The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
February 14, 2007 by GayPatriot
…. “F— You!”
February 14, 2007 at 1:58 pm - February 14, 2007
Aw, c’mon Bruce. Now you’re just baiting the lefties 😉
Al Gore says
February 14, 2007 at 2:00 pm - February 14, 2007
It’s not just global warming. It’s “climate change”.
February 14, 2007 at 2:11 pm - February 14, 2007
I said it before and I’ll say it again. If Al Gore wants to help stop “global warming” he can start by shutting his big yap, thus keeping all that hot air from getting out.
February 14, 2007 at 2:33 pm - February 14, 2007
I don’t buy all the global warming bit from Al Gore, but did he ever say that we wouldn’t have any more snow or ice storms in the northeast during the winter?
The good news is that it looks like from the satellite, that my town is on the southern end of the storm, and it may end soon.
Julie the Jarhead says
February 14, 2007 at 2:40 pm - February 14, 2007
Mr. Gore is welcome to come up to Malden, Massachusetts and shovel my sidewalk. One layer of snow, covered by ice, more snow, and (later in the day) freezing rain.
So what if the AVERAGE temperature MAY rise one degree over the next HUNDRED years (which I don’t believe it will)?
Julie the Jarhead
February 14, 2007 at 3:10 pm - February 14, 2007
😀 too funny… 😉
February 14, 2007 at 3:14 pm - February 14, 2007
Actually Julie, it won’t be AlManBearPigGore, it’ll Joey-4-OIL and his 3rd world henchmen Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro coming to your door… not to shovel (God knows they sure as heck know how to shovel it faster, at greater depths for longer periods than just about anyone… save Ian or keogh or lester), they’ll be there with fuel oil that only costs 60% of what most American Patriots pay and it may last you 3 months and you have to be at 110% of the federal poverty level for your area.
Who’d have thought that asking the poor to sell out our country would be so easy and come at a price of about $0.84/gal?
Gosh, maybe help on the sidewalk would be better. Mind any small animals and the neighborhood kids tho, if you take em up on the offer… JoeyP has a penchant for raping minor females… well, heck, that doesn’t distinguish him from the rest of the males in the Kennedy clan for the last 3 generations.
Peter Hughes says
February 14, 2007 at 3:30 pm - February 14, 2007
For all those libtards who say “Jesus Was a Liberal:”
GOD IS A CONSERVATIVE.
See Exhibit A above.
V the K says
February 14, 2007 at 3:38 pm - February 14, 2007
I just shoveled a great big pile of global warming out of my driveway.
just me says
February 14, 2007 at 3:39 pm - February 14, 2007
Well if God is sending this message to Al, couldn’t he have sent to Al instead of me?
Although I am just glad ours is snow only, and not any of the sleet and ice, but that snow is piling up quick, and is predicted to be somewhere between a foot and 30″ depending on whose telling me.
February 14, 2007 at 3:47 pm - February 14, 2007
Don’t trust the local weatherman. If they can’t accurately predict the weather in the next five days, what makes you think they can project what will happen in the next 20 years?
I guess liberalism is a convenient lie….
February 14, 2007 at 3:48 pm - February 14, 2007
You know that Global Warming thing? Just another name for what us common folk used to call WEATHER.
February 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm - February 14, 2007
Funny. I wasn’t aware that climate change and global warming exclude the possibility of future winters.
We’ll adapt? Wouldn’t adapting mean something like reducing emissions or changing irrational behavior?
Or is adaptation simply a passive process that doesn’t interfere with the ability of fat, lazy Americans to drive around in their living-room sized automobiles?
Of course if any of you had ever bothered to take a science class, you’d know that warming sea temperatures CREATE more severe storms such as the one we’re experiencing now, and such as the one we experienced in New Orleans a few years ago.
But I guess we’ll just adapt.
P.S. I know….I care about the environment and the mountains I grew up in…..I’m a “liberal.” Or a “leftist” even.
February 14, 2007 at 4:15 pm - February 14, 2007
And in St. Louis, a showing of the Global Warming Propaganda Film An Inconvenient Truth is canceled because of a snowstorm.”
Max Edison says
February 14, 2007 at 4:20 pm - February 14, 2007
You are all idiots. THe whole idea behind global warming is that it creates chaotic changes in the weather. Nobody ever said it would outlaw winter. Your grandchildren will curse you for being idiots.
