Right-wingers Want “Other Side” Of Global Warming Taught In School

by Ben Hoffman

[GRAND JUNCTION — A national group that thinks global warming is “junk science” and that teaching it is unnecessarily scaring schoolchildren brought its first petition effort for “balanced education” to Mesa County Schools on Tuesday night.

Rose Pugliese, an unsuccessful candidate for a District 51 school board seat in the last election, presented a petition with 700 signatures to the board asking that science teachers stop giving lessons on global warming.

“It (global warming) is not a proven scientific theory. There is not evidence to support it,” Pugliese told the board, generating applause from about 40 Tea Party and other conservative group members who filled the room for the first school board petition battle over this issue in the country.

The climate-change deniers scoffed and shook their heads when a scientist and a college professor spoke up to say that global warming is a well-supported scientific fact.

“This is not just some liberal theory,” said Richard Alward, an ecologist with a Ph.D.

Pugliese and three other people who spoke against global-warming education said that if the subject is going to be taught, the “other side” should be presented so that students aren’t subjected to a frightening untruth.

105 Responses to “Right-wingers Want “Other Side” Of Global Warming Taught In School”

boudicabpi
May 27, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Here is the link if it does not embed.
http://rhinebeckny.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/kudos-to-rhinebeck-sophmore/

This 15 year old has more common sense than the teachers.

Bob A.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 27, 2010 at 1:02 PM
  
  So scientific views have to be balanced with the views of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Okaaay.
  
  Reply
  - boudicabpi
    May 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM
    
    Hi Ben,
    
    Michelle only asked that the school administration follow their own policies and present all sides of an issue. This was not appropriate in an English class. I am more familiar with her issue than most.
    
    Visit the linked site. Here is a comment from Steven Zell.
    
    Steve Zell Says:
    
    December 29, 2009 at 11:58 am e
    
    I watched Michelle Dewkett’s interview on Fox and Friends this morning with great interest. Kudos to her for being willing to stand up to the Al Gore/Inconvenient Lie propaganda at her school on national television!
    
    However, if Michelle Dewkett wants to truly advance the debate on this subject, she needs to have stronger, scientifically sound arguments than simply agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. While I personally respect thes commentators, their views are often interpreted by the general public as political and partisan, not scientific.
    
    I am a Chemical and Environmental Engineer in Connecticut, and have joined a group of 14 engineers and scientists in Connecticut (including several meteorologists) who have researched the scientific reasons why carbon dioxide has only a tiny effect on climate compared to much larger natural influences such as sunspots, cosmic rays, volcanism, and ocean currents, and our group has written editorials published in newsparers. We would welcome the opportunity to share our knowledge of this issue with Michelle, so that she can address this issue more scientifically in future interviews.
    
    Please feel free to contact me by E-mail at the above address, if you would like our group to assist Michelle in her noble efforts to fight the Global Warming scare.
    
    I have e-mailed with Michelle and talked at length with both Steve and Michelle’s mom concerning this and I believe she is at this point more informed than most including you and I.
    
    Steve talked to both of them and arranged for those in the organization to contact and present their scientific views in a more of a layman’s view.
    
    Hit the site and read the comments.
    
    The school system is out of control, not the student, in this case Michelle.
    
    That’s your public education system at work. Pushing their own agenda, not truth.
    
    Bob A.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 1:32 PM
    
    [I am a Chemical and Environmental Engineer in Connecticut, and have joined a group of 14 engineers and scientists in Connecticut (including several meteorologists) who have researched the scientific reasons why carbon dioxide has only a tiny effect on climate compared to much larger natural influences]
    
    So he admits that man-made pollution is having an effect on climate. That’s good enough for me to want to do something about it.
  - steve
    May 27, 2010 at 1:50 PM
    
    Bob A. You stepped into the den of selective hearing dumabasses.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 2:20 PM
    
    [You stepped into the den of selective hearing dumabasses.]
    
    What’s a “dumabass?” A kind of fish?
Ed
May 27, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Wait. What? You want Jesus taught in the schools? Really? I agree. Let “both sides” of the Jesus story be taught. Christians would love that opportunity. And while we’re at it, I’d love to see Al Gore go head to head in a free debate on his silly notions with any of the scientists who disagree with him.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM
  
  Name one legitimate scientist who denies man’s contribution to global warming.
  
  Reply
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 1:54 PM
    
    How about 31,000?
    
    More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.
    
    The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.
    The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.
    
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
    
    Of course there is that ntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and we know how trustworthy their data is. Right.
    
    Man this is too easy.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM
    
    Okay, so Frederick Seitz is your “scientist?” Here’s a little background on Seitz:
    
    A 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine called Dr. Seitz the “$45 million man” for the amount of money he helped R.J. Reynolds distribute for research that specifically avoided the health issues surrounding smoking. “They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking,” Seitz admitted in the article. During the time RJR was funding the research, it used the results of the program to claim that the evidence was inconclusive about the health effects of smoking. Dr. Seitz went on to become a denier of global warming.
    
    Read more…
    
    Care to try again?
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 2:40 PM
    
    Not sure if this lines up in these replies. First, I didn’t say Seitz only. Even if he is tainted, which I do not agree that he is, you have 30,999 to go.
    
    But in fact, all you did was try to smear Seitz. You do not deal with another issue entirely. Try debunking him on the issue of so called man-made global warming. If you can.
    
    Feel free to use the noted scientist Al Gore.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 2:52 PM
    
    No, I asked you to name one.
    
    Many of those “scientists” are just high school science teachers. Name your top scientist.
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM
    
    High school science teachers? Really? Quite a claim. Can you prove that?
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM
    
    Well, this stuff is out there readily available:
    
    I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.’ – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
    
    ‘Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. ‘The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system’ – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called ‘among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.’
    
    Warming fears are the ‘worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.’ – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
    
    ‘The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,’ – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet
    
    ‘So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.’ – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
    
    Need more?
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 3:03 PM
    
    [High school science teachers? Really? Quite a claim. Can you prove that?]
    
    Yep, and so can you. Just do a search.
    
    Now who’s your credible scientist?
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 3:09 PM
    
    See what I just posted for more than one. And could you just go ahead and prove that “Many of those “scientists” are just high school science teachers” thing? Evidence to back it up. I’m not saying it isn’t true. But you made the claim.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM
    
    Here’s quote from scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson:
    
    What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
    
    Better to err on the side of caution.
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 3:27 PM
    
    This should have been in this thread.
    
    “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information.”
    
