Here We Go Again

[3rdnlng]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40865

 

With all this cold and snow maybe we should reward greenhouse gas emitters instead of penalizing them. If greenhouse gas is causing global warming then releasing more of it would certainly save on energy to keep our homes warm.

[DC Tom]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40865

 

That is one seriously retarded web site.

Edited December 29, 2010 by DC Tom

[3rdnlng]

That is one seriously retarded web site.

 

Was there something wrong with the article?

[Gene Frenkle]

Was there something wrong with the article?

Would you mind linking to the AP article instead?

[3rdnlng]

Would you mind linking to the AP article instead?

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRb2CA1DnQdPvlWmI5ADfjTz-lTw?docId=328b30b21ef54b97a51fdacdcbeb06dc

 

Since you obviously don't know how to Google, feel free to click on the link above. Take your mouse and put that little funny arrow over the link. When you have accomplished that, click on the left side of your mouse. That should get you to your precious AP article. Now you won't be so free to criticize the source rather than the message.

[Gene Frenkle]

http://www.google.co...51fdacdcbeb06dc

 

Since you obviously don't know how to Google, feel free to click on the link above. Take your mouse and put that little funny arrow over the link. When you have accomplished that, click on the left side of your mouse. That should get you to your precious AP article. Now you won't be so free to criticize the source rather than the message.

Such a nicer article without all the animated ads, pics of Ann Coulter and venomous opinion. If you were really clever, you might have included a lmgtfy link. If you were really clever.

 

Personally, I'm not opposed to regulations involving greenhouse emissions. I'm sure you'll find plenty of support for your view in the coming posts.

[3rdnlng]

Such a nicer article without all the animated ads, pics of Ann Coulter and venomous opinion. If you were really clever, you might have included a lmgtfy link. If you were really clever.

 

Personally, I'm not opposed to regulations involving greenhouse emissions. I'm sure you'll find plenty of support for your view in the coming posts.

 

I guess we will just have to agree on this point. Makes a lot of sense.

Edited December 29, 2010 by 3rdnlng

[....lybob]

I guess we will just have to agree on this point. Makes a lot of sense.

At this point it's stupid to spend any money trying to reduce CO2 that bird has flown, the tipping points are tipped- start spending money on dikes and desalination plants.

[3rdnlng]

At this point it's stupid to spend any money trying to reduce CO2 that bird has flown, the tipping points are tipped- start spending money on dikes and desalination plants.

 

You can spend all the money you want on dikes but it probably isn't going to get you anywhere. Haven't you heard that "don't ask, don't tell" is not in place yet?

[/dev/null]

Such a nicer article without all the animated ads, pics of Ann Coulter and venomous opinion. If you were really clever, you might have included a lmgtfy link. If you were really clever.

 

What if the site had pics of Bill Nye?

[DC Tom]

Was there something wrong with the article?

 

Let's see...it starts out by establishing moral outrage using a topic completely irrelevent to the article's topic. Then it misrepresents the CRU memos in loaded terms. Then it environmental policy - twice - in loaded terms. And that's in the first paragraph. Taking out all the bull ****, you can reduce it to:

 

The Republican House that does not look kindly on climate change regulation. The Obama Administration is directing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses.

 

The first paragraph contains only TWO factual, relevant items, and states them in a completely slanted fashion. So yeah, I'd say there's something wrong with the article.

[3rdnlng]

Let's see...it starts out by establishing moral outrage using a topic completely irrelevent to the article's topic. Then it misrepresents the CRU memos in loaded terms. Then it environmental policy - twice - in loaded terms. And that's in the first paragraph. Taking out all the bull ****, you can reduce it to:

 

 

 

The first paragraph contains only TWO factual, relevant items, and states them in a completely slanted fashion. So yeah, I'd say there's something wrong with the article.

 

Do you prefer the AP article, referenced above?

[IDBillzFan]

What if the site had pics of Bill Nye?

Then ....lybob would probably find it more agreeable.

Edited December 30, 2010 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

Do you prefer the AP article, referenced above?

 

Yes.

[Gene Frenkle]

Yes.

He sees little difference between the 'Human Events' and AP articles, which of course is completely the problem.

[3rdnlng]

He sees little difference between the 'Human Events' and AP articles, which of course is completely the problem.

 

I took the same thing from both. I can filter out if there is any bs in an article and take the facts and leave the rest behind. You, OTOH don't like the facts so you criticize the messemger.

[DC Tom]

I took the same thing from both. I can filter out if there is any bs in an article and take the facts and leave the rest behind. You, OTOH don't like the facts so you criticize the messemger.

 

Yeah, I can glean nuggets of information from seriously retarded sources, too. Doesn't make the less retarded.

 

But it wouldn't say much of me to rely on them either, would it?

[3rdnlng]

Yeah, I can glean nuggets of information from seriously retarded sources, too. Doesn't make the less retarded.

 

But it wouldn't say much of me to rely on them either, would it?

 

Were the two linked articles similar in fact?

[DC Tom]

Were the two linked articles similar in fact?

 

Yes, but not in tone.

 

That's actually important to people who don't need to be told how they're supposed to feel about a topic. I mean, I, for one, can read the facts and decide on my own whether or not I should be outraged about something. But if you need to be told that You Should Be Upset About This, Because The <<insert boogemen here>> Are Poopy-Heads, then by all means continue on with your little self-validating retarded web sources. 'Cause I'm always up for a good laugh, and now that conner's not providing that bull ****...

 

Edit: and in fact, I miswrote when I said "Yes" above. I should have written "no". Re: previous post, a few up.

Edited December 30, 2010 by DC Tom

[3rdnlng]

Yes, but not in tone.

 

That's actually important to people who don't need to be told how they're supposed to feel about a topic. I mean, I, for one, can read the facts and decide on my own whether or not I should be outraged about something. But if you need to be told that You Should Be Upset About This, Because The <<insert boogemen here>> Are Poopy-Heads, then by all means continue on with your little self-validating retarded web sources. 'Cause I'm always up for a good laugh, and now that conner's not providing that bull ****...

 

Edit: and in fact, I miswrote when I said "Yes" above. I should have written "no". Re: previous post, a few up.

 

So, make up your mind. Yes, No, or Yes but not in tone? DC, I would never expected this out of you, but this post by you makes me feel like I'm the one conversing with Connor.