PDA

View Full Version : algore questioned at hearing: How long are we going to be around as a species ??



ELVIS
01-29-2009, 07:33 PM
With aldoo-doo Respect, We're Doomed

January 29, 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090128/i/r3786602331.jpg?x=400&y=328&q=85&sig=mXurelkate1OnZGUwTMULw--

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.

What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle's premonitions. "Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy," he beseeched.

"Geothermal energy," the Goracle prophesied. "This has great potential; it is not very far off."

Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. "I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand," the Goracle spoke.

A third asked the legislative future -- and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. "The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it," he said.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. "What does your modeling tell you about how long we're going to be around as a species?" he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. "I don't claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator."

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as "unified national smart grid" the way he once did "no controlling legal authority" -- and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

"Tennessee," gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore's home state, "has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy." If that wasn't quite enough, Corker added: "Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too."

Humor? From Al Gore? "I benefit from low expectations," he replied.

The Goracle's powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. "We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization," he said. And: "This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced." And: It "could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force."

Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be "an almost existential impact" from the climate changes Gore described.

As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: "I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong." He ended his question by saying: "I'm not questioning you; I'm questioning myself."

Others sought to buy the Goracle's favor by offering him gifts. "Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don't either understand it or want to understand it," gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: "Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?"

The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by "naysayers" who thought it funny that Gore's testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. "The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis," Kerry said at the start of the hearing.

The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as "Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region." At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. "I'm not proselytizing," he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.

The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: "This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we're in the front car." Polar ice: "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."

The lawmakers joined in. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat," contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. "And if we have the dire circumstances we're facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat."

Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.

Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a "practical politician," how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. "I am a recovering politician. I'm on about Step 9," the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.

Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? "There's a high degree of confidence." The future of automobiles in China and India? "I wouldn't give up on electric vehicles." The potential of solar power in those countries? "I have no question about it at all."

Of course not. He's the Goracle.



:elvis:

FORD
01-29-2009, 07:56 PM
God bless former President Gore, for all he has done to wake this country up to reality.

ELVIS
01-29-2009, 08:02 PM
What reality, that we as Americans are being lied to on a daily basis and have been for over 100 years ??

Seshmeister
01-29-2009, 08:25 PM
99% of the species that have lived on Earth are extinct.

ELVIS
01-29-2009, 08:36 PM
Who gives a fuck ?!?

Jesus Christ
01-29-2009, 08:53 PM
I do, Gregory. And so should ye. :mad:

As the Creator of all those now extinct species, I ask you, if they were not able to survive on Earth any longer, then how would ye believe the remaining 1 % of species, including thine own, would be able to do any better?

And remember, I have the blueprints on those designs. Ye do not.

ELVIS
01-29-2009, 08:59 PM
Creator ??

No, they evolved until they couldn't function in this hostile world any longer, remember ??


:elvis:

Jesus Christ
01-29-2009, 09:05 PM
Creator ??

No, they evolved until they couldn't function in this hostile world any longer, remember ??


:elvis:

Dad and I wrote some adaptability into the original designs. But that did not account for what thy people hath done to the planet.

Remember what My angel told John the Revelator, Gregory......

....And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

LoungeMachine
01-29-2009, 09:08 PM
99% of the species that have lived on Earth are extinct.

and yet haGAR and the cockroaches flourish.....

:gulp:

ELVIS
01-29-2009, 09:09 PM
Well, i'm a servant...

Jesus Christ
01-29-2009, 09:13 PM
Well, i'm a servant...

If ye are My servant, then be a good steward of that which My Father and I have given thee. Do not sayeth "who gives a fornication?" when ye learn of so many creations no longer existing :(

bueno bob
01-29-2009, 09:41 PM
Who gives a fuck ?!?

You should. Your kids sure as fuck will.

Ahh, but I know the religious mentality all too well..."sew your treasures in Heaven, be in the world but not OF the world, for yours is the kingdom of God", right?

So, yeah - the planet's a gift from God and it's only 6000 years old and cavemen rode around on dinosaurs with saddles and all of the planet's natural resources are yours to bleed the fuck dry without any regard for the future of ecology, because you're going to be OK in Heaven with infinite ecological wealth, right?

That, right there, is the problem with the "It's all a hoax!" dipshits who still have their heads in the sand about the CRISIS facing the planet.