    Is that all you got? A recommendation from one of the scientists who admits the info is incomplete but in essence says we need to strangle our economy based on that incomplete (and I might add falsified) information? And follow the recommendations of the noted scientist Al Gore and the widely discredited IPCC? Is that it?
    
    You’re too funny if it weren’t such an important issue.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 3:36 PM
    
    [A recommendation from one of the scientists who admits the info is incomplete but in essence says we need to strangle our economy based on that incomplete (and I might add falsified) information?]
    
    How the f*ck is it going to strangle our economy to cut pollution. You’re just talking out of your ass. Or I should say, you’re just repeating right-wing talking points. There’s no critical thinking going on in that vacuum inside your head where there should be a brain.
  - Ed
    May 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM
    
    Now, Now Ben. “Personal attacks on writers and commenters of this blog are prohibited.”
    
    But of course this is your blog. But when you get shown up and called out, this is how you respond. Figures. Can’t refute all those scientists, so attack me. It’s ok. I can handle it.
  - The Arbourist
    May 29, 2010 at 7:32 PM
    
    I hate replying with just a video from youtube, but Thunderfoot does a good job of explaining the petition Ed mentions and putting it in the correct context.
    
    object width=”500″ height=”405″>
- steve
  May 27, 2010 at 1:53 PM
  
  Ed. Ben wouldn’t do that. I mean Christians believe their ancestors came orginated from Adam and Eve … humans. Ben blieves his ancestors originated from apes. ’nuff said.
  
  Reply
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 2:27 PM
    
    [Christians believe their ancestors came orginated from Adam and Eve … humans.]
    
    In order for that to have occurred, there had to have been incestual relationships. The offspring of those types of relationships usually have mental and physical defects, which may indeed explain where right-wingers came from.
  - boudicabpi
    May 27, 2010 at 3:18 PM
    
    Evolution? Without pictures. They are here.
    
    http://boudicabpi.boudica.us/?p=312
    
    A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked;
    ‘How did the human race start?’
    Sarah Palin answered, ‘God made Adam and Eve;
    They had children; and so was all mankind made.’
    Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
    and asked the same question.
    Michelle Obama answered,
    ‘Many years ago there were monkeys from
    which the human race evolved.’
    The confused girl went to her father and said,
    ‘Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
    the Human race was created by God,
    And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.’
    The father answered, ‘Well, Dear, it is very simple,
    Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
    and Michelle Obama told you about hers.’
    
    Bob A.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM
    
    [Evolution? Without pictures. They are here.]
    
    Ha! 🙂
- Ed
  May 27, 2010 at 3:25 PM
  
  “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information.”
  
  Is that all you got? A recommendation from one of the scientists who admits the info is incomplete but in essence says we need to strangle our economy based on that incomplete (and I might add falsified) information? And follow the recommendations of the noted scientist Al Gore and the widely discredited IPCC? Is that it?
  
  You’re too funny if it weren’t such an important issue.
  
  Reply
boudicabpi
May 27, 2010 at 3:08 PM

[I am a Chemical and Environmental Engineer in Connecticut, and have joined a group of 14 engineers and scientists in Connecticut (including several meteorologists) who have researched the scientific reasons why carbon dioxide has only a tiny effect on climate compared to much larger natural influences]

So he admits that man-made pollution is having an effect on climate. That’s good enough for me to want to do something about it.

Ben,
Only a tiny effect compared to much larger natural influences. Keep your head up Gore’s ass and see our way of life destroyed by these Green people. Gore is a self serving hippocrite and Obama is using this to promote his Cap and Trade NWO agenda.
Wake up.

Reply
Alan Scott
May 27, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” How the f*ck is it going to strangle our economy to cut pollution. ”

How about we just declare oxygen a pollutant? Sometimes it is. How about we declare sunshine a pollutant, sometimes it’s bad. In fact since ultimately sunshine is what warms the Earth, by your own perfect logic we should just cut the amount of sunshine falling on the Earth . It makes as much sense as taxing energy sources that are actually practical and wasting that money on Bull S#$t sun and wind power that does not work any where in the world with out being subsidized .

It is funny that you have to use an analogy attacking religion, when you defend Global Freaking Warming. Wait,, wait, what is the flavor of the month? Yea,, now I remember. Your side switched to “Climate Change” when freak cold spells and snow storms in warm places made the average Joe scratch his butt.

Ohh, and here is my hundredth economics lesson for you. Carbon taxes boost costs. If you had a clue about anything, you would know that when you add big new costs into an economy, you tend to kill it.

Think I’m full of crap. I cite Spain, which went green and then went broke. I could cite Greece as an example of Socialism going broke, but I doubt you can handle that much truth .

Reply
Vern R. Kaine
May 27, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Here’s some thoughts:

1) Let’s drop this whole “legitimate” thing as though we’re any sort of authority on scientific credentials. Unless any of us here know how to critique a dissertation, or better yet, are writing our own on Global Warming, then all we’re doing is going on what we hear and agree with rather than what we actually know.

2) Can we please separate the “is the earth getting warmer” argument from “are we the ones making it happen” argument? Last I checked, one can be verified as fact, and the other is still a THEORY.

3) Someone’s suggesting I pay $25+ extra every time I fly to offset my “carbon”. First, who says DEFINITIVELY that this actually offsets my carbon, second, who says DEFINITIVELY that my carbon needs to be offset, and third, why aren’t we asking THIS GUY SELLING THESE CREDITS to prove it, since he’s the one actually trying to take money out of our pocket?

4) You AGW believers have got 1/2 the argument wrong – it’s not that some of us are deadset NON-believers, it’s just that we don’t believe we should be forced (or manipulated into) paying something when a) it’s not proven, and b) the theory isn’t even all that great. Imagine if you guys were now asked/forced to pay a “Jesus tax” as atheists that went to the “spiritual well-being of children” – wouldn’t you be bitching about it?

5) Whether I believe in AGW or not, I’m going to do what I can to reduce my pollution ANYWAYS. Many of us AGW skeptics will. Just don’t start trying to tax me yet. I have no desire to make Al Gore rich early based entirely on a good marketing campaign.

Reply
- Vern R. Kaine
  May 27, 2010 at 11:11 PM
  
  “I’m going to do what I can to reduce my pollution ANYWAYS”
  – Correction: EXCEPT on Earth Day! F–k ’em. 🙂
  
  Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM
  
  [5) Whether I believe in AGW or not, I’m going to do what I can to reduce my pollution ANYWAYS. Many of us AGW skeptics will. Just don’t start trying to tax me yet.]
  
  I agree with that, and I haven’t heard any proposals to add a AGW tax. We (as in the government) should be doing things like building high speed rail lines, which use a lot less energy than jets. Add to that solar and wind power for power plants and maybe tax credits for buying fuel efficient vehicles.
  
