And the stupidity continues........
What makes me laugh is that a number of those that were studying this have already come forward and admitted that they skewed their info purposely to achieve false-positives.
Global Warming is a hoax and yet another way to keep the voters away from paying attention to the truly important issues.
Remember folks, anything associated with Al Gore is usually a very stupid idea.
Man-bear-pig
"Global Warming" gets a re-branding
RJ~PWCM~JLA
2012/03/21 18:34:06
After years of swearing it's about "Earth in the balance", the Global Warming Profiteers have realized that their old sales pitch is dead. Kaput. FAILED!
So now they've adopted a new one to promote their elitist profit-making scheme. It relies on so-called "kitchen-table issues" such as gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.
Can you spell S - C - A - M???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html
So now they've adopted a new one to promote their elitist profit-making scheme. It relies on so-called "kitchen-table issues" such as gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.
Can you spell S - C - A - M???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html
Shhhh! Don’t talk about global warming!
There’s been a change in climate for Washington’s greenhouse gang, and they’ve come to this conclusion: To win, they have to talk about other topics, like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.
More than two years since Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan died in Congress, the strategic shift represents a reluctant acknowledgment from environmentalists that they’ve lost ground by tackling global warming head-on. Their best bet now lies in a bit of a bait and switch: Help elect global warming fighters by basing campaigns on kitchen-table issues.
“You don’t have to be James Carville to figure out that talking about people’s health and the health of their children … is going to make a difference to the average voter,” Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said.
Read the whole thing:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(NOTE: The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, that is.)
Read the whole thing:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(NOTE: The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, that is.)
Read More: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html
Top Opinion
-
TheTruth1313 2012/03/21 18:40:38
No study (a real scientific study mind you) has shown its use to be harmful.
Yeah, right.
Science always changes in the face of new information. You laymen seem to perceive this as a flaw, it is in fact its greatest strength.
http://scholar.google.com/sch...
"It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything."
Thiomersal isn't used to "deliver a vaccine quicker" (you can't get much quicker than an injection), its used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent.
Just as a side note 140 hours studying something is not at all a long period of time.
(With nose in the air) "I hereby pronounce that 140 hours is not at all a long time"
lol!
Typical conservative, when confronted by facts resort to insults.
"it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be."
This is exactly right.
And the complete antithesis of "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".
Science is never over.
http://www.hark.com/clips/tks...
The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers.
http://www.npr.org/templates/...
I know. You're gonna tell me that when Gore is right he's right, but when he's wrong he's wrong, and *you'll* be the judge of when he's right and wrong.
The debate can be over. If undeniable evidence for gravitons came out there would be no more debate between graviton and gravity waves, until such time further evidence came along and unsettles that concussion.
When I hear the "global warming scientists" denounce him in public, I'll stop giving him any credence.
Up above you said "Science is never over."
But now you're saying it "can be over."
IOW, it's over when YOU decide it's over? Wrong.
Let look at what I really said. "The debate can be over", I didn't not say the science can be over. The debate and the science are not the same. The science of evolution is on going, the debate whether it happened or not has long be over. The debate would being again in the light of new evidence to the contrary.
Climategate revealed no such thing. I only further proved that most people are to stupid to understanding what was written there. Various investigations found no wrong doing on the scientists part. I'm sure you'll just brush that off as further evidence for the conspiracy.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25%...
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).