INFINITE GREED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE INFINITELY. Nor is a planet.

And guess what? Short of "Heaven", this is the only place we have to live. And hey, maybe you don't give a fuck what kind of planet you leave behind for your children to inherit - and by default, maybe you don't give a fuck about your kids period - but do somebody else the favor of at least TRYING to be globally responsible, hmm?

Isn't that what "Do unto others" is all about when you get right down to it?

Believe whatever stupidity you like, sure, but don't pass on opinions which the scientific community has FIRMLY ESTABLISHED are not based on any sort of reality.

Big Train
01-29-2009, 09:54 PM
The real shocker is that this piece came from the Washington Post. What are they trying to get their "balanced" back? It's kinda late now....

lesfunk
01-29-2009, 10:20 PM
God bless former President Gore, for all he has done to wake this country up to reality.

Fuck Him. I never forgave that arrogant cocksucker for helping his shrew wife fuck with Rock Music!

bueno bob
01-29-2009, 10:23 PM
Fuck Him. I never forgave that arrogant cocksucker for helping his shrew wife fuck with Rock Music!

Oh please. What "damage" did she do? The PMRC only INCREASED music revenue for bands like 2 Live Crew, Judas Priest, Ozzy and Twisted Sister (etc etc) for all the publicity they gave them.

Tipper was one of the best things that happened to the music industry in the 80's.

Controversy SELLS records.

lesfunk
01-29-2009, 10:35 PM
Oh please. What "damage" did she do? The PMRC only INCREASED music revenue for bands like 2 Live Crew, Judas Priest, Ozzy and Twisted Sister (etc etc) for all the publicity they gave them.

Tipper was one of the best things that happened to the music industry in the 80's.

Controversy SELLS records.

Since you put it that way, God Bless president Gore!:eatit:

Baby's On Fire
01-30-2009, 07:51 PM
99% of the species that have lived on Earth are extinct.



But Sesh......not by conditions caused by those species. Therein lies the difference.

Human beings are a virus to Mother Earth....and she's gotten shake it off in time.

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 08:03 PM
The real shocker is that this piece came from the Washington Post. What are they trying to get their "balanced" back? It's kinda late now....


Are you kidding?

Big Train
01-31-2009, 02:33 AM
No, I'm not. The Post printing a piece mocking the clown prince of climate? Unheard of...wonder why they are going in this direction.

ELVIS
01-31-2009, 04:03 AM
Because even the Washington Post and quite a few on the left are starting to realize the whole global warming idea is bullshit...

They don't even call it Global Warming anymore...It's now"Climate Change."


:elvis:

ELVIS
01-31-2009, 04:07 AM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20090128/i/r3786602331.jpg?x=400&y=328&q=85&sig=mXurelkate1OnZGUwTMULw--

I could've had a V8!


http://www.v8juice.com/Images/v8-logo.png (http://www.v8juice.com/)


:elvis:

Seshmeister
01-31-2009, 05:46 AM
Dad and I wrote some adaptability into the original designs. But that did not account for what thy people hath done to the planet.


So your imaginary invisible cloud person is fallible then?

Maybe if he hadn't spent all that time planting all those millions of fake pieces of evidence he would have made a better job?

Seshmeister
01-31-2009, 06:00 AM
They don't even call it Global Warming anymore...It's now"Climate Change."


:elvis:

It's been called climate change for many years.


Climate change is about much more than how warm or cool our temperatures are. Whereas "global warming" refers to increasing global temperatures, "climate change" refers to regional conditions. Climate is defined by a number of factors, including:

* Average regional temperature as well as day/night temperature patterns and seasonal temperature patterns.
* Humidity.
* Precipitation (average amounts and seasonal patterns).
* Average amount of sunshine and level of cloudiness.
* Air pressure and winds.
* Storm events (type, average number per year, and seasonal patterns).

To a great extent, this is what we think of as "weather." Indeed, weather patterns are predicted to change in response to global warming:

* some areas will become drier, some will become wetter;
* many areas will experience an increase in severe weather events like killer heat waves, hurricanes, flood-level rains, and hail storms.