February 14, 2007 at 6:29 pm - February 14, 2007
I know….I care about the environment and the mountains I grew up in…..I’m a “liberal.” Or a “leftist” even.
Only if you care about them more than human beings.
Only if you hate the poor so much, Chet – and from past discussions, it’s quite possible you do – that you would rather destroy economic development than give up cherished personal mis-conceptions, and/or “mountains” you don’t own.
February 14, 2007 at 6:46 pm - February 14, 2007
Bidinotto kicks ass on Manbearpig, with lots of good links: http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=500
February 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm - February 14, 2007
A movie that all of our arrogant, poor-hating (and basically racist), liberal “environmentalists” should be forced to see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948523/site/newsweek/page/2/
Movie trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wth_p4p0rfY
February 14, 2007 at 6:56 pm - February 14, 2007
#12 – Chet, I spent summers on my uncle’s farm in East Texas, so I guess I qualify with “moral authority” regarding nature.
I am a conservationist, not a tree-hugger. There is a big difference.
Conservationists draw upon the land for their use, but they do not abuse it. They put back what they can for the benefit of all others.
That being said, I too care about the land and sea. However, I know full well that there are others who can take it to an unhealthy extreme. (Earth First, anyone?)
And since I’ve lived all my life on the Texas Gulf Coast, you are wrong as you could be about the creation of hurricanes, at least in our neck of the woods. The Gulf of Mexico has ALWAYS been warmer than the Atlantic, and scientific evidence has never given any reason for us to believe that it will either subside or rise rapidly in temperatures to the extreme that you claim.
And just FYI – wasn’t 2006 supposed to be THE BIG YEAR for hurricanes? And how many landed on US soil?
Zero. Which in all likelihood is the IQ of most of these weather fear mongers.
February 14, 2007 at 6:57 pm - February 14, 2007
#14 – Max Edison, will your grandchildren curse you for being an idiot? Or will they simply lock you away in the nearest nursing home?
February 14, 2007 at 7:10 pm - February 14, 2007
Peter – bingo.
No sense in destroying the environment for its own sake. That would be as nihilistic and twisted as killing kittens.
But – Humans come first. Conservationists say, “OK, we have to think about how we are going to use this land wisely, or conserve it if there is no compelling use at the moment.”
Viros, by contrast, are extremists who hate human beings. They would rather literally destroy the lives of the poor, keep Africa locked into subsistence farming, etc., than permit any new economic development.
Some even fantasize – secretly or openly – about a war or plague killingl kill five billion human beings, so we can go back to a claimed “sustainable” population of 1 billion or less.
February 14, 2007 at 7:12 pm - February 14, 2007
P.S. And as per #15 – I don’t know if Chet is a true conservationist, or a viro. Maybe he can fill us in.
February 14, 2007 at 7:17 pm - February 14, 2007
#20 – Cal, wasn’t the villainess “Poison Ivy” in the movie Batman Forever based upon one of the eco-terrorist-types like those found in Earth First and the ELF?
She was the one who said “Mother Earth should be returned to a more primitive state – one without humans.”
Art imitating life, perhaps?
February 14, 2007 at 7:20 pm - February 14, 2007
#1. Actually, he’s just displaying his complete lack of understanding of the global warming issue. It is comical. On one level.
February 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm - February 14, 2007
#15. False dichotomy alert. The environment and economic development will not be throwing punches in a ring in Atlantic City any time soon. That you continue to draw upon and use these false dichotomies makes you, not a conservative, but a simpleton. Thinking conservatives around the world have recognized the pressing problems of global warming. And I guess, at some level, you do, too, since you spend so much time mocking the idea. Why so defensive?
February 14, 2007 at 7:41 pm - February 14, 2007
I’ll say it again:
The left says that Global Jihad is just a phantom menace and an excuse to vastly expand state power, restrict individual rights, silence dissent, and enrich companies and individuals who have a stake in fighting global terrorism.
The left’s solution to Global Warming: Vastly expand state power, severely limit individual freedoms, silence all dissent, and enrich individuals and groups who have a stake in fighting global warming.
Isn’t it funny how the left’s solutions to “Global Warming” always involve state control of economic activity and restrictions on individual freedoms? Meanwhile, they seem to exempt themselves from the Draconian regulations they want to place on others. The Kennedies blow hot air about “renewable energy,” but they make damn sure no one’s going to build and wind farms over the horizon from their summer estates. Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Arianna Huffington may kvetch about other people’s consumption of fossil fuels, but it doesn’t stop them from flying around in private jets or arriving at global warming conferences in great big giant SUVs.
North Dallas Thirty says
February 14, 2007 at 7:44 pm - February 14, 2007
The environment and economic development will not be throwing punches in a ring in Atlantic City any time soon. That you continue to draw upon and use these false dichotomies makes you, not a conservative, but a simpleton.
Then why was the excuse given for China and India’s exemption for complying with the Kyoto Protocol that doing so would harm their economic development?
Further, why did even the Clinton administration — which included Manbearpig worshiper Al Gore, as I recall — admit that compliance would come at a huge cost to the US economy, like reducing our annual rate of economic growth by three to four percentage points?
February 14, 2007 at 7:54 pm - February 14, 2007
Calarato — where did I say I hate poor people? What I said was that helping the poor through purely voluntaristic means (charity, church, etc.) will be ineffective.
Peter. Unfortunately, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research disagree with your claim that the warming seas (up 1.7 degrees since their average temp from 1900-1970) have no effect whatsoever on hurricanes as well as other types of storms, and the global climate generally.
Here’s a link, if you want to read about what real scientists (as opposed to partisan shills for industry and consumerism) say about warming sea temps. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13477989/
By the way, just because someone cares about the environment doesn’t mean he or she is writing checks to Earth First, or the Sierra Club, or Al Gore. I just means that I don’t want our planet to die.
February 14, 2007 at 8:29 pm - February 14, 2007
One wonders if Chet is familiar with the expression, “Methinks the lady doest protest too much.” It’s kind of comical how much effort he goes to to deny being what his stated positions indicate he is.
It’s kind of like Jeffrey Dahmer saying, “Just because I kill people, eat their flesh, and keep their remains in my freezer doesn’t mean I’m a cannibal.”
February 14, 2007 at 9:03 pm - February 14, 2007
Chet – Why would you ever openly say you hate poor people? Of course you would never. But the fact can be inferred in the type of poor-destroying policies that you have said you support. The welfare state, the regulatory state, redistributionism and all that, which perpetuate poverty and keep the poor trapped in it.
Vince P says
February 14, 2007 at 11:44 pm - February 14, 2007
Chet: the planet can’t die, It’s not alive.
People however can die. There are Islamic radicals the world over plotting now how they can fullfil thier religion’s demand of world conequest.
WHat do you think people will suffer from the most in the next 50 years…. Islamic Jihad or the weather?
John in IL says
February 15, 2007 at 12:18 am - February 15, 2007
It just means that I don’t want our planet to die.
A degree (or two or ten) difference in temperature will cause our planet to die? Get real. Being a big drama queen doesn’t help your argument.
February 15, 2007 at 1:13 am - February 15, 2007
In the first place, you should be pissed off about people insulting your intelligence with the global warming BS. All it’s about is money/power grab attempt the likes of which nobody has ever seen. Isn’t it the UN that’s angling for worldwide control of global warming? Tell me one thing the positive the UN has done efficiently. What are they going to do about global warming? Issue a feckless and meaningless resolution? Saddam got 17 resolutions. How many do you think global warming could amass?
All you have to do is look at the headlines of global warming stories. Don’t read the stories, just the headlines. If that doesn’t tell you how absurd the whole thing is, nothing will.
How is it that 600 scientists can come to a “consensus” on global warming, but they can’t come to a consensus on what to do about it? The answer is that they don’t want one. They want to play on your fears of the Earth dying for as long as possible. That way they can maximize their profits. As far as poverty goes, global warming will increase poverty by at least 30%.
Of course if you had ever bothered to stay awake during your science class, you should have learned that seas warm and cool all the time in a cyclical fashion. Take El Niño for example. It’s a cyclical weather pattern which nobody talks about anymore. This is an El Niño year, but everybody’s ignoring that in favor for the much more financially beneficial global warming.
Here’s a link, if you want to read about what real scientists (as opposed to partisan shills for industry and consumerism)
You mean “real scientists” who shill for global warming cash? You don’t think they’re making big bucks to push the catastrophe du jour? Real scientists would never arrive at a “consensus”. Nor would they supress the opposing opinions of others. If that’s the case, they’re not talking about science, nor are they dealing in science. Rather, they are dealing with politics, in this case, a socialist agenda.
