Thanks for posting your �kind� remarks, Doug. What can I say? I�m a masochist.
Since you basically called me a liar, (I know, that's what friends are for) let�s start with the link to Wikipedia. That link accomplishes at least three things: (1) It gives a very concise, and I think, accurate explanation for the Oregon Petition in the first two paragraphs of the �article.� (2) The remainder of the �article" serves as yet another example of the blatantly biased �reporting� in the main. Even within the �article� itself the content�s neutrality is questioned. And (3), it serves as the perfect epistemological test piece. In short, the decision to use an admittedly biased article, as opposed to a direct link to the petition or the organization itself, was a pragmatic one. Your response gave me the information I needed, though I certainly didn�t expect you, or any of the others who hold this view, to criticize me for linking to an article sympathetic to �the cause.� If anything I expected to be praised for providing something the �melters� would never entertain in their wildest dreams: BALANCE.
To reiterate the gist of the original post is probably a waste, but just in case others have trouble with my prose here it is: The overall schema of the original post was the blatantly biased �reporting� by a media elite sympathetic to the �melting� establishment. It was NOT a denial of climate change; it was an indictment of those who control information in the main. Their actions are not indicative of journalism; it�s proselytizing, plain and simple. Thus, reporters who indulge in such things deny the people who rely on this information the �luxury� of making an accurately informed decision.
To answer the twisted ad hominem assertion parroted from the Wikipedia article I've included an excerpt conveniently left out of the piece from the actual OISM site: "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist." Emphasis mine.
Here you�ll find more information which gives another side of the story conveniently ignored by the media for now. I've also included a link to the Association of British Drivers I thought you'd find amusing. The answers to your objections as well as data supporting your points are all embedded within this post. ENJOY!
Chad
Chad your blog is filled with anti-global warming propaganda. Are you telling me the reasoning for your article had nothing to do with that agenda? You’re saying you didn’t post that link to cast apersion on the validity of global warming? There seems to be a consistent theme in your responses, articles, discussions, and that is no one has the right to question you, your agenda, or the agenda of your “camp”. Any questions, criticisms are 1) “biased” 2) “conspiracy” 3) “personal attacks” (ad hominem) or 4)all of the above.
This piece is a great example. The media is engaged in a “conspiracy”, I’m personally attacking you because I question the validity of your claim of “hypocrisy”, and the questions concerning the petition are “biased”. How bloody convenient.
Speaking of “bias”. The Bush administration is filled with people who have made millions and millions of dollars off fossil fuels. Are you telling me they have no “bias”, and have nothing to gain if humanity continues on its current path? If Bush were Clinton, Reps would have lynch mobs outside the White House. How many times do these people have to show you they cannot be trusted? If someone is accused of 1000 crimes, unethical or immoral acts, the odds are at least a few of the accusations are valid.
I know you’re not naive or stupid, so I must assume you know better. If I’m right then what’s the “logic” behind your stance?
Doug, this is a writers forum. As long as the prose my writers submit isn’t indecent, and the images or cartoons they create aren’t lewd or pornographic, they have creative license on this forum. You do as well. So your comment that “no one has the right to question [me], [my] agenda, or the agenda of ‘[my] camp’” (whatever that means) simply doesn’t hold water. If that were the case, I certainly wouldn’t publish your comments.
And the answers to your questions are as follows: No; At least once more;) and since you’ve already told me that it doesn’t matter what I say, “I’m just wrong,” there’s no point in explaining the “‘logic’ behind my stance.”
Have a good un doc.
You never answer my questions anyway. But the best part is you always manage to blame it on me somehow.
I’m just trying to get you to think. Not that you need to think. But in this case you need to think.
Hey, Doug, I’ll answer your questions!
“Chad your blog is filled with anti-global warming propaganda. Are you telling me the reasoning for your article had nothing to do with that agenda?”
Okay, I guess I can’t answer that one, as I’m not Chad. I will however talk about “propaganda,” defined as “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”
Chad, and myself, and many, many others are not attempting to harm anyone. We’re trying to counter the human-caused global warming being spread by a bunch of hucksters trying to milk the government for grants and sucker the public into buying books that are works of fiction.
“You’re saying you didn’t post that link to cast apersion on the validity of global warming?”
