had that "post hoc ergo propter hoc" one time and the doctor gave me some antibiotics and it went away.
Dan, sorry but your “religion of global warming†caused by humans is not scientific. One volcano going off would do more than all the coal factories ever built to saturate the atmosphere with suspended particulates, enough to cancel out any perceived governmental imposition on how we operate in this age of technology. The root of the environmental movement has nothing to do with saving Bambi from choking on soot; but has to do with imposing sanctions on the free market in order to force capitalism into a box so that socialism can dominate and take over.
Dan, sorry but your “religion of global warming†caused by humans is not scientific. One volcano going off would do more than all the coal factories ever built to saturate the atmosphere with suspended particulates, enough to cancel out any perceived governmental imposition on how we operate in this age of technology. The root of the environmental movement has nothing to do with saving Bambi from choking on soot; but has to do with imposing sanctions on the free market in order to force capitalism into a box so that socialism can dominate and take over.
Posted by: T F Stern at Wed May 30 01:44:05 2007 (/XKHe)
8
TF - According to real scientists (not bloggers posing as scientists, "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)".
That is interesting that your opposition to science is based on fear of socialism. I didn't know you were still afraid of that bogey-man. Most of us who believe that the threat is real and man-made think that entrepreneurialism will be the ultimate solution. Other countries are far ahead of us in creating and marketing sustainable and carbon-neutral technologies.
That is interesting that your opposition to science is based on fear of socialism. I didn't know you were still afraid of that bogey-man. Most of us who believe that the threat is real and man-made think that entrepreneurialism will be the ultimate solution. Other countries are far ahead of us in creating and marketing sustainable and carbon-neutral technologies.
Posted by: Dan at Wed May 30 02:21:18 2007 (n1xH/)
9
You may want to consider these real scientists -- all of whom formerly supported the religion of man-made global warming -- before you dismiss those who who think the idea that human beings are causing climate change as unscientific.
I'm particularly sympathetic to the views of Dr. Veizer.
I'm particularly sympathetic to the views of Dr. Veizer.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 31 00:29:06 2007 (DYCXj)
10
I'm familiat with that tiny group of outliers who have not produced any peer-reviewed scholarship to support their conclusions. RWR, really, you should give up on trying to argue the near-unanimity of scientific opinion on this issue. Given the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, and the fantastic financial resources that people like Imhoff have to reward those who will support the rightwing agenda, it's more surprising that so FEW scientists are willing to jump on board.
Posted by: Dan at Thu May 31 01:42:21 2007 (n1xH/)
11
Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler -- they were all outliers, too,arguing against the near-unanimous scientific opinion of their day. They should have simply given up and conceded that the Ptolemaic system was right and the universe revolved around the earth. Music of the spheres, anyone?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 31 02:04:34 2007 (DYCXj)
12
Thank you for the set-up, RWR. I thought you might blunder in to this one eventually.
The men you mention were scientific pioneers whose work was taken seriously and rather quickly accepted by the scientific community. They ran into trouble, however, with the religious and civil communities, where their ideas caused considerable discomfort and fear of change.
They "won" because they looked at evidence and used the scientific method - they were not driven by dogma and attachment to the status quo.
Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler pissed off the right wing bloggers of their day.
The men you mention were scientific pioneers whose work was taken seriously and rather quickly accepted by the scientific community. They ran into trouble, however, with the religious and civil communities, where their ideas caused considerable discomfort and fear of change.
They "won" because they looked at evidence and used the scientific method - they were not driven by dogma and attachment to the status quo.
Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler pissed off the right wing bloggers of their day.
Posted by: Dan at Thu May 31 02:17:59 2007 (n1xH/)
13
And these scientists will one day be seen as the pioneers who broke the lock on public opinion held by the high-priests of the religion of man-made global warming and the left-wing bloggers and activists (and socialists) who want to impose the religious dogma of global warming upon the unbelievers.
We've already seen your side start issuing fatwas about deviation from the true faith -- I'm just waiting for the beheadings to begin.
We've already seen your side start issuing fatwas about deviation from the true faith -- I'm just waiting for the beheadings to begin.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 31 02:36:45 2007 (QlSYv)
14
By your deranged rantings about high priests, religious dogma, unbelievers, socialists, fatwas, heheadings and true faith, it's obvious you're uncomfortable discussing science . . .
Science is evidence-based, and there is plenty of evidence for man-enhanced global warming.
Science is evidence-based, and there is plenty of evidence for man-enhanced global warming.
Posted by: Dan at Thu May 31 06:19:01 2007 (n1xH/)
15
No, Dan, the problem is that the man-made global warmingists have declared that their dogma is beyond discussion and contradiction, that those who do dissent should be professionally sanctioned and punished for crimes against humanity, and refuse to consider the validity of other arguments. that isn't science -- that is cult-like faith. Indeed, it is a fundamentalism akin to that of the Islamists -- and since we have already seen acts of eco-terrorism in an attempt to end offending uses of resources, I'd have to argue that your side is straying into the practices of the Islamo-terrorists as well.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 31 07:08:52 2007 (WpKDO)
16
What scientist has declared that "their dogma is beyond discussion and contradiction," or "that those who do dissent should be professionally sanctioned and punished for crimes against humanity." I doubt that you can find such a person.
As for the eco-terrorists, they are a fringe group that predates global warming discussion.
As for the eco-terrorists, they are a fringe group that predates global warming discussion.
Posted by: Dan at Thu May 31 12:09:39 2007 (IU21y)
17
Interestingly enough, Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch and The Nation -- someone with whom I rarely agree -- has made my point for me in a current column. An analysis of the column may also be found at Newsbusters.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 31 13:33:36 2007 (GJXrX)
18
Scientists? No.
Your failure to distinguish between scientists and bloggers is exactly why you are so confused.
Your failure to distinguish between scientists and bloggers is exactly why you are so confused.
Posted by: Dan at Thu May 31 14:29:36 2007 (IU21y)
19
Sorry I am not exclusively citing the clergy of the Wamingist faith.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 31 15:00:01 2007 (GJXrX)
20
You are citing pundits and bloggers. You are talking about a policy debate, not a scientific debate.
Posted by: Dan at Thu May 31 23:24:23 2007 (IU21y)
21
And when I cited scientists, you rejected them as well. You only want the priesthood of your religion to be cited -- or Pope Al Gore.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 1 02:18:51 2007 (dK8q9)
22
Wrong again, RWR. I pointed out that they are a group of outliers who have not produced any peer-reviewed scholarship to support their conclusions. If they produce some research that supports them, I'll be interested in what they have to say.
Now, even Bush agrees that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed. Are you sure you still want to deny reality?
Now, even Bush agrees that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed. Are you sure you still want to deny reality?
Posted by: Dan at Fri Jun 1 09:50:00 2007 (n1xH/)
23
I'll take the outliers over the in=liars any day.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 1 13:10:47 2007 (J5SH0)
24
Unlike you, i don't blindly follow my party leaders. Bush is wrong on this one.
The question is, since when did you consider Bush an authority to cite on anything?
The question is, since when did you consider Bush an authority to cite on anything?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 1 13:12:38 2007 (J5SH0)
25
he's no authority - he's the dumbest man in america, outside of a couple rightwing bloggers. But even he knows the truth.
Let's see, we have both parties and 99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists) all in agreement, and some untrained blogger knows more than them all.
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Let's see, we have both parties and 99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists) all in agreement, and some untrained blogger knows more than them all.
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Posted by: Dan at Fri Jun 1 14:41:43 2007 (IU21y)
26
Well, Dan, if he's so dumb, I would think you would question being on the same side as him. And I'd argue that you are hard pressed to prove that "both parties" are in agreement on the issue. I can (and do) support any number of environmental initiatives without falling for the warmingist hoo-doo.
And would you care to document the "99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists)" claim with a statistical analysis to support your claim -- or is that more of your religious faith in action, deferring to the words of Pope Al Gore? Or, perhaps, are you simply pulling a couple of numbers out of your ass and trying to pass them off as truth -- perhaps revealed truth?
And would you care to document the "99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists)" claim with a statistical analysis to support your claim -- or is that more of your religious faith in action, deferring to the words of Pope Al Gore? Or, perhaps, are you simply pulling a couple of numbers out of your ass and trying to pass them off as truth -- perhaps revealed truth?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 1 15:02:23 2007 (yHruv)
27
Regarding Bush, even stupid people are correct some of the time. I don't mind being on Bush's side when he's correct, and he is, on occasion. We now have the democratic leadership and the republican leadership agreeing that global warming must be addressed - sounds like consensus to me!
As for the unanimity issue, I'm glad you asked. Go read this article.
It baffles me why you are so insistent on bringing religion into this issue. It's a scientific issue - really. I have no allegiance to one side or the other. If the evidence changed and the scientific consensus changed, I would follow. I simply want to follow the best knowledge possible. You keep on recasting this into a battle of religious positions, but that is solely your concern.
As for the unanimity issue, I'm glad you asked. Go read this article.
It baffles me why you are so insistent on bringing religion into this issue. It's a scientific issue - really. I have no allegiance to one side or the other. If the evidence changed and the scientific consensus changed, I would follow. I simply want to follow the best knowledge possible. You keep on recasting this into a battle of religious positions, but that is solely your concern.
Posted by: Dan at Sat Jun 2 07:04:17 2007 (IU21y)
28
No, Dan, your source does not validate your statistics. What is the source of "99.9% of scientists (100% of published scientists)" agree on the subject, as it is not in the article that you cite -- especially given that the article itself is rather dated and specifically acknowledges that many of the articles in question do not deal with the issue of man-made global warming at all?
Did Gaia appear to you and give you divinely revealed information? Or did you simply pull the numbers out of your ass in an attempt to lie your way into rhetorical victory?
Did Gaia appear to you and give you divinely revealed information? Or did you simply pull the numbers out of your ass in an attempt to lie your way into rhetorical victory?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 2 08:34:58 2007 (4wjSS)
29
100% of published articles that addressed the topic agree that man-enhanced global warming is real. 100%.
As for the 99.9 percent of scientists agreeing with it, that was based on the number of scientists, which is in the hundreds of thousands, and the 10 or so that Imhofe and the wealthy industrialists managed to get to agree with them.
And, really, do you want to talk about lying? After I busted you for fabricating a quote by Harry Reid so you could get a chuckle out of calling the troops liars, to your perpetual shame? And you refused to admit when you were wrong about the BMJ? You live in a glass house of inaccuracy, buddy.
And, again, what's with the religious imagery? I don't get it.
As for the 99.9 percent of scientists agreeing with it, that was based on the number of scientists, which is in the hundreds of thousands, and the 10 or so that Imhofe and the wealthy industrialists managed to get to agree with them.
And, really, do you want to talk about lying? After I busted you for fabricating a quote by Harry Reid so you could get a chuckle out of calling the troops liars, to your perpetual shame? And you refused to admit when you were wrong about the BMJ? You live in a glass house of inaccuracy, buddy.
And, again, what's with the religious imagery? I don't get it.
Posted by: Dan at Sat Jun 2 09:39:35 2007 (IU21y)
30
In other words, based on one 2 1/2 year old paltry review of the literature (much of which in no way addressed the matter and did, in fact, seem to indicate that climate change is a natural phenomenon in the past) you gin up a statistic of dubious validity.
And you simply make up out of whole cloth your other statistic, without reference to any valid survey research to collect actual data.
I guess you must be one of the "in"-liars -- and think that making up numbers out of whole cloth is fine since it suits your cult-like devotion to the religion of man-made global warming.
And you simply make up out of whole cloth your other statistic, without reference to any valid survey research to collect actual data.
I guess you must be one of the "in"-liars -- and think that making up numbers out of whole cloth is fine since it suits your cult-like devotion to the religion of man-made global warming.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 2 11:04:35 2007 (uU25c)
31
Also, Dan, would you please document your claim that "hundreds of thousands" of scientists accept global warming. A comprehensive list -- divided by specialty and alphabetized, will be acceptable.
And no, Dan, I did not call the troops liars -- that remains one of your biggest lies.
And no, Dan, I did not call the troops liars -- that remains one of your biggest lies.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 2 11:43:52 2007 (uU25c)
32
Oops, I apologize. You are absolutely correct. You called our troops "losers". And thought it was funny. How could I forget? It's good to see you still remember the specifics - it's good to know you have a sense of shame.
As for the hundreds of thousands, here's a partial list of organizations endorsing man-enhanced global warming:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
I'll admit I haven't totalled their membership, but I'm feeling pretty confident they represent hundreds of thousands.
As for the hundreds of thousands, here's a partial list of organizations endorsing man-enhanced global warming:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
I'll admit I haven't totalled their membership, but I'm feeling pretty confident they represent hundreds of thousands.
Posted by: Dan at Sat Jun 2 12:13:38 2007 (IU21y)
33
In case the list isn't big enough for you, you can add in these organizations, too - they're on my side:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Are there any distinguished organizations on your side?
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Are there any distinguished organizations on your side?
Posted by: Dan at Sat Jun 2 12:24:35 2007 (IU21y)
34
Excuse me -- my typo -- I did not call the troops losers. Indeed, what you continue to lie about was a satire directly criticizing those who do call our troops losers. You still seem to dumb or dishonest to recognize th difference -- and i'm pretty sure now that it is a question of dishonesty.
And you still have failed to provide the list of "hundreds of thousands" of scientists -- you list a number of organizations, only some of which are climate related, and attempt to claim that anyone associated with them must agree with the notion of man-made global warming. That doesn't cut it. Please provide the complete list of the "hundreds of thousands" of individual scientists who you claim have support your religious faith -- or admit that you are a liar on this subject as well.
And you still have failed to provide the list of "hundreds of thousands" of scientists -- you list a number of organizations, only some of which are climate related, and attempt to claim that anyone associated with them must agree with the notion of man-made global warming. That doesn't cut it. Please provide the complete list of the "hundreds of thousands" of individual scientists who you claim have support your religious faith -- or admit that you are a liar on this subject as well.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jun 2 23:22:59 2007 (cfyi0)
35
If you think I'm going to compile a list of members of each of those organizations just to satisfy your odd curiosity, you've gone around the bend. I've proven my point, and you've yet to find a single scientific organization which backs you. By the way, each of those organizations I've listed endorses the finding of man-caused climate change.
Why do you think Bush has accepted the finding, as well?
Why do you think Bush has accepted the finding, as well?
Posted by: Dan at Sun Jun 3 03:30:31 2007 (IU21y)
36
No, Dan, you made the explicit statement that "hundreds of thousands" of scientists back your view, not that "many organizations" accept the view.
it appears you are unable or unwilling to back your statement up with the data you demanded of me -- therefore, by your own standard, I am forced to conclude that you, Dan, are a liar.
And as far as the President is concerned, maybe you have finally succeeded in convincing me that he is "the dumbest man in America" -- especially in light of his position on the current immigration bill. Why would I want to take my lead from "the dumbest man in America"? And why would you use his agreement with your position as evidence I should support your position? hardly seems logical.
it appears you are unable or unwilling to back your statement up with the data you demanded of me -- therefore, by your own standard, I am forced to conclude that you, Dan, are a liar.
And as far as the President is concerned, maybe you have finally succeeded in convincing me that he is "the dumbest man in America" -- especially in light of his position on the current immigration bill. Why would I want to take my lead from "the dumbest man in America"? And why would you use his agreement with your position as evidence I should support your position? hardly seems logical.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 3 12:30:20 2007 (SC697)
37
This might be interesting to you -- if you really have an open mind on the matter, and are not afraid of "losing your religion".
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 3 12:49:58 2007 (SC697)
38
It appears he's smarter than you, on both this point and on immigration, so if you will accept him as your intellectual superior, it will be a tiny step toward being a real thinking person, instead of a knee-jerk defender of all that is wrong.
We both know I'm right about hundreds of thousands of scientists backing my view, and they are represented by the many, many organizations I cited. Your demand for a list of them is just a silly distraction - a desperate cry for an impractical level of proof of what everyone already knows.
I don't recall demanding a list of people who agree with you - is this yet another of your lies, RWR?
I'm not demanding, but politely asking, is there a single reputable scientific organization that denies the phenomenon of man-enhanced global warming?
You seem to be getting awfully hostile about this issue - why is that? Are you feeling kind of lonely, now that everyone outside of a couple fringe elements and one insane republican congressman from Oklahoma? Are you going to start throwing nazi comparisons, like he has?
We both know I'm right about hundreds of thousands of scientists backing my view, and they are represented by the many, many organizations I cited. Your demand for a list of them is just a silly distraction - a desperate cry for an impractical level of proof of what everyone already knows.
I don't recall demanding a list of people who agree with you - is this yet another of your lies, RWR?
I'm not demanding, but politely asking, is there a single reputable scientific organization that denies the phenomenon of man-enhanced global warming?
You seem to be getting awfully hostile about this issue - why is that? Are you feeling kind of lonely, now that everyone outside of a couple fringe elements and one insane republican congressman from Oklahoma? Are you going to start throwing nazi comparisons, like he has?
Posted by: Dan at Sun Jun 3 12:58:34 2007 (IU21y)
39
Got some more dissenters for you -- but you will probably call them outliers, since they are not a part of your undocumented/non-existent "hundreds of thousands" of in-liars.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 3 13:31:10 2007 (SC697)
40
Interesting article - it's funny how he manages to twist differences in prioritization into conflict about science. But, I'll admit he doesn't seem nearly as unhinged as some bloggers. I haven't read all his articles yet, but thanks for directing me to him.
Posted by: Dan at Sun Jun 3 13:55:18 2007 (IU21y)
41
Gee -- anyone who disagrees with you is insane or stupid now. Seems like you are truly looking for rational debate and discussion. Must be part of what makes you one of Al Gore's in-liars.
And I'm simply asking you to document your assertion of "hundreds of thousands of scientists" -- you know, to prove your assertion. If that constitutes hostility, then I think the problem is the weakness of your argument, not the tone of my response.
And I'm simply asking you to document your assertion of "hundreds of thousands of scientists" -- you know, to prove your assertion. If that constitutes hostility, then I think the problem is the weakness of your argument, not the tone of my response.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 4 00:56:15 2007 (IaRx8)
42
Where have I stated that "anyone who disagrees with me is insane or stupid now"?
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 4 11:23:09 2007 (IU21y)
43
I think your comment about an insane congressman and "fringe elements takes care of the insane part -- and that the previous statement about a few bloggers being dumber than the president can be reasonably seen as indicating that you believe those who disagree with you are stupid or insane. Interestingly, you don't disavow that interpretation.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 4 11:29:07 2007 (iW1RX)
44
I've pointed out some people who are insane and stupid - but thtat doesn't mean that ANYONE who disagrees with me fits that description, does it?
You really need to take a lesson in reading for meaning.
You really need to take a lesson in reading for meaning.
Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 4 14:58:00 2007 (IU21y)
45
By the way, Dan, would you care to provide evidence documenting Senator Inhofe's mental illness -- from an appropriate professional source, of course.
Or are you simply sliming your political opponents with nasty charges that are not grounded in reality?
Or are you simply sliming your political opponents with nasty charges that are not grounded in reality?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 4 15:38:37 2007 (xG90E)
46
It's an opinion, and one based upon reading about the man. It's based in reality, but I haven't obtained a medical release from him, so I can't provide you with the documentary proof. Sorry. Maybe you could use the power of this blog to get him to sign such a release.
Posted by: Dan at Tue Jun 5 12:51:43 2007 (IU21y)
47
In other words, it is you sliming someone you politically disagree with and making libelous statements about him.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 5 13:41:44 2007 (9iDAH)
48
hahahaha - this may be your most foolish entry yet. After attacking democrats with all kinds of names and irrational allegations, and calling our troops losers, you, of all people, are getting your panties into a bunch over my opinion that Inhofe is insane?! Oh, toughen up, you sissy! I never thought you would be one to get all misty-eyed over a little tough talk!
Posted by: Dan at Wed Jun 6 14:37:27 2007 (IU21y)
49
1. There you go again, Dan -- calling your opponents irrational. Seems to be a pattern with you.
2. No, I did not call the troops losers -- you continue to intentionally misinterpret a satire. Apparently you are the only one allowed to engage in satire -- or do you really wish to revoke American citizenship for those who do not meet your standard for Americanism?
3) I notice, you don't deny your libel of the Senator.
4) Misty-eyed? hardly.
2. No, I did not call the troops losers -- you continue to intentionally misinterpret a satire. Apparently you are the only one allowed to engage in satire -- or do you really wish to revoke American citizenship for those who do not meet your standard for Americanism?
3) I notice, you don't deny your libel of the Senator.
4) Misty-eyed? hardly.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 6 14:59:12 2007 (s3l8i)
39kb generated in CPU 0.044, elapsed 0.0764 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0429 seconds, 78 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.0429 seconds, 78 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.