How do you know the Global Warming Scam is over?

[MG]

Originally Posted by hkmb As opposed to "people who can't get into academia because they're not bright enough"? It's one of those "Why are they called the liberal elite?" questions, isn't it? You never hear about the "right-wing elite". Catch 22, you hear it from the media, who are the left wing elite, in their own minds. Remember the oft uttered phrase, those that can't do, teach.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[MG]

Lefty-loo hypocrisies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1773

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by MG

Lefty-loo hypocrisies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1773

You know my opinion of the Daily Mail.

But one of the few things that ranks below the Daily Mail in my respect table is that pompous arse Sting. Although humourless Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow come close.

I'm surprised they didn't mention the classic Sting eco story. During an employment tribunal where Sting and his wife Trudie were found to have discriminated against their personal chef, firing her for being pregnant, all sorts of things came out, such as their having truffles helicoptered over from France. But the truly great story was that Trudie demanded that her chef travel 100 miles to come over and boil some pasta (organic, I assume) for their child. You've got to love them for that.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by MG

Catch 22, you hear it from the media, who are the left wing elite, in their own minds.

They don't generally call themselves the liberal elite. It's those right-wing "mavericks" like Limbaugh who call them that.

Originally Posted by MG

Remember the oft uttered phrase, those that can't do, teach.

Indeed. I can think of quite a few myself. I just couldn't resist LRM1's bait.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by hkmb

I'm surprised they didn't mention the classic Sting eco story.

Oh, sorry, I've just realised they did. I was just finding it hard to read over Sting's smug face.

[splinter]

Originally Posted by hkmb

...Educated, intelligent people are left wing.

This from a member who was unable to discern raising his bonnet without asking here for assistance, why the vitriol?

It’s all good. OT has been rather lethargic of late, and I enjoy reading your posts.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by splinter

This from a member who was unable to discern raising his bonnet without asking here for assistance, why the vitriol?

??

[splinter]

Originally Posted by hkmb

??

I beg your pardon.

I’m apparently mistaken that this was your thread…http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=166062

Again, I'm not looking to start a pissing match. Each of us is smart in his own way.

[Mister Brenton]

Originally Posted by splinter

I beg your pardon.

I’m apparently mistaken that this was your thread…http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=166062

Again, I'm not looking to start a pissing match. Each of us is smart in his own way.

I would have made the same mistake, looking for the pull tab on the driver's side of the grill. C'mon now.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Yes, this is what we were talking about earlier with the Catholic Church analogy. As long predicted, the warming will slow down, and then speed up.