I may not be Chad, but yep, that’s what the link was for- to show the fallacy of Algore and the Carbon Littles.
“There seems to be a consistent theme in your responses, articles, discussions, and that is no one has the right to question you, your agenda, or the agenda of your ‘camp.’”
Dang! Them’s fightin’ words! You’re callin’ Chad a liberal! ‘Cause Liberals have CLEARLY shown they are the ones who cannot be questioned.
“The media is engaged in a “conspiracy”, I’m personally attacking you because I question the validity of your claim of “hypocrisy”, and the questions concerning the petition are “biased”.
I gotta agree with you there- it most definitely is not a conspiracy. The Media is made up of a bunch of companies intent on making money. They’d stab each other in the back in a heart beat to make a profit. The misguided beliefs of the folks working for these companies just happen to all be pumping out the same propaganda (that global warming is human caused) coincidentally- not as a concerted, group effort. Birds of a feather, so to speak.
“The Bush administration is filled with people who have made millions and millions of dollars off fossil fuels.”
Really? How many is filled? Four and Twenty? Let’s see, how many people are there in the Bush Administration? I think you’re exagerating. I will admit though that I have made money off fossil fuels. Or rather, saved money. I’ve driven my car to gas stations solely to buy cheaper gas, or to stores to catch things on sale. Without fossil fuels I couldn’t have done this. A penny saved is a penny earned. I feel so dirty.
“Are you telling me they have no “bias”, and have nothing to gain if humanity continues on its current path?”
What path is humanity on? Are liberals a different species? Sorry, that’s answering a question with a question. Umm… seeing as none of us here are telepaths, we really don’t KNOW what their goals are, now do we?
“If Bush were Clinton, Reps would have lynch mobs outside the White House.”
Dang! I missed the lynch mobs outside the Whitehouse when Slick Willie was in! Can you tell me when that was- I’d love to see pictures.
“How many times do these people have to show you they cannot be trusted?”
I don’t know about Chad, but once would be enough. Seeing as how we haven’t had any terrorist attacks in Indiana since the Iraq invasion, I’m happy with their work so far.
“If someone is accused of 1000 crimes, unethical or immoral acts, the odds are at least a few of the accusations are valid.”
Aha! So you admit, Hillary, Slick Willie and Barack binObama are evil! Good for you!
“If I’m right then what’s the ‘logic’ behind your stance?”
Now you’re right? I thought you were left. I’m just plain confused now. What was the question- oh, yeah, my stance. I used to favor the isosceles, but after training in the USAF I find myself favoring the modified Weaver when shooting. Logically speaking, the Weaver is superior to the isoscles, because you present a narrower profile to your opponent, and would be harder to shoot.
A bunch of caricatures.
“Umm… seeing as none of us here are telepaths, we really don’t KNOW what their goals are, now do we?”
Funny you would say that. You are somehow able to predict, channel what the “goals” of those you oppose are, but you have no idea what the “goals” of those you support are.
“Seeing as how we haven’t had any terrorist attacks in Indiana since the Iraq invasion, I’m happy with their work so far.”
Based on this statement and your relatively low expectations for those you support, I’m assuming you also supported Clinton, Jimmy Carter and every other Dem President in history. Last I checked Indiana has NEVER been attacked by terrorists.
“We’re trying to counter the human-caused global warming being spread by a bunch of hucksters trying to milk the government for grants and sucker the public into buying books that are works of fiction.”
This is pretty bold statement considering you’ve demonstrated on more than one occasion that you have no understanding and/or knowledge of the science behind Global Warming.
There’s a reason people are required to have education when it comes to certain topics. Call me crazy, but I’m not about to listen to someone’s “theory” about how Global Warming is “junk science” when the majority of their argument is sarcasm and cutesy commentary. Maybe in your “camp” this is considered an effective style of debate. To me, it just comes across as adolescent, and more accurately like a defense mechanism. You know you have no idea what in the Hell you’re talking about.
The truth is, almost your entire argument against Global Warming is based on your dislike of Al Gore, who by the way is not a scientist. Nor did he “invent” the idea of Global Warming. Yes, he’s pimped it, yes, he’s made money off it. But to use this as a basis for dismissing decades of science is irrational at best.
People have made hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars off of Jesus and Christianity. Does that mean your religion is also “junk”?