  As far as proof of man-made global warming, while there’s presently no way to prove it undeniably, pumping all that crap into the air year after year is bound to cause problems.
  
  Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 28, 2010 at 8:45 AM
  
  [1) Let’s drop this whole “legitimate” thing as though we’re any sort of authority on scientific credentials.]
  
  If a scientist is in the pocket of the oil industry, most reasonable people would say that personal is not a “legitimate” expert on AGW. Same with if he is overly political in his analysis.
  
  You want to drop the “legitimate” thing because you can’t find a legitimate scientist who denies AGW!
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 28, 2010 at 11:28 AM
    
    No, I want to drop the “legitimate” thing because you use the word purely for politics, just like Obama did, and which seems coincidentally the day you started using that word at every turn. And since you’re not an economist or a scientist, the only criteria you seem to use for deciding “legitimate” or not is whether or not the person in question supports your political views.
    
    [If a scientist is in the pocket of the oil industry, most reasonable people would say that personal is not a “legitimate” expert on AGW. Same with if he is overly political in his analysis.]
    See, this is where you contradict yourself. By that definition, then, you would not be calling Paul Krugman a “legitimate” economist, and yet you do.
    
    So let me ask you this: Is there ANY scientist who supports AGW that you have questioned or challenged the “legitimacy” of? Can you prove that none of them are in the pocket of SOMEBODY who happens to sign their checks?
    
    I doubt it. Politics is everywhere, and especially in universities and non-profits, EVERYONE plays politics or they die. If Climategate showed anything, that was it.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 28, 2010 at 12:05 PM
    
    [You want to drop the “legitimate” thing because you can’t find a legitimate scientist who denies AGW!]
    Again, you take comfort in vague statements that are politically charged. We may very well have an impact on climate change – the real issue is how much, and what is it that we might be paying for actually changes anything?
    
    Your position is based on models that are having holes shot through them left and right. Former IPCC members are speaking out not necessarily against the cause for concern (or more study), but the cause for alarm. (http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/YuryIzraelOpEd.htm)
    
    But here’s where you seem to stand: Anyone that questions the human impact on climate is illegitimate, anti-Obama, anti-American, anti-Earth, and right-wing in support of big oil.
    
    Here’s where I stand: The jury’s still out on what impact we actually have on global warming (if any). The models have been found to be flawed. The urgency has been found to be not-so-urgent. So in the meantime, I’m not going to call you or anyone on this site anti-anything until the theories on either side are more evolved.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 28, 2010 at 1:04 PM
    
    [And since you’re not an economist or a scientist, the only criteria you seem to use for deciding “legitimate” or not is whether or not the person in question supports your political views.]
    
    You’re a liar. Name one case where I said a scientist or economist was not legitimate without showing proof that his opinion was politically biased.
  - Ed
    May 28, 2010 at 1:12 PM
    
    Ben’s attempted arguments just prove so well that that great American President Ronald Reagan was correct when he said, “It’s not that liberals are ignorant. It’s just they know so much that isn’t so.”
- The Arbourist
  May 29, 2010 at 7:39 PM
  
  4) You AGW believers have got 1/2 the argument wrong – it’s not that some of us are deadset NON-believers, it’s just that we don’t believe we should be forced (or manipulated into) paying something when a) it’s not proven, and b) the theory isn’t even all that great.
  
  Mr. Kaine, framing this in terms of belief is a little incongruous. It is reasonable, based on the current set of facts to believe that AGW should be a legitimate concern.
  
  As far as the whinging about extra taxes, consider this. 🙂
  
  Reply
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM
    
    That’s a great cartoon! Here’s the image in case people don’t click the link:
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 31, 2010 at 2:55 PM
    
    Haha! I get the point of it, and I agree to an extent, which is why I said I already do what I can to reduce pollution ANYWAYS. 🙂 (By the way, the answer to the guy’s question in the cartoon is Al Gore off to the left wringing his hands saying, “Suckas!”)
    
    There’s another way to look at it: why not create tax deductions instead of extra taxes to support these initiatives? Republicans and Conservatives already (apparently?) support more charities than the Green Weenies do, so maybe offering tax breaks for these sorts of things would make everybody smile – including the capitalist who would be investing in early-stage green energy companies? 😉
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM
    
    [There’s another way to look at it: why not create tax deductions instead of extra taxes to support these initiatives?]
    
    What’s the difference between tax deductions and federal funding, such as was in the stimulus package? They both accomplish the same thing.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    June 1, 2010 at 8:50 AM
    
    [What’s the difference between tax deductions and federal funding…?]
    Seriously?! Um, one raises taxes, one lowers taxes, one creates choice, one removes it. A truly pro-choice guy wouldn’t need to ask that. 😉
    
    And before we get into the “how feasible it would be” argument” to certify companies as “green” to qualify for the tax break (it would be too slow and there would be a ton of government waste and fraud), my point was just that it would probably get more support than new taxes would, and like I think you’re trying to say, would achieve the same end game.
  - Ben Hoffman
    June 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM
    
    [my point was just that it would probably get more support than new taxes would, and like I think you’re trying to say, would achieve the same end game.]
    
    No, right-wingers would just lie about it. After all, the stimulus package consisted of $200 billion in tax breaks but right-wingers lie and claim Obama raised taxes.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    June 1, 2010 at 11:23 AM
    
    [No, right-wingers would just lie about it. After all, the stimulus package consisted of $200 billion in tax breaks but right-wingers lie and claim Obama raised taxes.]
    You paint that “right winger” brush pretty wide! If people are saying that the stimulus bill DIDN’T include tax breaks, then ya, they’d be either ignorant or lying, but let’s not ignore the cause & effect relationship the stimulus had on state tax levels.
    
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628633460370644.html
    Quote: “…This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases. In 2009, 10 states raised income or sales taxes, and another 15 introduced new fees on everything from beer to cellphone ringers to hunting and fishing. The states pocketed the federal money and raised taxes anyway.”
    
    I don’t think the stimulus can be applauded as much as you seem to applaud it. For one, if lowering taxes in one area simply forces them to be raised somewhere else where someone else can be blamed, then what good does it actually do except make Obama look like a hero? (Granted, the stimulus dollars weren’t mandatory to be accepted, so the States got what they deserved). As well, though, there were a lot of ugly things about it if one goes past the government’s highlights or the MSM headlines. One example is the the Davis-Bacon thing, which we’ve discussed before.
  - Ben Hoffman
    June 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM
    
    [This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases.]
    