It was a classic trap that you fell into head first ....but others have sprung it already. Hkmb, seriously bro, you are too smart to fall for this BS. Or is it an issue of pride?

~~~~~~~~~~

Best line.....by MG.

"We were wrong for the last ten years, we admit we will be wrong about the next ten years, BUT we are spot on for the century after that!!!"

THAT is why I posted that article. All of a sudden, we are NOT, repeat NOT having global warming but wait, ten, twenty, thirty, a hundred years from NOW, we are right! How about 20,000 thousand years? A million? Laughable backpedaling.

You know what the funniest part of all this is? If one looks at the statistical data that these BS'ers are using, you will find that they have COMPLETELY spun them around. A lot of the "irrefutable evidence" is empirical and interpretive.

The hard reality is that even "scientist" need to feed their children. There are bank vaults of money for reasearch in "global warming" and almost NO FUNDING in contrary reseach.

.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by splinter

I beg your pardon.

I’m apparently mistaken that this was your thread…http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=166062

Again, I'm not looking to start a pissing match. Each of us is smart in his own way.

Ah, of course! I'd completely forgotten about that. It was very helpful indeed.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Spartan

The hard reality is that even "scientist" need to feed their children. There are bank vaults of money for reasearch in "global warming" and almost NO FUNDING in contrary reseach..

Does the funding for contrary research not exist in the same way that global warming itself doesn't exist?

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

September 20 2006

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".

The article continues here.

It's from GG's favourite newspaper, The Guardian, but still... It is the Royal Society complaining about ExxonMobil's funding of "contrary research".

Still, it clearly didn't happen. The same as these (all figures to May 2005, because I'm not spending my day searching for anything more up to date).

- By May 2005, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which supports "contrary research", had received US$1,380,000 from ExxonMobil.
- By May 2005, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which supports "contrary research", had received $252,000 from ExxonMobil.
- In 2003, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, which supports "contrary research", had received $40,000 from ExxonMobil.

I found these without even trying. Obviously they are merely the tip of the iceberg (perhaps an unfortunate metaphor, given the subject matter - "drip of the iceberg" might be more appropriate).

Really, where do you get this "almost no funding" idea from? The same place as the "no global warming" idea? So, Fox, then?

Honestly, this scepticism - which is pretty much confined to the US - absolutely mystifies me.

[hkmb]

There's a nice list of US$ 8 million in funding by ExxonMobil for climate-change sceptics here.

I know it's not a source a lot of you are going to like.

But here's US$8m, from ExxonMobil alone, and only up to mid-2005.

I would love to be given "almost no funding" like that. I'd spend it on beer and sausages, and possibly some cheese.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by hkmb

As opposed to "people who can't get into academia because they're not bright enough"?

You've got to be kidding. Do you really think going into academia is top choice for a lot of people?

It's one of those "Why are they called the liberal elite?" questions, isn't it? You never hear about the "right-wing elite".

It's called "liberal elite" because they all have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Condemning everyone for driving SUVs, while riding around in limos and private planes. Preaching income distribution while protecting their own wealth in questionable tax shelters. Wanting to spend more of yours and my money on the poor while giving less of a percent of income to charity than their conservative counter parts. This is liberal elitism.

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by revstriker

You've got to be kidding. Do you really think going into academia is top choice for a lot of people?

It's called "liberal elite" because they all have a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Condemning everyone for driving SUVs, while riding around in limos and private planes. Preaching income distribution while protecting their own wealth in questionable tax shelters. Wanting to spend more of yours and my money on the poor while giving less of a percent of income to charity than their conservative counter parts. This is liberal elitism.

The "do as I say, not as I do" attitude applies to both parties equally. You've forgetten about those pillars of public morality Mark Foley (hitting on his own, underage, congressional pages), Ted Haggard (getting massages from a gay prostitute), and Larry Craig (looking for love in an airport mens room)? Look up the number of members of "The Party of Family Values" who are now on wives 2, 3, or 4. . . and this is "family values"? (maybe more families = more values?)

It's true that the media is primarily liberal in nature - but that's also because journalism is taught in "liberal arts" universities. You won't find many conservative journalists, as you won't find many liberal Baptist preachers.

Is this a problem? Not unless you are looking for conservative journalists or liberal preachers.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by dmatre

The "do as I say, not as I do" attitude applies to both parties equally. You've forgetten about those pillars of public morality Mark Foley (hitting on his own, underage, congressional pages), Ted Haggard (getting massages from a gay prostitute), and Larry Craig (looking for love in an airport mens room)? Look up the number of members of "The Party of Family Values" who are now on wives 2, 3, or 4. . . and this is "family values"? (maybe more families = more values?)

I said this in another thread, but I will repeat it here. A difference I see between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats tend to stand behind and defend their hypocrite scumbags, while the Republicans are more likely to condemn them. I'm sure there are examples to the contrary from both sides, but in the examples you quoted it would hold true.