I just means that I don’t want our planet to die.
I don’t doubt that. Nobody does. Your guilt, though, are just what these socialists are counting on. Their pushing their “we’re smarter than you are” game on you in the hopes that you’ll feel guilty and hand them more power and taxes to asuage that guilt. That’s what liberalism is based on. Fear and guilt. Honesty is right out. Global warming and liberalism is nothing more than an attack on your intelligence.
It’s time for people to sack up and stop feeling guilty. There’s no way that we can destroy the planet. If we could, we’d be able to figure out how to fix it. The Earth has survived a hell of a lot worse than we could do. Consider that volcanoes contribute more greenhouse gasses than man ever has and yet the Earth is still here.
February 15, 2007 at 1:16 am - February 15, 2007
How about Richard Branson offering, what? $25 million to come up with a cure for global warming? Why isn’t parking his Virgin Atlantic fleet, including planes, cars & bikes the first serious idea?
Speaking of US politicians, do you remember the deal with Rep. Sheila J. Lee having a car drive her 1 block to work every day?
I have to confess here, I really have a meta-point for Chet… BUT… I’m bored with it and don’t want to hang around to drop the punch line, so here’s the punchline early.
Chet, in inferring that you must hate poor people, because of policies you support that do in fact destroy their lives (I am not kidding or lying about that part), I am merely applying the same methods you use in your rather stupid, casual denunciations of the conservatives on this blog. Bye.
February 15, 2007 at 2:29 am - February 15, 2007
One last quick comment on that before bed.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
As one climate scientist puts it:
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion…
Conservative Guy says
February 15, 2007 at 2:40 am - February 15, 2007
I did take a science class, Chet. It was called Earth Science, and it was in the 1970s. We were taught that all available data had been carefully analyzed, and it told us that the earth was gradually getting cooler because we were in a natural cycle heading toward the next ice age. We were told that by the year 2000, agriculture in Canada would be severely curtailed because the cold weather would make the growing season too short.
February 15, 2007 at 4:42 am - February 15, 2007
Besides, if you had bothered to stay awake during science class, you would have learned that warming oceans always cool in cyclical fashion. Why is it that nobody talks about El Niño anymore? Because it’s not profitable.
Further, all one has to do is read the global warming headlines to see how absurd the notion is. If nothing else, Chet, you should feel insulted when they spew their fear-mongering guilt trip. Nobody doubts that you don’t want the planet to die. Neither do any of us. The simple fact is that we can’t destroy the earth. If we could, we would know how to fix it.
Why is it that we can come to a “consensus” that man created global warming, but we can’t come to a consensus on how to fix it?
February 15, 2007 at 8:52 am - February 15, 2007
You’re making a false dichotomy between protecting and or conserving the environment and protecting human interests. What you really mean is business interest, and you seem to believe that there is simply no way to put limits on emissions and things of that sort without hurting this precious group you equate with “humanity.” The human beings who need to be protected from global warming are people who increasingly cannot even get safe drinking water. Ever stopped to think about the fact that you now have to purchase water, something god gives us for free, at the grocery store, becuase the stuff that comes out of your tap is too toxic?
So protecting the environment might not be good for business interests (but they can and always do adapt), and it might be tough for some of the fat, laxy, disgusting people driving around in their living rooms to get used to a smaller car, but it is in the interest of human beings to do something about this.
February 15, 2007 at 10:24 am - February 15, 2007
None of the policies I endorse hurt poor people, and you can’t prove that they do with either factual evidence, nor a decently put together concpetual argument. that, Calarato, is why the only thing you have to drop is a punch line. So if you ever want to actually discuss the causes of poverty and solutions to it, let me know. Voluntary solutions with no oversight by a publicly accountable authority will not work. That does not mean I hate poor people; in fact, I’d suggest that “conservatives” who whine about the taxes they pay going to feed the underprivileged are the real haters in that discussion.
February 15, 2007 at 10:27 am - February 15, 2007
By the way, Calarato, which “scientist” is this whose work you’re citing? What studies has he done? Are they peer reviewed, like the scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Studies are? Or is he, as I would guess, a partisan shill for Exxon, Chevron, Cheney, and every fat SUV driver in this country?
Always good to back up your sources so that those who want to debate you can check them. And just because you call them a scientist doesn’t mean they are one.