    So the WSJ is claiming the stimulus hasn’t prevented ANY state taxes from being raised? Surely it’s prevented the need to raise taxes in some cases.
    
    The main problem with the stimulus is it wasn’t big enough enough, but it HAS created a lot of jobs and we’re better off than had it not been passed.
    
    Right-wingers like to claim that we spent $800 billion and unemployment is still almost 10%. That’s a lie. Just about $400 billion has been spent so far, $162 of which are tax cuts, $129 are entitlements so the long term unemployed don’t become destitute.
    Source
  - Vern R. Kaine
    June 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM
    
    [Surely it’s prevented the need to raise taxes in some cases.]
    A VERY good question to counter the bias!
Vern R. Kaine
May 27, 2010 at 11:19 PM

[How about we teach children the other side of Jesus theory so students aren’t subjected to a “frightening untruth.”]
It wouldn’t be a bad thing to have some alternative viewpoints and let the children decide for themselves, would it? Don’t they show the Great Climate Swindle over in Britain to counter Gore’s film?

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 27, 2010 at 11:40 PM
  
  [It wouldn’t be a bad thing to have some alternative viewpoints]
  
  Whose? Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh’s? Naaa, there is definitive proof that increasing greenhouse gasses increases the atmosphere’s capacity to hold heat. While it may be that cycles also may be part of the reason the earth is warming, logically, since we are increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses, it would follow that it is having an effect. The only question is: how much?
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 28, 2010 at 10:41 AM
    
    And there’s also definitive proof that increased CO2 produces better crops, and that the earth was warmer before we even got here (or evolved!). Again, in classroom I think both sides should be presented. (It’s not a newsroom, you know! :))
    
    Re: Hannity, Limbaugh, that response is weak. They have as much credibility as “scientists” as Gore does – both can quote the scientists of their choosing. The point is that Gore’s movie is alarmist, and a movie like “The Great Climate Swindle” challenges it well. Have you seen it? There’d be no harm in presenting it as a counter viewpoint, and it’s nowhere near as alarmist, so I don’t see why the left would be so deadset against it.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM
    
    [Again, in classroom I think both sides should be presented.]
    
    The other side’s argument is nothing but spin. Here’s what one of the scientists who was FEATURED in the film had to say about it:
    
    In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.
    Read more…
    
    Right-wingers believe that the facts need to be balanced by the right-wing spin on the facts. That doesn’t do our country or the world any good whatsoever.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 28, 2010 at 11:10 AM
    
    [Right-wingers believe that the facts need to be balanced by the right-wing spin on the facts.]
    AGW is still a THEORY, not fact. There are alternative THEORIES. That’s one scientist in the film. You’ll also find another scientist, Dr. Tim Ball, who’s credibility is also shaky.
    
    By the same token you’ll also find a bunch of the IPCC panel scientists objecting to their names being put on the paper, or how their own material was used to slant the IPCC’s and ultimately Gore’s opinion.
    
    [That doesn’t do our country or the world any good whatsoever.]
    AGW believers continuing to state it as undeniable fact, or dismissing opposing theories as “spin”, doesn’t do our country any good, either. While there’s as many whackos on the left and the right who will believe or say anything, there’s also solid proof that opposing views to AGW were deliberately and politically suppressed.
    
    Just look at the Simpson quote: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…” (Emphasis mine). Shouldn’t she be able to speak “quite frankly” as a scientist?
    
    People’s politics interfering with science (and scientists) is the problem, not the pundits picking a side.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 28, 2010 at 12:58 PM
    
    [AGW is still a THEORY, not fact. There are alternative THEORIES.]
    
    It’s a FACT that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with AGW.
    
    [there’s also solid proof that opposing views to AGW were deliberately and politically suppressed.]
    
    That’s because they were based on lies.
  - Ed
    May 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM
    
    From the OregonLive:
    
    Subsequent disclosures confirmed widespread participation in data manipulation. Others are involved in touting climate models as substitutes for honest data and as predictors of catastrophe. These far-from-rigorous computer simulations are said to “prove” that carbon dioxide is the only explanation for recent short-term warming, despite substantial evidence that ocean and solar cycles are largely responsible.
    
    The connection to an $80 billion government gravy train should have alerted our media to conflicts of interest. But they were too dazzled by the so-called “experts” and too sold on the politics to realize that these scientists had been corrupted by the age-old problems of money and power.
    
    A recent editorial in the journal Nature admits that implicated scientists are scared. They know that honest mistakes are typically forgiven but fraud is not. The editorial urges them to fight back with a war of words: “The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed.” Such a bluff can succeed only if the public remains ignorant that the core is rotten.
    
    The political and economic empire is already striking back. We are beginning to see blue ribbon commissions of carefully chosen “experts” whose job is to exonerate the guilty and get global warming hysteria back on track. A better approach is to embrace what the Nobel laureate in physics, Richard Feynman, called “utter honesty.” Implicated scientists are aware of what honest data show. Increased carbon dioxide has, at most, a minor effect on global temperature and is highly beneficial to our green natural world.
    
    All plants and animals owe their very existence to carbon dioxide. Scientific scandals inevitably require significant corrective measures to restore objectivity, including in this case, major revisions to the way we support scientific research.
    
    Gordon J. Fulks of Corbett holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
    
    Is he a scientist? We all know where the lies are coming from. It is the global alarmists algoreites.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM
    
    [Is he a scientist? We all know where the lies are coming from. It is the global alarmists algoreites.]
    
    I don’t know if he’s a scientist or not. Where does he work? As far as I could tell, he’s just some guy with a doctorate in physics.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM
    
    Side comment: where do some of these goofy avatars come from? And what is mine, a tree in high heels? Ed’s looks like a blue… well… a blue something.
    
    Ben, care to draw me an avatar? I’d be interested in seeing what you think would be an appropriate one for me (p.s. if it had a dollar sign in it, that’d be great!) 🙂
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM
    
    [Ben, care to draw me an avatar?]
    
    I haven’t drawn anything since the 2008 elections. I’ve since sold my drafting table and I don’t even remember where I put my pens. So I can’t at this time.
Vern R. Kaine
May 28, 2010 at 10:52 AM

[“…because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right…” Dr. Joanne Simpson]
ARE the climate models right? Didn’t she write this BEFORE all the Climategate emails were exposed? As I understand it, those models are getting poked holes through like swiss cheese.

Reply
boudicabpi
May 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM

I posted the clip with Michelle. She is a 15 year old Sophomore, not a right wing idealogue. If Ben had taken the time to look at the short clip with an open mind he would have seen that even though she might not agree with the Goracle, she did not oppose his views being seen.