It's true that the media is primarily liberal in nature - but that's also because journalism is taught in "liberal arts" universities. You won't find many conservative journalists, as you won't find many liberal Baptist preachers.

Is this a problem? Not unless you are looking for conservative journalists or liberal preachers.

My only problem with journalists is when they let their political bias play a part in their reporting. Dan Rather is a great example of this. As for Baptist preachers, I'm not a Baptist, but I would assume that many African American preachers are liberal. I bet it would be easier to find a liberal preacher than a conservative journalist.

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I bet it would be easier to find a liberal preacher than a conservative journalist.

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck (on CNN, no less), Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson (again CNN) come to mind immediately; so they're not SO hard to find.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck (on CNN, no less), Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson (again CNN) come to mind immediately; so they're not SO hard to find.

These are commentators who are paid to inject their opinion. Big difference between them and someone like Dan Rather who was supposed to report the news in an objective matter.

[Act of God]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I said this in another thread, but I will repeat it here. A difference I see between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats tend to stand behind and defend their hypocrite scumbags, while the Republicans are more likely to condemn them.

You could change "democrats" to "Muslims" and "republicans" to "Christians" and still be right...just noticin'

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by Act of God

You could change "democrats" to "Muslims" and "republicans" to "Christians" and still be right...just noticin'

Just wonderin' why our economy, the dollar, the war, public opinion, consumer sentiment, and 4000 of our soldiers are all in the same place after 8 years of "Christian", "Conservative" leadership?

What happened to "tax cuts are good for the economy"?
What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

Seems that your ideals may be lofty, but the results gained by our leader with these ideals are less than stellar (to say the least). Next time I hope that we get a leader with intelligence rather than "Conservative", "Christian" ideals.

[Act of God]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Just wonderin' why our economy, the dollar, the war, public opinion, consumer sentiment, and 4000 of our soldiers are all in the same place after 8 years of "Christian", "Conservative" leadership?

What happened to "tax cuts are good for the economy"?
What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

Seems that your ideals may be lofty, but the results gained by our leader with these ideals are less than stellar (to say the least). Next time I hope that we get a leader with intelligence rather than "Conservative", "Christian" ideals.

Kill Whitey!!!!!

[dmatre]

Originally Posted by Act of God

Kill Whitey!!!!!

Huh?

[MG]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Just wonderin' why our economy, the dollar, the war, public opinion, consumer sentiment, and 4000 of our soldiers are all in the same place after 8 years of "Christian", "Conservative" leadership?

What happened to "tax cuts are good for the economy"?
What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

Seems that your ideals may be lofty, but the results gained by our leader with these ideals are less than stellar (to say the least). Next time I hope that we get a leader with intelligence rather than "Conservative", "Christian" ideals.

The education system in this country is really letting us all down.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by dmatre

Just wonderin' why our economy, the dollar, the war, public opinion, consumer sentiment, and 4000 of our soldiers are all in the same place after 8 years of "Christian", "Conservative" leadership?

What happened to "tax cuts are good for the economy"?
What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

Seems that your ideals may be lofty, but the results gained by our leader with these ideals are less than stellar (to say the least). Next time I hope that we get a leader with intelligence rather than "Conservative", "Christian" ideals.

Wow, I'm surprised you didn't include American Idol, and Reality TV in there.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Really? Are you sure you're not developing a false memory there. It's certainly not something I ever saw. Except in that second Highlander movie. But that wasn't real. It was a movie. A crap one.



OK. You've got me. Educated, intelligent people are left wing.

Although I wasn't "Baiting you" as you claim leter, that statement shows Typical liberal arrogance. Like you are all the enlightened ones, while anyone who disagrees, are cavemen, religious nuts or worse.

A recent article about Reagan in Newsweek had two well know political thinkers, George Will (on the right) and Sean Wilentz (on the left). Even Mr Wilentz acknowledges this problem among liberals. To quote the discussion; Wilentz (After George Will made the statement that it was in the 70's that Americans began to resent liberals for their "do as I say and not as I do" attitude after forcing kids in public schools to use busing to integrate them with lower income areas while their kids were in private schools): "To add to that, I would say that what made it fiercer and more passionate was the ways in which the liberal Democrats interpreted resistance to their policies, which was always to blame the people who were resisting for being narrow minded or racist, not up to their own enlightened idea of the way AMericans ought to be".

And so it continues, you liberals love to call us names, and stupid, but would hazard a guess that with 3 degrees, I am in fact more educated and possibly more intelligent than you, regardless of the esteem you hold yourself in.