February 15, 2007 at 12:17 pm - February 15, 2007
And just because you call a liberal a “good source of information” doesn’t mean that they are one, either.
February 15, 2007 at 12:34 pm - February 15, 2007
I’m not aware of the political affiliations of the scientist I cited, Peter H. In fact, most real scientists take great measure to be non-partisan about what they study. If they’re found to be partisans (like all of the “scientists” who say global warming doesn’t exist, but then it’s found out that their research is funded by industry), then what they claim to be the truth seems illegitimate.
Who, by the way, are you playing chess with?
February 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm - February 15, 2007
Chet writes in hyperstyle: “… every fat SUV driver in this country”.
No offense here but I’m one of those guys who drive a SUV… mine’s a 2005 Hummer. We have four in our family (safety first), drive on the highway a lot because of commuting for work, transport other kids from school on school events and carry kayaks, hiking gear, bikes, dogs and ski equipment just about every weekend.
Neither I or my partner or our kids are “fat SUV drivers” or riders. In fact, we’re fit outdoor enthusiasts and conservationists.
I don’t know why you would want to link SUVs with being fat. We drive what we drive because of safety first, comfort second, and utility third.
Maybe you need to drop the “partisan shill” nonsense the FarLeft usually throws around when trying to discredit scientists who don’t walk lock-step with the eco-fanatics on global warming.
I think most people here would contend that climate change is happening. What we strongly disagree with is that is should be a basis for sweeping regulatory measures that have dire economic consequences.
Drop the HyperDrama, Chet. You lose support each time you accuse and attribute adverse motives to some of the most simple and basic choices all adults make… btw, what do you drive?
Science is not an enemy of conservative political thought… anymore than religion and God are the sole province of conservatives.
February 15, 2007 at 1:09 pm - February 15, 2007
#43 – Chet, put down the Kool-Aid. If “real scientists” are supposedly non-partisan, then they should disavow comments by liberal shills like Weather Channel climatologist Heidi Cullen, who said: “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS [American Meteorological Society] shouldn’t give them a seal of approval.”
Furthermore, there’s a leading climatologist from Canada who has been vilified by the leftist GW alarmists, even though he has more than 30 years experience in his field.
So much for intellectual discourse and honesty, huh?
And BTW – I use “checkmate” as a term for showing that your argument has been rejected thoroughly and you should just quit while you are still able to retain your dignity.
That, plus I am a killer chess player.
Now excuse me while I drive my non-hybrid car, talk on the cell phone and gorge myself high up on the food chain.
February 15, 2007 at 1:36 pm - February 15, 2007
A couple more points.
1. Whatever influence humanity has on Earth’s environment is dwarfed by that of the giant fusion reactor in the center of the solar system.
2. If the Earth does get two or three degrees warmer over the course of a century, it hardly means the planet is going to turn into an oven broiler.
February 15, 2007 at 1:53 pm - February 15, 2007
I drive a VW, Matt (stereotypical, I know….). It’s perfectly safe, unless I get into a wreck with some person who only cares about their own safety and comfort driving a Hummer.
“Choices” do not happen in a vacuum, Matt. When you choose to drive around in a living room, you endanger the lives of others driving more reasonable automobiles, and you waste valuable resources. Sorry to put it to you that way, but it’s the truth.
And real science is neither liberal nor conservative. But the “scientists” conservatives and business leaders drag out to “prove” that there’s no problem with the current environment are not scientists. Even members of the Bush administration have come around on this one.
February 15, 2007 at 1:57 pm - February 15, 2007
Keep trying boys. When the majority of the real scientific community starts telling me that there’s nothing to worry about on planet earth, I’ll whole heartedly apologize to you. But I trust real scientists (like the one I cited above) a lot more than the hacks dragged out by people only concerned about their selfish private interests.
and you can say check mate and pat yourself on the back all you want, Peter…..but you haven’t said a single thing to convince me that you are correct on this issue. That would require (1) evidence supported by real scientific authorities, and (2) an argument that goes beyond self-congratulatory “check mates” without any support.
Gene in Pennsylvania says
February 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm - February 15, 2007
When the global warmists alarmist s start walking instead of driving and stop using A/C, then they will have my attention. Saw a Discovery channel program last night about when the earth was a SNOWBALL. Completely covered in snow and ice. Oh and that was like 5 million years before Henry Ford was born. We’ve come along way baby.
February 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm - February 15, 2007
When you choose to drive around in a living room, you endanger the lives of others driving more reasonable automobiles, and you waste valuable resources. Sorry to put it to you that way, but it’s the truth.
I suddenly am thinking about a car my bus was next to at a stop sign on the way to work this morning, interestingly enough; a Chevy Cavalier that had five kids in the back seat and two in front.
Of course, leftist Chet would be applauding that driver for choosing a more “reasonable” automobile.
In fact, I would challenge leftist Chet to start his crusade to push everyone in his city out of any SUV, minivan, or pickup truck because, according to him, those are “unreasonable” automobiles that “endanger the lives of others” and force them all into subcompacts like his.
And in fact, I would challenge leftist Chet to put his money where his mouth is, sell his car, and drive around on a bicycle — since he obviously has no need for a car, and his driving one is endangering the safety of pedestrians and “wasting valuable resources”.
February 15, 2007 at 3:40 pm - February 15, 2007
So Chet, in your own words, one must provide “evidence supported by real scientific authorities.” I think I already did that. If someone has been in the climatology field for 30 years without being discredited, that ranks up there as being authoritative.
The problem is that you will not consider anyone else’s view lest your own be discredited. This symptom is the usual failing of someone with low self-esteem. But I digress.
You are using old Soviet style agit-prop to justify your beliefs – proclaim one “true” authority, shun equal and opposing beliefs and assume a smug and condescending attitude towards others.
Unfortunately, kiddo, those days are long gone. Your side no longer has a monopoly on groupthink and realspeak.
And interestingly enough, you said a few posts up that you had “plenty of money.” Sort of like the old Politburo, no? I think the term “champagne socialist” would fit you just fine.
So you see, I don’t have to “checkmate” you because I have already proven my point. Deal with it.
February 15, 2007 at 6:22 pm - February 15, 2007
#26. Wow, they are doing ALL THAT!?!?!?! What an agenda; what a conspiracy!!
February 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm - February 15, 2007
I ride my bike all the time, and I take public transportation to work. I could easily drive, but I don’t because I don’t like the aggravation of driving and because it’s my small way of contributing to something I believe in. Lots of other people could do this, too, but they’re afraid of living outside of their protective, insular bubble (i.e., their Hummers).
I bet your Hummer has a television and dvd player in it, too……right Matt? LOL.
And Peter, you cannot simply dismiss someone’s argument as “socialist” and “champaign politburo” without yourself seeming like someone with low self esteem and a small intellect. The scientist you wrote about was one Canadian. The scientist I cited was a member of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was representing ALL of them. So let’s see Peter — who am I to believe? A lone Canadian, or someone speaking with scientific authority on behalf of a nationally recognized group of scientists? I’ll let you decide. By far the majority of the scientific community believes that some form of global warming and climate change is (1) man made and (2) correctable if we can get people to change their selfish, irrational behavior.
Of course, the future will decide this entire debate. And ten years from now if everything seems fine, then I’ll happily apologize for my misguidedness. Otherwise, I may try to hitch a ride in whatever Matt is driving at the time (hopefully something that does well in water).
February 15, 2007 at 9:30 pm - February 15, 2007
I heard recently that global alarmists are puzzled that the oceans have actually “cooled” the past 3 years. They are trying to figure out how this plays into the larger climate change matrix.
These same “experts” were puzzled by the massive drop -610% in hurricanes to hit south Florida this past season. Tell me again why I should take these people seriously? When the likes of Chet sells his V W starts walking and biking exclusively, I’ll sit up and take notice. Til then….warm up the SUV baaaaaaaby!
February 15, 2007 at 9:48 pm - February 15, 2007
You know when I’ll start taking the Manbearpig cultists seriously? When they begin championing solutions that don’t involve expanded government control over economic and personal freedom, when they stop using environmentalism as cudgel against capitalism, when they open up the debate to skeptics, and when they are willing to subject their “solutions” to cost-benefit analysis.
February 15, 2007 at 11:14 pm - February 15, 2007
The global warming arguments are falling apart.
February 16, 2007 at 1:10 am - February 16, 2007
But I trust real scientists (like the one I cited above)
How can they be “real scientists” and come to a “consensus”?
How can they be “real scientists” if they’re pushing to silence those who don’t lick their balls on global warming? REAL scientists engage in debate, discussions and debate, not shun it.
(like all of the “scientists” who say global warming doesn’t exist, but then it’s found out that their research is funded by industry),
Who’s funding the clowns you’re bowing to?
you endanger the lives of others driving more reasonable automobiles,
As an emergency responder with 10+ years of 911 service, I can tell you that a VW is not so “reasonable”, at least not in the sense that you mean. In my experience, I’ve never been to an MVA involving a Hummer, however, I’ve cut several people out of VWs. Had to fly them out too.
Here’s something for you as well. A friend of mine was in an accident a year or so ago. He was driving a Suburban and his grandfather who was the passenger was killed. He wound up with a leg broken in two places.
Ambulances are pretty big vehicles. They get into accidents all the time. Some medics have been killed too (although they probably weren’t wearing seat belts because they have to move around).
No matter what you do and no matter what you drive, you’re gonna die.
February 16, 2007 at 3:11 am - February 16, 2007
Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they’re all corporation-y… and they make money. Mmmhmmm.
February 16, 2007 at 12:23 pm - February 16, 2007
Chet, what you fail to grasp is that there is no ONE consensus of any type of “global climate change” and if or why it is occurring.
For you to blindly grasp on to one set of predicated outcomes versus taking in all views and creating your own shows your lack of sophistication.
But hey, don’t take my word (or the “one Canadian,” as you so engagingly put it). Here is a panel of Ohio meteorologists who think any global shift in climate is cyclical in nature and not man-made.
I guess these guys are also on someone’s payroll, right?
The point is that SOME evidence suggests that there MAY be global warming that MAY occur. It is not a certainty. So quit treating it as such.
February 16, 2007 at 12:32 pm - February 16, 2007
ThatGay — The scientists I cited are funded by taxpayer dollars….federal funding. This ensures that they don’t have to produce results that favor one side or the other. And of course there’s not entire consensus on every issue, but a large degree of consensus on global warming — world wide.
And I couldn’t really care less about your anecdotal evidence about how safe Hummers are, or how many bodies you’ve cut out of VWs. Look at the stats, ThatGay. Even the auto industry knows that SUVs, when involved in wrecks with other, small, and yes, more reasonable cars (my VW has plenty of leg room), they result in higher fatalities for the people who get plowed over by your living room.
Of course, I know that your comfort is extremely important to you — and self-sacrifice completely foreign. If you ever see a VW Jetta Wolfsburg with a liberal looking gay guy driving around in it (my bumper sticker says “You voted for him, you deserve him”), please don’t run me over with your school bus. Thanks in advance.
February 16, 2007 at 1:03 pm - February 16, 2007
Just FYI – my bumper stickers read “Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder” and “Keep Honking, I’m Reloading.”
February 16, 2007 at 1:08 pm - February 16, 2007
Those are funny, Peter. I’m looking for one that says “Effeminate Liberal.” I think that would be hilarious.
February 16, 2007 at 2:46 pm - February 16, 2007
Peter, LOL 🙂 Don’t bother with Chet. He’s not worth it.
He lives in an echo chamber and, as we’ve repeatedly seen, protects it by engaging in ad hominem attacks on the real or imagined sources of counter-evidence. (What that 3rd-grade, and substantially false, “he’s on somebody’s payroll” stuff of Chet’s is.)
February 16, 2007 at 3:45 pm - February 16, 2007
I’m not the bumper-sticker type, but the idea of one that said “My Home-schooler knocked up your Honor Student” has a certain appeal.
February 16, 2007 at 3:56 pm - February 16, 2007
Volkswagens are crap. Get a Volvo.
February 16, 2007 at 4:04 pm - February 16, 2007
Well Calarato, I didn’t see any brilliant reply to the scientific evidence I offered a link to — the one that states definitively that warmer sea temperatures are causing more storms (which was basically the only argument I made on this link). All I got was hot air from you, as usual. Face it, C — my arguments are more sophisticated than yours. That’s because I’ve read more, and I’ll always have read more. Thanks for playing, though.
Vin — love the bumper sticker. I was never the bumper sticker type either, until this country elected the frat boy.
February 16, 2007 at 4:35 pm - February 16, 2007
Personally, I’d rather have a frat boy in office than a hillbilly snake-oil salesman. Or his wife, for that matter.
February 16, 2007 at 5:10 pm - February 16, 2007
Luv ya too, Chet! And keep working on that persecution / entitlement thing where, you know, you wish to be treated much more fairly and nicely than you treat others. 😉
February 16, 2007 at 11:24 pm - February 16, 2007
Seems everyday now more and more weathermen, scientists and polititians are coming out to debunk the global warming claims.
Saul Wall says
February 16, 2007 at 11:55 pm - February 16, 2007
I hate it when there are a gazillion comments on a post and I can’t be bothered to read them all before commenting. Oh well…
The whole idea behind climate is that it does not get reported on the weather report. The fact that people are making fun of Al Gore and his weather is a result of his presenting weather as climate. Even ice cap changes over the years is not climate. The press has been oscillating between “the earth is warming” and “the earth is cooling” for a long time and the current climate models are neither predictive, nor inclusive of recent discoveries which were not anticipated (higher evaporation over tropical forests than tropical oceans, deeper penetration of CO2 into oceans, variations in algae levels due to changes in currents, etc).
Nothing indicates that anthropogenic climate change is moving at the rate that lefties claim it is, which means that taking action this very minute which increases poverty via CO2 quotas (resulting in firewood consumption, coal usage, slash and burn agriculture etc.) is not likely a positive thing. The wise thing to do at the moment is to increase prosperity and technological knowledge, increase research into climate science (which is not Godlike and perfect) and pursue alternative energies and habitat preservation, not to piss everyone off with movies about how we all need to live in caves and knit for fun and vote Democrat.
February 17, 2007 at 3:56 am - February 17, 2007
February 17, 2007 at 3:58 am - February 17, 2007
And bumper stickers!!! YAY!!!
February 17, 2007 at 6:21 am - February 17, 2007
The scientists I cited are funded by taxpayer dollars….federal funding. This ensures that they don’t have to produce results that favor one side or the other.
Oh please. Sorta like public teachers don’t have a liberal agenda, or public TV for that matter? How in the H*LL can you claim that taxpayer funding = no political agenda? Maybe you’re an idiot, but we’re not. In fact, scratch “maybe”.
but a large degree of consensus on global warming — world wide.
Therefore, it’s not science.
they result in higher fatalities for the people who get plowed over by your living room.
I have a Ford Ranger. How do I translate this into douchebag?….It’s more of a breakfast nook.
Of course, I know that your comfort is extremely important to you —
Oh. Well. How dare anybody be concerned with comfort. We should all be driving Yugos (my first car) with our knees up around our ears instead.
and self-sacrifice completely foreign.
It’s a 94 Ranger. I “self-sacrifice” plenty, thank you.
If you ever see a VW Jetta Wolfsburg with a liberal looking gay guy driving around in it
Took one out and flew him to Hermann.
I’m looking for one that says “Effeminate Liberal.” I think that would be hilarious.
February 17, 2007 at 10:39 am - February 17, 2007
Calarato — what makes you think I care how you treat me? I just didn’t want to have my posts deleted unfairly….that’s all. You can treat me however you wish; it’s not as if I’d remember you at the end of the day.
February 17, 2007 at 11:05 am - February 17, 2007
Hottest January EVER recorded
February 17, 2007 at 2:22 pm - February 17, 2007
what makes you think I care how you treat me?
Your persecution complex, Chet.
And what have all of your comments on this blog been, except the demands of an 11 year old girl that people show you honor? (More than you’ll grant them?)
It’s not as if I’d remember you at the end of the day.
And now, the lady officially doth protest too much.
February 17, 2007 at 2:42 pm - February 17, 2007
Correction to my last: I should have said “And now, for the ninth time in this thread alone, the lady doth protest too much.”
February 17, 2007 at 8:18 pm - February 17, 2007
Calarato — I couldn’t care less how you or anyone else on here “treats” me. I came on here to be engaged because, as I’ve stated, I appreciate conservative THOUGHT (which is not what comes out of your computer, by the way), even if I don’t always agree with it.
You’re the one taking it personally, my friend.
February 21, 2007 at 8:11 pm - February 21, 2007
SEE YOU DINOSAURS ARE STILL AT IT. THIS WINTER HAS BEEN A BREEZE, COLDEST IT GOT WAS -10F AND HARDLY A FOOT OF SNOW. BRING THAT GLOBAL WARMING ON, I WANT TOMATOES IN JULY.