Michelle disagreed with a school system that violated it’s own policies. That all curriculum be relevant to the class in which it was taught and that controversial issues have all sides presented in a balanced manner. Clearly a view to which Ben is opposed as seems to be a pattern with liberals and leftists.
Bob A.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 29, 2010 at 7:54 AM
  
  [That all curriculum be relevant to the class in which it was taught and that controversial issues have all sides presented in a balanced manner.Clearly a view to which Ben is opposed as seems to be a pattern with liberals and leftists.]
  
  Yes, I’m opposed to the idea that facts need to be balanced by right-wing spin on the facts.
  
  Reply
- Vern R. Kaine
  May 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM
  
  Haha – Ben doesn’t like it when left-wing spin is balanced with right-wing spin!
  
  Apparently scientists lying by omission about the data not fitting their models is o.k. and still keeping to “the facts” (give or take a few), but anyone pointing out the fact that these scientists lied by omission is a right-wing, dumb-f**k, anti-Earth, anti-American, Global Warming Denier! 🙂
  
  Reply
  - boudicabpi
    May 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM
    
    Ben,
    
    Michelle had no spin. She simply stated at a public school board meeting that she had no problem with Gore’s views being presented in an appropriate class and that the school district adhere to their own policies and present other opposing views. All sides to the story.
    
    Something that you seem very much against.
    
    What are you afraid of?
    
    Bob A.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM
    
    [What are you afraid of?]
    
    So everything has to have the apposing views taught? How about whether or not the earth is round? How about whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth?
    
    If there’s a legitimate argument, that indeed should be taught, but even the scientists in the movie complain that it was dishonest.
  - The Arbourist
    May 29, 2010 at 7:56 PM
    
    As is the case with most things published in the American media lately, they seem to be stripped of nuance and important details. For a break down and small discussion of the GRU emails and their effects check out my post about ‘Climategate’. I had a few knowledgeable comments clear up some of the misconceptions about the ramifications of the emails and AGW in general.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 29, 2010 at 9:38 PM
    
    [If there’s a legitimate argument, that indeed should be taught, but even the scientists in the movie complain that it was dishonest.]
    Yes, and there’s scientists who complain that the use of their names and excerpts in the IPCC report were dishonest and disingenuous as well.
    But let’s also think about this: Why are we pitting a “Believer” movie against a “Denier” movie in a school? Are Global Warming documentaries that hard to come by?
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 29, 2010 at 9:56 PM
    
    Arb: [I had a few knowledgeable comments clear up some of the misconceptions about the ramifications of the emails and AGW in general.]
    
    What they did out of ego aside, it was sad to see how pressured the scientists felt to conform. Whether Climategate was good or bad, I think we all have to agree it was a nice wake up call, no?
    
    Ben: [So everything has to have the opposing views taught? How about whether or not the earth is round?] We don’t need to be taught that the world could be flat, or that 1+1=3 because that takes us away from the truth, not towards it, and on that I agree (phew!) But to present Gore’s film as “fact” in a school – isn’t that running the risk of the same thing?
    
    Also, doesn’t two opposing viewpoints actually get the kids to think? Discuss, debate, etc? Just think, they can all grow up and be just like us, in here. haha!
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM
    
    [Also, doesn’t two opposing viewpoints actually get the kids to think? Discuss, debate, etc? Just think, they can all grow up and be just like us, in here. haha!]
    
    There’s nothing wrong with teaching the kids opposing viewpoints. There is something wrong with teaching them opposing facts.
    
    Fact: Most scientists agree that AGW is a problem.
    Opinion A: We should do something about it.
    Opinion B: We shouldn’t do anything about it.
    
    That is the debate we should be having.
Vern R. Kaine
May 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM

[You’re a liar. Name one case where I said a scientist or economist was not legitimate without showing proof that his opinion was politically biased.]
Ben, quit dodging! You pass off politically-biased individuals as “legitimate” all the time.

Let’s make this simple: PAUL KRUGMAN – do you, or do you not, consider him to be a “legitimate” economist? If you do, then by your own definition you’re a flat-out hypocrite because he’s as politically biased as they get.

It’s your page so you’re free to be a hypocrite if you want to, but it’s not right to be calling people anti-American, idiots, liars, or whatever because they don’t produce people that you consider “legitimate”. Your criteria for legitimate is 99.99% political – you should just nut up and admit that instead of calling people names.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM
  
  [Let’s make this simple: PAUL KRUGMAN – do you, or do you not, consider him to be a “legitimate” economist? If you do, then by your own definition you’re a flat-out hypocrite because he’s as politically biased as they get.]
  
  How so? Give me one example where Krugman slanted his analysis to fit a political agenda.
  
  Reply
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM
    
    You mean, apart from the fact that he writes for an already Democrat-slanted paper, or that the title of his book is called “Conscience of a Liberal?” No, no slant there. Maybe he’s just stating the facts and they happen to be liberal?
    
    Nope. He actually does change his position to side with Democrats:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103720332317434.html
    Krugman says, “What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says.” He scoffs at Sen. Kyl (R)’s comment that “unemployment relief is a disincentive for people to seek new work”, basically saying, “in what universe?” yet it turns out this is what Krugman says in his own textbook.
    
    That’s one example. More examples are cited in a peer-reviewed study by a George Mason University student, which found that he was actually the most partisan out of 17 popular economists examined, and did change his position to suit Democrats on more than one occasion. Quote: “Krugman has changed his tune in a significant way regarding the budget deficit when the White House has changed party” (the paper cites media interviews too lengthy to list here).
    http://econjwatch.org/articles/when-the-white-house-changes-party-do-economists-change-their-tune-on-budget-deficits
    
    Or, that his common “tax the rich” positions have been based on his own (and oddly convenient) incorrect calculations. Examples cited here – http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html (“incorrect calculations”? That’s like having a writer that can’t spell!
    
    Anyways, you once again are dodging the question re: legitimacy, but you asked for “one example”. I’ve given you a bunch. Check ’em out.
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 29, 2010 at 7:45 AM
    
    [You mean, apart from the fact that he writes for an already Democrat-slanted paper]
    
    Democrat-slanted, as in not spinning the stories to the right? You don’t remember the N.Y. Times helping Bush build his case to go to war and the Judith Miller fiasco?
    
    [Maybe he’s just stating the facts and they happen to be liberal?]
    
    You don’t even understand facts. Facts inherently have no bias. If the facts are changed to support an analysis, or presented in a way to change their meaning (as in the movie you want shown to children), that analysis is biased. I haven’t seen evidence of Krugman doing that.
    