You and those in your “camp” seem to have no real standards. They change based on the situation and who’s doing the talking. One minute you “hate” hypocrisy, the next you completely ignore it. One minute you require “absolute proof” before you’ll accept something as “truth”, the next you don’t need any proof at all.
Look at everything I’ve written at the Capitol News, on my blog, hell I’ll even send you my personal writings. Not one time will you ever read where I’ve invoked the names of Al Gore, Bill Clinton or any other “liberal” as a way to support my views. I have no political agenda. I’m not a Dem trying to put down the “mean old Republicans”. Such thinking is moronic. Partisanship, at least in my opinion, is an activity in which only the weak willed, and marginally intelligent engage. So, you can keep calling me “liberal” all day long, but like I said previously, just because you and those in your “camp” say something is “so”, doesn’t make it “so”. And I can only thank God for that.
“This is pretty bold statement considering you’ve demonstrated on more than one occasion that you have no understanding and/or knowledge of the science behind Global Warming.”
Actually you’re the one who doesn’t understand.
I find it interesting that there is a very striking parallel between the evolution argument and the Global Warming argument.
In evolution vs. creationism, the monkey boys (Church of Darwin) rant and rave that evolution is provable and therefore Christians/Creationists are wrong.
Sadly, they dont’ realize that it’s the THEORY OF EVOLUTION that is actually in dispute, not evolution itself. Evolution is a process, proven by a MONK. The Theory of Evolution was actually Lamarck’s idea first, as an aetheist explanation for man’s origin. Darwin merely tried to prove this with examples of evolution.
Global Warming is similar. Yes, the Earth is getting warmer. It has done so throughout history, going through cold and warming periods. The problem is the Melting Cult wants us to believe it’s because of human activity. Ten years ago it was because of too many farting cows and unregulated factory emissions. Ten years before that it was too much hair spray.
The Sun is why the earth is warm. Period. It’s not because of farting cows, or Big Hair, or all those factories that were supposed to move to Mexico.
We can prove this by examining data on hand.
If humans were the cause of global warming, this would be the first time in history that the earth was warming, or it would be out of sequence with past warmings. We know that the current warming trend is right in there, on time, per ice core samplings. And we also know there weren’t factories, SUVs or hair spray way back when.
On the other hand, if solar activity is to blame, then surely something similar must be happening elsewhere in our little solar system. And sure enough, it is. Mars is undergoing “global warming.”
Maybe the face on Mars has gas?
First, one more time, argument by assertion is not acceptable proof. Just because you say “we” know it’s not true doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Second, who is “we”? “We” implies that you are a scientist. But we both know you’re not. In fact, all you did was take a couple of snippets of information and then try to bluff your way through it. Oh, and of course you relied on your typical name calling, stereotyping, sarcasm and cutesiness (My word).
Here’s an example of how I “know” you don’t “know” what you are talking about. In one of your articles you stated that the Supreme Court “decided” that CO2 was a “greenhouse gas”. This is not true. They “decided” the EPA could regulate CO2. Carbon Dioxide was established as a “greenhouse gas” long ago. It is a scientific “Fact” that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”. There is no dispute about that, and you didn’t even know.
Here’s the biggest difference between you and I. People tell you something, and as long as they are part of your “camp” you believe them. If someone from another “camp” tells you something, you don’t believe them. That may seem “logical” to you, but it goes back to a statement I made previously. The problem with surrounding yourself with people who think just like you is that if you are wrong there’s no one to speak up.
I realize all of this pointless, and that you made up your mind before you ever even looked at this issue. Dems and Reps made this a political issue, but it’s not a political issue. And that is sad because people motivated by politics make irrational decisions, and once they do it is hard to go back.
The Supreme Court declared CO2 a pollutant, and therefore regulatable by the EPA. What government body previously declared it a greenhouse gas…? None. Just a bunch of treehugging econuts. The Supreme Court has made that previous unofficial declaration official (at least in the U.S.)
We? “We” means mankind. Never claimed to be a scientist.
And I don’t have a camp- more of a cave. Not many people are welcome. And I don’t base my decisions on others; I think for myself and lean toward solving problems with Occam’s Razor.
If you can’t understand the simple logic of global warming being caused by the Sun, then there’s no point arguing anything with you.
You wouldn’t understand.