You gotta turn on C-Span...

[Igosplut]

This is sort of like when gar claimed that he runs his (I'm sure imaginary) diesel truck using drain oil instead of diesel fuel.

[kwame k]

This is sort of like when gar claimed that he runs his (I'm sure imaginary) diesel truck using drain oil instead of diesel fuel.

.....that and his imaginary mod powers he thinks he has here.

[FORD]

This is sort of like when gar claimed that he runs his (I'm sure imaginary) diesel truck using drain oil instead of diesel fuel.

They say that every lie has a small grain of truth to it.

In GAR's case, this means that he probably uses recycled drain oil as a lube when he's taking it up the ass in the truck stop glory hole.

[ELVIS]

FORD...

Why is is that your imagination always leads towards gay sex ??

[hideyoursheep]

You haven't in the last three weeks, but who's counting? Could be longer than that.

You dirty prick!

[ELVIS]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C28avoSrYyQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color 2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C28avoSrYyQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color 2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

[ELVIS]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4RDHquxGNYk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color 2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4RDHquxGNYk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color 2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

[ELVIS]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54ab d6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54ab d6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


Hmmm...

[Nickdfresh]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54ab d6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54ab d6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>


Hmmm...

Richard Lindzen

Industry links

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[24] was underwritten by OPEC."[25][26] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[27] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander."[28]

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.[26]

Views on health risks of smoking

Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated[29][30]. In 2001,[30] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen, "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."[30]

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ELVIS]

I hear ya...

But this film, The Man-made Global Warming Hoax, is quite interesting...

I'm watching it now and i'm only on Part 3, but just because I post something, that doesn't mean that I support it 100&#37;

[bueno bob]

Yes, I will concede that Scientist don't know the exact extent of the damage we have caused or the exact date when Global Warming will take effect, on that there is debate. Too many factors and what we do now will greatly impact the future.

This is true. The downside to it is that we don't have 50-100 other suitable Earth-like planets to study global warming on with a similar level, so it's true that the exact date and/or results is in fact open to conjecture on a scientific level. But to say that smog, pollution, industrial waste and human negligence has not impacted it is just dumb at this point, honestly.

I've said this before........How can anyone defend pollution and how can anyone think that switching to cleaner alternatives is a bad thing?

The only way anybody can take that point is if their personal business interests (i.e. cash flow) would be affected directly by it. Money talks - all else walks. Simple as that. Whoever has a financial consideration will argue endlessly to defend that consideration. Hardly matters what the topic is or what the end result is anymore.

[Nickdfresh]

No not really. I literally just said in a previous I'm not saying I'm right. Where anywhere in this thread did I claim I knew the anwsers? I've said that these 700 scientists know far more than anyone of us (go ahead, scroll up). I've just repeatedly asked you, and I will once more, why aren't these guys allowed to speak? That hardly qualifies as obstification. You've just danced around it the question with various tangents about corp. boogeyman and your projections.

Because the "listing" of scientists/engineers, etc. in an effort to "debunk" anything is pretty dubious at best when those listing them have a clear agenda...

April 30, 2008
Heartland Institute's Dennis Avery: Shades of the "Inhofe 400"

By Thomas Schueneman, filed under Climate Science, Editorial Rants, Global Warming News

Heartland Institute list of 500 scientists - BS? Recently James Inhofe, using his power as a United States Senator, released a senate report claiming to contain 400 signatures from “prominent scientists” refuting the overwhelming scientific agreement of the human influence in climate change. Though we haven’t heard much from the good senator in awhile, he has steadfastly held to the claim that “AGW” (anthropogenic global warming) is a conspiracy and the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind. 400 scientists were claimed as signatories to the report.

The only problem was that many of the people on the list of signers weren’t even scientists, many that were scientists didn’t ask for or approve their inclusion on the list and held views entirely opposite of Mr. Inhofe. This was a senate report! (I posted on the James Gang fiasco here and here.)

It seems the Heartland Institute, purveyors extraordinaire of denialism, has taken a page out of Inhofe’s playbook.
...

Link

So, basically, those that try to deny the human contribution to global warming and climate change are pretty much on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Inside Jobbers...

[Big Train]

Because the "listing" of scientists/engineers, etc. in an effort to "debunk" anything is pretty dubious at best when those listing them have a clear agenda...

Not really. If the science of that contradictory opinion is sound, the agenda itself of whomever is irrelevant. Re-read that last sentence again before responding with "WELL THEY MANIPULATE EVERYTHING".

They all have an agenda. Al Gore's isn't as transparent to you perhaps, but any guy both selling the "horrors of global warming" and also making money off the sin tax of "carbon credits" has a wide open, completely dishonest agenda as bad as an oil company. Amazingly, the climate fundies don't see it that way. How is beyond me.

Since we have never clearly heard them debate in a high profile way, the American public is not being told the whole range of scenarios. Now, possibly fundamentally flawed policy is being voted on and money is being spent before we know all we need to know.

So, basically, those that try to deny the human contribution to global warming and climate change are pretty much on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Inside Jobbers...

Well, that is pretty dramatic, but since I just compared "true believers" to religious fundamentalists, I'm ok with it. Or should I through a childish "FUCK YOU", as in your response to me. I could go either way with it.

[ELVIS]

I want to see a real debate!

Let the American People decide!

[hideyoursheep]

I want to see a real debate!

Let the American People decide!

It's a GLOBAL issue, is it not?

There are pictures as evidence, yet there is still some sort of denial by some who choose to stick their heads in the sand, because there are no palm trees in Alaska-yet.

This planet is one-of-a-kind, and to think that pollutants cannot alter an atmosphere that it was never designed to handle (especially at the rate which we pump carcinogens into it) is not only naive, it's ignorant.