    [Nope. He actually does change his position to side with Democrats] He scoffs at Sen. Kyl (R)’s comment that “unemployment relief is a disincentive for people to seek new work”, basically saying, “in what universe?” yet it turns out this is what Krugman says in his own textbook.]
    
    Nope, THAT is what is called spin. First of all, as he states in the textbook, European benefits are a lot more generous that those here. There’s also the little issue of the current severe recession where it’s not so easy to find a job.
    
    [That’s one example.]
    
    That’s one pathetic example. As far as the student’s paper, why not just site some unknown right-wing blogger as your “proof?”
    
    [Or, that his common “tax the rich” positions have been based on his own (and oddly convenient) incorrect calculations. Examples cited here – http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html (“incorrect calculations”?]
    
    Ha! The Cato Institute is your “proof?” Now there’s a bastion of honesty!
    
    [Anyways, you once again are dodging the question re: legitimacy, but you asked for “one example”. I’ve given you a bunch. Check ‘em out.]
    
    I did. And they’re all crap.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 29, 2010 at 3:18 PM
    
    Once again you contradict yourself, Ben. Just like you say, FACTS ARE FACTS – it doesn’t matter whether its a B.A. student or a PhD adding up 1+1 to get 2, but here again you default to the personal attack.
    
    #1 – You want to dispute the GMU paper? Disprove each one of the contradictions it points out where Krugman publicly and obviously flip-flopped on his position based on what seemed to be the prevailing political wind.
    
    #2 – The foundation of the Cato article’s criticism lied in Krugman’s NUMBERS. But instead of defending Krugman’s numbers and attacking Cato’s recalculations, what do you do? You simply attack Cato’s “level of honesty”.
    
    #3 – You haven’t seen one instance where Krugman has shown his bias? A peer-reviewed paper is put in front of you with clearly stated examples, and you ignore it. This obviously shows yours.
    
    #4 – The GWS movie. You’re all quick to try and show its apparent biases, (have you even seen the movie, btw, or do you just read the critiques?) but you haven’t once acknowledged that Gore’s film is full of the same biases that just slant the other way. Why? Seems to be the same reason why you vehemently defend Krugman – an overwhelming desire to hate the right, perhaps? Either way, bias once again over facts.
    
    Like is said, it’s your page and I think you should say and do whatever the heck you want, but for a guy who tells people to go f-themselves, criticizes others harshly for repeating talking points from their side and for blindly/dogmatically following their (political) religion of choice, you yourself seem to often do the same. A discussion on the actual meat of an issue would be much more entertaining and engaging, I think. 🙂
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM
    
    [#1 – You want to dispute the GMU paper? Disprove each one of the contradictions it points out where Krugman publicly and obviously flip-flopped on his position based on what seemed to be the prevailing political wind.]
    
    Show me an example.
    
    [#2 – The foundation of the Cato article’s criticism lied in Krugman’s NUMBERS. But instead of defending Krugman’s numbers and attacking Cato’s recalculations, what do you do? You simply attack Cato’s “level of honesty”.]
    
    I don’t have time to check his calculations, but I do know that the Cato Institute has a definite political agenda.
    
    [#4 – The GWS movie. You’re all quick to try and show its apparent biases, (have you even seen the movie, btw, or do you just read the critiques?) but you haven’t once acknowledged that Gore’s film is full of the same biases that just slant the other way.]
    
    Not hardly. While there may be a few discrepancies, overall, the film states the scientific consensus.
    
    [Seems to be the same reason why you vehemently defend Krugman – an overwhelming desire to hate the right, perhaps?]
    
    I don’t have any desire to hate anyone. I just hate liars in general. It’s one thing to have different opinions based on the facts, but it doesn’t get us anywhere if one side lies about the facts.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    May 30, 2010 at 12:08 AM
    
    [Show me an example.]
    You’re commenting on something you didn’t even read? I’m not your “example fetcher” -you’re a grown man. READ THE PAPER AND THE EXAMPLES YOURSELF. It’s available on the link I sent you, and there’s enough in there.
    
    [I don’t have time to check the numbers.] Interesting. Once again, you’ll simply dismiss on politics!
    (And I hate to break it to you, but Krugman plays nice to his party just as bad as the Cato Institute does to theirs.)
    
    [Not hardly. While there may be a few discrepancies, overall, the film states the scientific consensus.]
    “A few discrepancies”. There’s your Convenient Truth! Both films seem pretty matched up that way. Seen it yet?
    
    [I don’t have any desire to hate anyone. I just hate liars in general. It’s one thing to have different opinions based on the facts, but it doesn’t get us anywhere if one side lies about the facts.]
    I don’t think two people can have an opinion about a fact – that’s just two opinions. “Facts” mostly come down to how thin something gets sliced, which almost always becomes a matter of perspective.
    
    Someone intentionally and deliberately distorting a fact to deceive – that’s annoying, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone do that here. Whitacre did it on the GM commercial, though! 🙂
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 30, 2010 at 6:57 AM
    
    [READ THE PAPER AND THE EXAMPLES YOURSELF.]
    
    I looked through it a while back and it seemed like their main complaint was Krugman wasn’t sympathetic enough to poor people. Have you read the paper or did you just decide it was good enough “proof” that Krugman is dishonest without reading it since it fit your narrative?
    
    [“Facts” mostly come down to how thin something gets sliced, which almost always becomes a matter of perspective.]
    
    No, facts are verifiable. You don’t get to decide what the facts are.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    June 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM
    
    [You don’t even understand facts.]
    I missed this above. Another insult. So you’re the authority on facts AND legitimacy now? Wow! Should I bow?! haha 🙂
    
    [Facts inherently have no bias. If the facts are changed to support an analysis, or presented in a way to change their meaning (as in the movie you want shown to children), that analysis is biased. I haven’t seen evidence of Krugman doing that.]
    In my opinion, there’s a distinct difference between “facts” and “bias”.
    
    [If the facts are changed to support an analysis… that analysis is biased.] To me, that’s called a lie. When key facts are deliberately omitted or withheld from an argument or viewpoint to make a point, THAT’S bias (arguably, lying by omission), in my opinion.
    
    To me, bias affects the selection of facts, not the manipulation of them. You say that climate scientists blocked opposing viewpoints because they were “lies”, as though they were defending “the truth”. They didn’t have the truth – they were defending computer models, and their egos and their funding along with it for which there is no excuse. Now unlike some others, I don’t dismiss the entire AGW argument because of that, but the politically-motivated rush to crucify them is just as bad (and as telling) as the politically-motivated rush to defend them. You saying that everything suppress was a lie is such an example as to why the left is just as to blame for the debate (and seemingly the science) going nowhere.
    
    Anyways, I’m no authority on bias or facts but in both sources and examples I’ve offered for discussion, bias has been properly and fairly called out. With it, I believe, so has the dogmatism or hypocrisy of your bias when it comes to determining who’s legitimate or not, and your seemingly venomous attitude towards others (and the insults thrown) when they challenge that bias.
    
    Then again, it does keep things lively and colorful! 🙂
  - Vern R. Kaine
    June 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM
    
    Side note: is this not a book written for us bloggers here, or what?!
    http://dogmatism.ca/
Alan Scott
May 29, 2010 at 7:57 AM

Mr. Hoffman,

” You want to drop the “legitimate” thing because you can’t find a legitimate scientist who denies AGW! ”

So as the grand poobah of this blog you get to determine “legitimate”. Agree with Ben Hoffman on weather or economics and you are “legitimate”. Disagree with Ben Hoffman and your parents were never married .

It’s been proven by me and others on your blog that much of the evidence on which Climate Change was based is of very poor quality . Much of the data was cherry picked to fit a preconceived notion . If you were as qualified to judge as you believe yourself to be, you would admit that making Economic policy on bad science is idiotic.

And to think that trading fake carbon credits will affect the weather is just beyond stupid . Even worse, to think that intentionally raising energy costs will not damage the economy,, well I’ve run out of words to describe it . I mean, high gasoline prices had a lot to do with crashing the economy 3 years ago . Or do you dispute that ?

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  May 29, 2010 at 8:08 AM
  
  Your premise that doing something about pollution will cause prices to go up is just a straw-man argument. Most right-wing arguments are based on lies, as is this one.
  
  Reply
The Arbourist
May 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM

This is an introduction to the debate and the science of this particular issue. Recommended viewing.

Reply
- Vern R. Kaine
  May 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM
  
  Arb’s got a lot of great sources for “that side” of the debate, for sure. Credit where it’s due. 🙂
  
  Reply
  - The Arbourist
    May 30, 2010 at 7:52 AM
    
    I do what I can. *nods*
    
    Now if I could only find similar works on unions, it would be all good. 🙂
- Vern R. Kaine
  May 29, 2010 at 4:16 PM
  
  Wait – this guy isn’t legitimate! He says “meethane”, not “methane”, “glassiers”, not “glaciers”. He’s clearly speaking British, not American! Poo on all he says!!!! 🙂
  
  Reply
  - Ben Hoffman
    May 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM
    
    [He’s clearly speaking British, not American!]
    
    Probably one of them dang yor-o-pee-an socialists.
Alan Scott
May 29, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

” Your premise that doing something about pollution will cause prices to go up is just a straw-man argument. Most right-wing arguments are based on lies, as is this one. ”

Do you even read the material from your own side before you make such comments ? The whole green energy concept is based on raising the price of Carbon based energy so that inefficient wind, solar, and any other Bull $h!+ technology can compete.

Your love of inefficient technologies is almost as irrational as your Bush hatred. Almost .

As always, prove me wrong!

Arbourist,

I listened to your video and found it more intelligent than the usual left wing crap. There is still a lot of stuff this guy does not touch on . Such as the natural variation in the Sun. Also his only reference for climate history going back many thousands of years is ice core samples . I don’t know that the ice core samples he cites are conclusive Globally .

He also does not address the recent Climate gate scandal.

Reply
- The Arbourist
  May 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM
  
  There is still a lot of stuff this guy does not touch on .
  
  Well, it is just the introduction video, there are 9 more after it, one dealing the recent hacked email problem as well.
  
  I did not want to video spam Ben’s blog. However, I found some of the others in the video serious useful in helping me to understand some of the particulars of AGW and GW in general.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
May 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

I do thank you and the Arbourist for posting specifics. Too much of what your side puts out is generalized fluff. I like arguing details, because I feel my side has the advantage there.

I take issue with the very first point in the cartoon. Energy Independence. Green energy never comes close to solving that. There are no ” legitimate ” experts who predict that . Green is based on making existing energy more expensive and scarcer . As if there is no down side to that. The gap is then filled with extreme conservation. Which means the average peon must lower his standard of living. I do not find the protected ruling elites like Al Gore or the protected academic elites like Michael Mann lowering their standard of living as an example to the public. Instead class envy is used to get the unwashed peons to accept their lot in life by promising to bring the wealthy down also. Misery truly loves company .

Preserve Rain forests. Who in the hell is not for that ? How does American green preserve Rain Forests in the Amazon or Asia or Africa?

Sustainability. That’s a freaking joke. Massive subsidies for green energy is not sustainable. Again. look at Spain. Look at corn ethanol in the US.

Green Jobs. OK, Mr. Obama, where are they ?

Livable cities. Our cities are livable . If they weren’t they would be called Detroit .

Renewables. Like Wind and Solar? Like all of the derelict Windmills around the country waiting to be recycled as scrap.

Clean Water. Yea, I’m all for that .

Air. Yea, I’m in favor of air.

Healthy Children. I ain’t against it.

Reply
- Vern R. Kaine
  June 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM
  
  Megan Kelly needs be added to that list. We all need to do everything to preserve her.
  
  How about this – RAP MUSIC – why don’t we just put a heavy tax on that? We’re already paying for it, it pollutes the air WORSE than one could argue CO2 does, and is tied to many of our social ills.
  
  Tax rap music, preserve Megan Kelly. There – everything solved. YOU’RE WELCOME. 😉
  
  Reply
  - Ben Hoffman
    June 1, 2010 at 10:04 AM
    
    [Megan Kelly needs be added to that list. We all need to do everything to preserve her.]
    
    If we could stop that windbag from lying and just put her mouth to good use, I’d be for that. 😉
    
    As far as taxing rap music, I’m all for that. And put a huge tax on high-powered subwoofers for cars.
  - Vern R. Kaine
    June 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM
    
    [If we could stop that windbag from lying and just put her mouth to good use, I’d be for that. ;)]
    You chauvinist, you – bite your tongue!!! Megan Kelly is no liar or windbag, but I tell you what: I’ll take Megan Kelly, you can take… Rachel Maddow. haha!
    
    (Commenter’s note: for the clarification of the PC cops in the audience, I do not mean “take” in the possessive or property sense of the word. It is a contraction of the phrase, ‘take as my pick of favorite female cable anchor’.)
  - Ben Hoffman
    June 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM
    
    [Megan Kelly is no liar or windbag, but I tell you what: I’ll take Megan Kelly, you can take… Rachel Maddow.]
    
    No, I want Liz Cheney. 🙂
    
    As far as Kelly being a liar, here she is repeatedly lying about ACORN. ACORN was not convicted or even accused of election fraud or voter fraud. The charge was voter registration fraud, which is far different, and ACORN was cleared of any wrongdoing in the 2008 election.
    
    Kelly is a liar. That is a fact.
The Arbourist
June 1, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Commenter’s note: for the clarification of the PC cops in the audience

Let me fix that for you.

Commenter’s note: For the clarification of the people who believe women are human beings and not property…

Acting humanely is a far cry from being politically correct. Keep up the good work Mr. Kaine.

Reply
- Ed
  June 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM
  
  Not that he or I would, but what would be wrong with treating women as property? Who are we to say a man would be wrong to think such?
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
June 1, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Ed,

I know many women who treat their men worse than they teat their dogs, cats, and other pets . When did sexism become a strictly male to female exercise ?

Reply
Ed
June 1, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Alan, I know that you know I was making a point. Maybe it was lost on some.

But tonight I watched The Stoning of Soraya M. Wow! We ain’t got nothin’ on the Muslims in Obama’s friend Iran. Shows what Islam’s false god religion thinks of women.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  June 2, 2010 at 8:22 AM
  
  Yeah, the Christian false god is much better than the Muslim false god. 🙂
  
  Reply
  - The Arbourist
    June 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM
    
    The FSM will see you all baked in his fiery (yet still quite tasty) marinara sauce for your blasphemy!
F & L
June 2, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Yes, I get that you don’t apparently believe in the one true God.

But, did you see that movie? Wow! Gripping and really well acted. Of course the story (a true one) line is how women in Muslim countries like Iran are nothing more than property to be discarded at a man’s whim. Sad that our government leaders (R and D) continue to look the other way on those oppressions.

Reply
Alan Scott
June 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Mr. Hoffman,

” Yeah, the Christian false god is much better than the Muslim false god. 🙂 ”

I double dog dare you to go to a Muslim country, like say Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell your funny jokes. I bet they laugh just as hard as we do, before they cut your head off. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

Ed,

Christians probably treat women better than most other religions. We don’t do the genital mutilations like they do in Africa. We don’t sell our daughters like they used to in India .

Reply
- The Arbourist
  June 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM
  
  I double dog dare you to go to a Muslim country, like say Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell your funny jokes. I bet they laugh just as hard as we do, before they cut your head off. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
  
  Precisely. Look what happens when the religious come to power. The secular state keeps the religious inanity to the sidelines, where it belongs (optimistically to wither and die, but I digress).
  
  Thank you once again Mr.Scott for making a wonderful argument for Atheism and secular body politic by illustrating how banal, evil and mendacious organized religion is; especially when it is in power.
  
  Cheers,
  
  Arb.
  
  Reply
Vern R. Kaine
June 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM

99.

Reply
Alan Scott
June 6, 2010 at 5:01 PM

The Arbourist,

” Precisely. Look what happens when the religious come to power. The secular state keeps the religious inanity to the sidelines, where it belongs (optimistically to wither and die, but I digress). ”

Of course you are wrong, but you are a worthy opponent . You compare an Islamic State to all Religious people and think you can make a moral equivalent. I agree that having a purely religious State tends to corrupt both the Religion and the State. But,,, having people of Religion and therefore having moral standards in Government is not a bad thing.

Let me explain what I mean. We all know religious people who do not live up to their calling. But, all religions have some moral standards. So why would anyone be religious? If someone goes to Church to acquire power in Government or get social standing that’s one thing. If that person is religious for reasons other than personal gain, then that person has some minimal personal standards.

” Thank you once again Mr.Scott for making a wonderful argument for Atheism and secular body politic ”

OK,,I think I get your meaning. You are for the morality of an Atheistic, Secular State,,,,,like say Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. Wait, wait, you might prefer Pol Pot’s Cambodia . No religion there, eh? Because that is the extreme opposite of the Islamic State.

Your basic mistake is to brand all religious people with the same brandin iron, pardner . Evil is evil and good is good. Us good, them bad. Life is so simple when you look at it from the right.

🙂

Reply
- The Arbourist
  June 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM
  
  You compare an Islamic State to all Religious people and think you can make a moral equivalent.
  
  I was comparing a state in which religion was taken seriously. If there was a state then took Christianity as a means to run a country I would also disparage it.
  
  having people of Religion and therefore having moral standards
  
  The idea that morality only comes from religion is an overstatement. Morality can and should come from a variety of sources. Anyways, the bible should not be regarded as a particularly moral text as it was used to perpetuate a good deal of evil (and still being used today) in the world.
  
  You are for the morality of an Atheistic, Secular State,,,,,like say Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. Wait, wait, you might prefer Pol Pot’s Cambodia .
  
  I would refer you to my blog article about mischaracterizing Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot’s regimes with atheism, but you have already seen the vid. 🙂
  
  Your basic mistake is to brand all religious people with the same brandin iron, pardner .
  
  I may have strayed too far in tarring religion with my statements, but I would assert that a secular system is better than a religious one for running a country.
  
  Evil is evil and good is good.
  
  As Ben Kenobi would say, “From a particular point of view…”. Without nuance and a charitable interpretation of both sides of the issue I think it would be difficult to accurately choose who was right and who was wrong.
  
  I offer Sam Harris at a recent TED talk as a way of looking at morality without religion.
  
  Reply
Indyfromaz
June 14, 2010 at 7:47 AM

Global Climate Change is junk science.
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”. Rahm Emanuel , White House Chief of Staff.
Alinsky Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
And what better villain that BP and what better opportunity than the Gulf Oil Spill to push through the stalled Cap and Trade 19th Century “Global Climate Change” Energy program.
Should be a hell of a Campaign Speech.
Hell for us, the American people, that is.
All on the back of totally junk science, but under the pretext of the Oil Spill.

Reply
- The Arbourist
  June 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM
  
  Global Climate Change is junk science.
  
  Your informed opinion is noted.
  
  Reply
Legal Analysis of Methamphetamine and Florida Meth Law
June 25, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Heya i am foor the first time here. I came across this board andd I
find It really useful & itt helped me out a lot. I hope to give something
back and aid others like you aidd me.

Reply

	dentist kanata hazel… on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Forex Charts on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Http://Evcnitttrc.In on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Www.Legi.cnrs.Fr on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Ufa357 on Are Republicans Really The Par…

DRUDGE RETORT

Search Drudge Retort

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll