ExiledInIllinois Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Wait a second, don't Liberals tend to live along the coasts? Global Cooling Warming Climate Change We Can Believe In Disruption Chaos might not be such a bad thing after all Yes. That's why I live 600' above sea level. Wipe 'em all out and you still have to deal w/me... :-P :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Overreacting? No, just wondering why you responded to my post didn't answer my question. Wow, settle down. Ok! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Wow, settle down. Ok! Settle down? WTF are you talking about? I think someone needs to cut back on the coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 So are you saying the drought in CA going on now (which may end next rainy season due to El Nino) is caused by climate change but the many droughts over the past 1,000 years have been caused by weather? Is this what you're saying? What you gotta hope for is that BIG El Nino doesn't make it pour... Ground has to be like concrete. Won't a lot of places look like the Utah storms that just hit. It would be nice if this El Nino eases into the rain! Let the land get a chance to soak it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 What you gotta hope for is that BIG El Nino doesn't make it pour... Ground has to be like concrete. Won't a lot of places look like the Utah storms that just hit. It would be nice if this El Nino eases into the rain! Let the land get a chance to soak it in. What we need are the reservoirs filled and a deep snow pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Did the Reagan Library go up in smoke yet? Do we have extra copies of: "Dick & Jane", "Superman" comic books, and "See Spot Run!" Let's all say a prayer! What we need are the reservoirs filled and a deep snow pack. True! BUT a slow steady fill @ first until the ground gets saturated will be the best! Then it can pour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Did the Reagan Library go up in smoke yet? Do we have extra copies of: "Dick & Jane", "Superman" comic books, and "See Spot Run!" Let's all say a prayer! True! BUT a slow steady fill @ first until the ground gets saturated will be the best! Then it can pour! We'll take whatever mother nature throws at us. We have zero control over it. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 UN AND OXFAM CAUGHT BRIBING NEW ZEALAND MEDIA TO WRITE CRUSADING CLIMATE STORIES. In the US, way back on New Year’s Day 1970, Walter Cronkite marched into CBS’s news offices and bellowed, “God damn it, we’ve got to get on this environmental story,” according to one of his producers — and Uncle Walter’s network has been producing endless crusading climate stories ever since. In 1990, Andrea Mitchell claimed that when it comes to environmentally themed stories, “clearly the networks have made the decision now, where you’d have to call it advocacy.” And in 2007, old media house organ Editor & Publisher was advising its customers that when it comes to “Climate Change: Get Over Objectivity, Newspapers.” I’m sure the Kiwi equivalent of the MSM appreciated the extra walking-around money, but how much bribery was really needed to sway them? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Interesting: when referencing those who know the science behind global warming cooling climate change is bunk, AP Stylebook drops use of the word "deniers" or "skeptics" and urges use of the word "doubters." Justified, yet bold move. To call them 'deniers' incorrectly implies that the science is settled. Even AP knows that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I deny nothing... The earth is changing, getting warmer... Who cares? Adapt and overcome, you won't stop it even if humans are the cause. Why even argue w/these changers, there is absolutely no point. And I am progressive/liberal and I see the errors of their way. Too bad I didn't buy a VW... I would never take it it for the recall. Not that I approve of what the company did, but sorry too late. Oh the horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) Interesting: when referencing those who know the science behind global warming cooling climate change is bunk, AP Stylebook drops use of the word "deniers" or "skeptics" and urges use of the word "doubters." Justified, yet bold move. To call them 'deniers' incorrectly implies that the science is settled. Even AP knows that's not the case. I consider myself a skeptic. I don't deny the warming trends or the work that goes into quantifying it. I don't doubt climatologists are doing their best with the research and there will be variable quality in any scientific research. But I am first and foremost skeptical about the large role ascribed to humans and the apparent dogma driving it and affecting the research. Edited September 23, 2015 by GaryPinC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) But I am first and foremost skeptical about the large role ascribed to humans and the apparent dogma driving it and affecting the research. That's pretty much my feelings on AGW too. The politicization of the issue has completely poisoned the well. Your use of the word 'dogma' is spot on. Edited September 23, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Wasn't really trying to hit a home run here, but thanks for overreacting Apparently posting anything with even a tiny particle of logic or sense now = hitting a 'home run'. I consider myself a skeptic. I don't deny the warming trends or the work that goes into quantifying it. I don't doubt climatologists are doing their best with the research and there will be variable quality in any scientific research. But I am first and foremost skeptical about the large role ascribed to humans and the apparent dogma driving it and affecting the research. Yup....basically this. Which is also the mindset of pretty much every intelligent person I know -- at least those who haven't otherwise been corrupted to simply repeat every left wing talking point they can get their hands on. It's frightening how many otherwise intelligent people fall into that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 It's frightening how many otherwise intelligent people fall into that category. Frightening and depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Frightening and depressing. "Global warming cooling climate change," "Racism" and "The rich": a SoProg's answer to probably 95% of the questions they're ever asked. Go ahead. Think of a question you would ask a SoProg and watch how easily one of those answers works for them. What is the cause of terrorism? Global warming cooling climate change. Why do so many people opposed the WH Iran deal? Racism. Why have minorities earned less money since Obama became president? The rick keep the money for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Why have minorities earned less money since Obama became president? The rich keep the are hoarding money for themselves. Come on....get your talking points right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 During brief remarks, the pope waded into two of America’s most highly charged political debates, praising the United States as a nation of immigrants and offering a strikingly forceful and explicit endorsement of Mr. Obama’s regulatory program to fight climate change. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/politics/pope-francis-obama-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Why have minorities earned less money since Obama became president? The rick keep the money for themselves. Oooooh that Rick guy. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/politics/pope-francis-obama-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Wait, I thought the Vatican and Catholics were bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Apparently posting anything with even a tiny particle of logic or sense now = hitting a 'home run'. Yup....basically this. Which is also the mindset of pretty much every intelligent person I know -- at least those who haven't otherwise been corrupted to simply repeat every left wing talking point they can get their hands on. It's frightening how many otherwise intelligent people fall into that category. The thing that bugs me about this is the reason for the change: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/23/the-associated-press-drops-the-ugly-climate-term-denier-in-their-ap-stylebook/ "Some background on the change: Scientists who consider themselves real skeptics – who debunk mysticism, ESP and other pseudoscience, such as those who are part of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry – complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic. They say they aren’t skeptics because “proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” That group prefers the phrase “climate change deniers” for those who reject accepted global warming data and theory. But those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science." BS. We're not rejecting it you dolts! There are components and assumptions, however, regarding the degree of man's role which I consider scientifically controversial. By calling ourselves skeptics we are wanting for more scientific and critical investigation. I consider myself skeptical about ESP, ghosts, etc. but don't summarily dismiss it because I try and keep as open a mind as possible. Definitely haven't seen enough evidence to firmly believe though. Call me a skeptic, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/politics/pope-francis-obama-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Funny how a party whose majority thinks God is a myth and Christians are crazy is suddenly citing the leader of the Catholic church as an authoritative voice on a topic that a majority of Americans believe is a myth. Let me know when the Pope praises Obama on forcing Catholic churches to pay for abortions. I'm sure the NYT will have a front-page story on that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts