Why we should listen to the 97%

[FA_Q2]

It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

 

[bripat9643]

You can thank our anti-democratic Sacred Cow Constitution for that. It was written behind closed doors by slick lawyers for the 1% of that time, ratified by the state legislators representing only their own states' 1%. The people never voted on it, just like we don't vote on Amendments. Notice how the Right Wing scribbling prostitutes for the plutocracy are the ones who worship it the most?

Thank god the vast mass of numskulls weren't allowed to have any say in the Constitution. If they had, the US would have descended into chaos 100 years ago.

BTW, thanks for announcing to the entire forum that you despise the Constitution.

Constitutionazis make the Land of the Free just like a theocratic dictatorship with the Constitution as its Bible. Supreme laws and Supreme Courts are for Supreme Beings, and not believing in the Constitution is no different from not believing in Supreme Beings.

"Constitution nazis?" Really? That's a whole lot better than bonafide communists like you. What do you believe in, Das Kapital?

 

[Abraham3]

You can thank our anti-democratic Sacred Cow Constitution for that. It was written behind closed doors by slick lawyers for the 1% of that time, ratified by the state legislators representing only their own states' 1%. The people never voted on it, just like we don't vote on Amendments. Notice how the Right Wing scribbling prostitutes for the plutocracy are the ones who worship it the most?

Thank god the vast mass of numskulls weren't allowed to have any say in the Constitution. If they had, the US would have descended into chaos 100 years ago.

BTW, thanks for announcing to the entire forum that you despise the Constitution.

Constitutionazis make the Land of the Free just like a theocratic dictatorship with the Constitution as its Bible. Supreme laws and Supreme Courts are for Supreme Beings, and not believing in the Constitution is no different from not believing in Supreme Beings.

Whoa! Can we say O V E R - T H E - E D G E ???

 

[Snookie]

It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC revises all their AGW Models downward = Why we should IGNORE the 97%

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

Jon Stewart is not a news anchor

 

[bripat9643]

It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

Bullshit. None of the libs in here bothered to read McIntyre's paper about the Hockey Stick even though I posted a link to it.

 

[Snookie]

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

Jon Stewart is not a news anchor

You're kidding, right?

 

[FA_Q2]

It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

You are outright delusional.

 

[Snookie]

Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, aren’t they.

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

Bullshit. None of the libs in here bothered to read McIntyre's paper about the Hockey Stick even though I posted a link to it.

I did. I even saved it to my computer and bookmarked it. hugs.

 

[PMZ]

Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.

Bullshit. None of the libs in here bothered to read McIntyre's paper about the Hockey Stick even though I posted a link to it.

I did. I even saved it to my computer and bookmarked it. hugs.

The civil courts have evaluated the evidence and preliminarily judged that the slander trial should go forward. They will decide whether Mann's research was valid or not. If they judge that it was professionally done then the question is was the criticism valid science or personal slander.

Then we'll know.

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit. None of the libs in here bothered to read McIntyre's paper about the Hockey Stick even though I posted a link to it.

I did. I even saved it to my computer and bookmarked it. hugs.

The civil courts have evaluated the evidence and preliminarily judged that the slander trial should go forward. They will decide whether Mann's research was valid or not.

A judge isn't qualified to determine whether Mann's work was "valid." A judge isn't a scientist. Even if the judge was a scientist, he/she still wouldn't have the qualifications to determine that. Your claim is just another appeal to authority.

If they judge that it was professionally done then the question is was the criticism valid science or personal slander.

Even if the judge rules that it was "professionally done," that still won't win Mann's case. Mann is a public figure, and the press therefore has the right to say virtually anything they want about him. This case should have been thrown out under D.C.'s SLAPP statute. The only reason it wasn't is the fact that the original judge is a Clinton appointed hack who was in the tank for Mann. That judge was removed for precisely that reason.

Then we'll know.

We already know that Mann is a fraud. McIntyre proved it.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Thank god the vast mass of numskulls weren't allowed to have any say in the Constitution. If they had, the US would have descended into chaos 100 years ago.

BTW, thanks for announcing to the entire forum that you despise the Constitution.

Constitutionazis make the Land of the Free just like a theocratic dictatorship with the Constitution as its Bible. Supreme laws and Supreme Courts are for Supreme Beings, and not believing in the Constitution is no different from not believing in Supreme Beings.

"Constitution nazis?" Really? That's a whole lot better than bonafide communists like you. What do you believe in, Das Kapital?

Another paranoiac from the John Birch Society. You think everybody not in your cult is a Commie out to get you. That is a sign that you secretly know, whether we are Commies or not, we should be out to get you.

 

[Snookie]

From an EPA email to me. I will try to be there.


"CONTACT:
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2013

TOMORROW: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz to Testify Before House Energy & Commerce Committee on Climate Change

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. EDT at a hearing to discuss President Obama’s climate change policies.

Hearing details:

WHO:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz

WHAT: Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power

WHEN: 10:00 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, September 18, 2013

WHERE: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

More information on climate change: Home | Climate Change | US EPA and Climate Change | Department of Energy

R153 '

 

[flacaltenn]

From an EPA email to me. I will try to be there.


"CONTACT:
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2013

TOMORROW: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz to Testify Before House Energy & Commerce Committee on Climate Change

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. EDT at a hearing to discuss President Obama’s climate change policies.

Hearing details:

WHO:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz

WHAT: Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power

WHEN: 10:00 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, September 18, 2013

WHERE: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

More information on climate change: Home | Climate Change | US EPA and Climate Change | Department of Energy

R153 '

Lemme save you some time.. 40 minutes of opening grandstanding by politicians. 30 minutes of prepared lying and distortion, 40 minutes of contentuous back-biting ---

ZERO information or science..

Why would you care? Everyone there is a statist moron trying to look important..

 

[bripat9643]

Constitutionazis make the Land of the Free just like a theocratic dictatorship with the Constitution as its Bible. Supreme laws and Supreme Courts are for Supreme Beings, and not believing in the Constitution is no different from not believing in Supreme Beings.

"Constitution nazis?" Really? That's a whole lot better than bonafide communists like you. What do you believe in, Das Kapital?

Another paranoiac from the John Birch Society. You think everybody not in your cult is a Commie out to get you. That is a sign that you secretly know, whether we are Commies or not, we should be out to get you.

No, I don't think that, but you obviously are a commie. It's not a secret. You give yourself away with every post.

 

[flacaltenn]

Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

 

[mamooth]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

 

[bripat9643]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

You and your fellow cult members are the ones with a theory, dipstick. I am not required to disprove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming any more than I'm required to disprove the existence of big foot. There is no such thing as a Bigfoot "denialist." There are simply people who howl with laughter whenever some deluded rube starts telling people about BigFoot - the same way we laugh whenever you start your slavish devotion to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

It that's the case then it's already been falsified. Temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

Done.

 

[PMZ]

I did. I even saved it to my computer and bookmarked it. hugs.

The civil courts have evaluated the evidence and preliminarily judged that the slander trial should go forward. They will decide whether Mann's research was valid or not.

A judge isn't qualified to determine whether Mann's work was "valid." A judge isn't a scientist. Even if the judge was a scientist, he/she still wouldn't have the qualifications to determine that. Your claim is just another appeal to authority.

If they judge that it was professionally done then the question is was the criticism valid science or personal slander.

Even if the judge rules that it was "professionally done," that still won't win Mann's case. Mann is a public figure, and the press therefore has the right to say virtually anything they want about him. This case should have been thrown out under D.C.'s SLAPP statute. The only reason it wasn't is the fact that the original judge is a Clinton appointed hack who was in the tank for Mann. That judge was removed for precisely that reason.

Then we'll know.

We already know that Mann is a fraud. McIntyre proved it.

Any judge is certainly better qualified than you are. At least the judge knows the law. It's up to the attorneys to fill him in on the rest.