It's tempting to think that all of these changes to the world's climate regions will average out over time and geography and things will be fine. In fact, colder climates like Canada may even see improved agricultural yields as their seasonal temperatures rise. But overall, humanity has made a huge investment in "things as they are now, where they are now." Gone are the days of millennia ago when an unfavorable change in climate might cause a village to pack up their relatively few belongings and move to a better area. We have massive societal and industrial infrastructure in place, and it cannot be easily moved. Climate-change effects will generally not be geographically escapable in the timeframe over which they happen, at least not for the majority of humans and species.

Ironically I'll be fine as will most of Canada but you're fucked. :)

Nickdfresh
01-31-2009, 08:23 AM
No, I'm not. The Post printing a piece mocking the clown prince of climate? Unheard of...wonder why they are going in this direction.


Because even the Washington Post and quite a few on the left are starting to realize the whole global warming idea is bullshit...

They don't even call it Global Warming anymore...It's now"Climate Change."


:elvis:

The Washington Post is hardly a "liberal" paper. They are pretty moderate, but the left marker really only comes from the whole Watergate, "Deepthroat" thing. But their articles are routinely used by "conservative" posters on these boards...

But their editorial page is mixed.

They did (or do) have Thomas Ricks as their 'military analyst' of sorts, and he wrote a scathing critique of the Iraq War that could be seen as "liberal." But if you read the book, it's pretty clear he had a huge impact at the Pentagon because there is little question they took to heart many of his criticisms in creating "The Surge," including a lovefest for Gen. Petraeus years before he was put in command...

And anyone questioning the premise of Climate Change/Global Warming is a completely anti-scientific douche with his or her head up their asses. There's no real debate about that...

Nickdfresh
01-31-2009, 08:26 AM
It's been called climate change for many years.



Ironically I'll be fine as will most of Canada but you're fucked. :)


Ironically is right. The funny thing here is the guy living BELOW sea level is the one questioning science. But then, he believes the world was created in seven days and Katrina was caused by Jesus Tears©, and that Sammy Hagar was good in "Live Without any Nuts"...

Big Train
01-31-2009, 10:25 AM
The Washington Post is hardly a "liberal" paper. They are pretty moderate, but the left marker really only comes from the whole Watergate, "Deepthroat" thing. But their articles are routinely used by "conservative" posters on these boards...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/11/09/ST2008110901017.html

Oh obviously, they are hardly liberal at all. Where would that notion come from?

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008; B06

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.

Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.

The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.

Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.

The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.


And anyone bothered by the questioning of the premise of Climate Change/Global Warming is a completely anti-scientific douche with his or her head up their asses. There's no real debate about that...

FORD
01-31-2009, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't be quoting Deborah Howell. She's a known liar, distortionist, and Repuke propagandist.

Deborah Howell, the Washington Post ombudsman, falsely asserted twice that Democrats received contributions from Jack Abramoff. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200601150001)

In a post on her internal weblog, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly endorsed the practice of printing misleading -- even false -- Bush administration claims without including a word of rebuttal to those claims. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200601100004)

Deborah Howell and Fred Hiatt: Fact Free and Loving It (http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/15/deborah-howell-and-fred-hiatt-fact-free-and-loving-it/)

kwame k
01-31-2009, 02:12 PM
Yes, science has determined pollution is bad.........are we in a cyclic weather pattern or going into a mini ice age........maybe but the point is polluting the earth is still damaging the earth and ruining the health of the people on it......smog is a made up thing? The eco-destruction that Russia has done, the clear cutting of the Rain Forrest, and many other types of ravaging being done to this planet is fact......is global warming purely caused by man or is it a combination of changing weather and pollution.....could be both. Remember this, a change of only a degree or two can send us into another ice age.....the precursor to an ice age is a warming of the planet......salt water saline content changes and more fresh water changes the temperature of the currents, thus causing dramatic changes in weather patterns..... The thing I don't get is how anyone can defend pollution.....whether it is the cause of global warming or not.

Nickdfresh
01-31-2009, 05:11 PM
There was an "Obama tilt" because he was the better candidate and obviously generated a lot more buzz...

thome
01-31-2009, 05:44 PM
I love this show what time is it on now?

It wasn't doing well durring the writers strike last year, but I am happy all of the sudden that it is back up and running away with your attention.

What channel is it on?

Do you all, and I mean all of you, make a special time to watch this epic drama or do you TVO it and watch at your leisure?

The writers have done so well to get this one back up on top.

I am looking forward to the Obama Pres Show .

Word on the grapevine is you cry baby bitches will be pissing your pants with fear.

Tuning in, in droves like the lemmings you are.

Redballjets88
02-01-2009, 05:29 PM
If ye are My servant, then be a good steward of that which My Father and I have given thee. Do not sayeth "who gives a fornication?" when ye learn of so many creations no longer existing :(

The best part of whoever posts as jesus is that while trying to teach people lessons about the bible, he is simultaneously being blasphemous.

kwame k
02-01-2009, 06:42 PM
The best part of whoever posts as jesus is that while trying to teach people lessons about the bible, he is simultaneously being blasphemous.

Well, he is the son of God and got crucified......so we tend to cut him some slack:biggrin:

GAR
02-02-2009, 03:36 PM
Al Gore has an eating disorder, look at his fat face? He should purchase carbon pollution credits for his ASSHOLE and MOUTHHOLE

Sgt Schultz
02-02-2009, 08:30 PM
I wouldn't be quoting Deborah Howell. She's a known liar, distortionist, and Repuke propagandist.

Deborah Howell, the Washington Post ombudsman, falsely asserted twice that Democrats received contributions from Jack Abramoff. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200601150001)

In a post on her internal weblog, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has reportedly endorsed the practice of printing misleading -- even false -- Bush administration claims without including a word of rebuttal to those claims. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200601100004)

Deborah Howell and Fred Hiatt: Fact Free and Loving It (http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/15/deborah-howell-and-fred-hiatt-fact-free-and-loving-it/)

Yeah....and Media Matters is a well known "objective" news source. :lmao:

Sgt Schultz
02-02-2009, 08:33 PM
And anyone questioning the premise of Climate Change/Global Warming is a completely anti-scientific douche with his or her head up their asses. There's no real debate about that...


31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

Nickdfresh
02-02-2009, 08:35 PM
31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html


LMFAO!! Did you sign up yet? Pretty much anyone with a "PhD" can. No actual PhD, and some assembly, required....



On his website, Chris Colose [20] reviewed 60 names, including 54 alleged phD's, and found no one with a specialty or publication in climate science. The names included the first 10 in the "A" column and the first two phD's in each subsequent letter (two for "B," two for "C," and so on).

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[21]


In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Big Train
02-03-2009, 01:22 AM
There was an "Obama tilt" because he was the better candidate and obviously generated a lot more buzz...

Buzz, bias....potato, po-tato...

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Buzz, bias....potato, po-tato...


Oh sorry, I forgot how everyone ignored McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin. Yeah, the liberal media really swept that one under the rug...

Simplify things all you want, but in the beginning McCain was actually the media darling because of his "renegade" reputation and there were several articles questioning what was perceived as the kit-gloves given to him by journalists because he let them fly with him and basically nudge and winked at them when making ridiculous hard right statements to appeal to the far right that he clearly did not really believe and was being insincere...

He tossed journalists beginning to question this and he basically burned his own bridge...

Big Train
02-03-2009, 11:37 AM
wow is all i can say....amazing logic.

Nobody is arguing that they did not get attention...the point is Obama got the most fawned over, no tough questions coverage of any candidate I can think of, not only in this election, but in all recent memory. He got a few nudges, but then for the last 6 months, it was all pro Obama, all the time, in every other outlet but Fox News.

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 02:13 PM
wow is all i can say....amazing logic.

Nobody is arguing that they did not get attention...the point is Obama got the most fawned over, no tough questions coverage of any candidate I can think of, not only in this election, but in all recent memory. He got a few nudges, but then for the last 6 months, it was all pro Obama, all the time, in every other outlet but Fox News.

That's your perception, But then, most of the anti-Obama talking points were steeped completely in bullshit and paranoid fantasies...

But, what "tough questions" should have been asked of Obama?

Big Train
02-03-2009, 11:46 PM
Where do you start with that one? So many real unasked questions about his experiences, his real connections in Chicago off the top of my head. I still am waiting to see exactly what qualifies him to lead the United States. Based on his bumbling so far, that opinion has not changed.

I don't give a shit about his priest, or his real estate dealings or his birth certificate.