Now, you, Al, Joe Romm, every ideologic Dem, 95% of the MSM, most Hollywood actors, and every bureaucrat who stands to benefit from the proposed leviathon of regulatory oppression concocted from this scheme can just shut the hell up.
You know you've knocked out a conk when they resort to bringing up "Hollywood!!"
Nice try you Edwardian Tub o' Lard.
15,000,000 actors/actresses in Hollywood and you can name the conservatives on two hands. I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of "most", Einstein.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
You know you've knocked out a conk when they resort to bringing up "Hollywood!!"
Nice try you Edwardian Tub o' Lard.
15,000,000 actors/actresses in Hollywood and you can name the conservatives on two hands. I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of "most", Einstein.
The fact that he brought up the "handful" of liberal actors at all is .
Classic Conk 101 = blame the niggers and hollywood
AZGrizFan wrote:
15,000,000 actors/actresses in Hollywood and you can name the conservatives on two hands. I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of "most", Einstein.
The fact that he brought up the "handful" of liberal actors at all is .
Classic Conk 101 = blame the niggers and hollywood
It ain't spin if it's the truth.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
youngterrier wrote:
No one said that, as a matter of fact scientists are probably brutal with their cross examining of data through the peer review process. It's no different in the Climate Change field, the thing is that we have a lot of neanderthals who are not scientists giving their input on the matter, when they have no idea about what exactly the controversy is.
You don't really have to know a lot about climate science in order to critique the AGW hypothesis. All you really need to know is about the historical validity of observational studies versus actual EXPERIMENTS. You ever wonder why there's constantly paradigm shifts in the health sciences with respect to diet and exercise? Because in the vast majority of cases what we "know" about that stuff is based on studies and not actual EXPERIMENTS. Why do the French have lower incidence of heart disease when they smoke so much and eat more saturated fats? No one seems to care yet health "experts" continue to make an anathema out of saturated fat.
The same thing that has happened with climate research as well. What about the global cooling theory and all the other gloom-and-doom theories from the 1970s? What about the predictions after Hurricane Katrina that hurricane seasons would get more violent? Why have temperatures been dropping lately when emissions have not? Why should so much stock be put into what is essentially an observational study with a sample size of 1 when the weather can't be accurately predicted over the next 24 hours and there are so many unexplained warming and cooling spikes over history?
And on the subject of appealing to authority, how many climate scientists do you think understand the mathematical underpinnings of the regression models used in climate scientists to know how appropriate that they are? It's not high school statistics that they are doing. How many of them are well-versed in the field and methods of paleoclimate study? How many of them understand ecology enough to know how microbial, plankton, and insect populations contribute to greenhouse gas productions (since all of them produce FAR more than all human activities)?
AZGrizFan wrote:
15,000,000 actors/actresses in Hollywood and you can name the conservatives on two hands. I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of "most", Einstein.
The fact that he brought up the "handful" of liberal actors at all is .
Classic Conk 101 = blame the niggers and hollywood
D, you've failed reading comprehension.
My post was in response to Infant Terrier's remark that people who lack a scientific background shouldn't be preaching about science.
Hollywood is the quintessential example of morons abusing their pulpit. Turn on any "Hollywood" program or listen to any interview with an airhead, er, actor, and you'll hear the extremist/religion "greenhouse gas bad" agenda throughout: In their philosophies, political activities and most importantly, throughout their programming content.
Point is, few have any science/engineering education, or a minimal level necessary to understand the complexity of climate science. Virtually all Hollywood "greenies" merely parrot dogma preached by the liberal envirowhacko demagogues who've derailed our country's growth and economic future.
"That is how government works - we tell you what you can do today."
- EPA Kommissar Gina McCarthy
D1B wrote:
The fact that he brought up the "handful" of liberal actors at all is .
Classic Conk 101 = blame the niggers and hollywood
D, you've failed reading comprehension.
My post was in response to Infant Terrier's remark that people who lack a scientific background shouldn't be preaching about science.
Hollywood is the quintessential example of morons abusing their pulpit. Turn on any "Hollywood" program or listen to any interview with an airhead, er, actor, and you'll hear the extremist/religion "greenhouse gas bad" agenda throughout: In their philosophies, political activities and most importantly, throughout their programming content.
Point is, few have any science/engineering education, or a minimal level necessary to understand the complexity of climate science. Virtually all Hollywood "greenies" merely parrot dogma preached by the liberal envirowhacko demagogues who've derailed our country's growth and economic future.
Good thing we have the the unbiased deniers to set them straight!
Hi, my name is Ben Affleck, and I want to speak seriously on a topic in which we all care deeply..............
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Hi, my name is Reverend Al Sharpton. I race bait for a living. Tuwana Brawly lied, as did the Duke Lacrosse stripper, but I still want us focused on the inequities of America. My good friend Spike Lee, gave away the address of a completely unconnected elderly couple in connection with' Treyvon's lack of justice, but those folks had it coming. Thank goodness the media is showing a 5 year-old photo of the victim, just to make it more emotional for everyone. If we could only get the NBPP to put a bounty on Zimmerman inconveniently black friend, we all could feel much better about the media lynching about to take place. Carry on, this feels good and right, especially since I have the name "reverend" in my title. This must be the correct path, because MSNBC is so angry right now that they are advocating boycotting Taco Bell right now in the name of justice.
Liberals and their bullshit agendas, well, just plain suck.
When Maxine Waters reaches the pearly gates, I hope St. Peter bitch-slaps her with a large, wet teabag
Hallelujah! We saved the earth on Tuesday when the EPA killed coal.
The Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday proposed greenhouse-gas regulations that effectively would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
Dr. Fang became curious how far the rot extended. To find out, he teamed up with a fellow editor at the journal, Dr. Arturo Casadevall of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. And before long they reached a troubling conclusion: not only that retractions were rising at an alarming rate, but that retractions were just a manifestation of a much more profound problem — “a symptom of a dysfunctional scientific climate,” as Dr. Fang put it.
Dr. Casadevall, now editor in chief of the journal mBio, said he feared that science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct.
“This is a tremendous threat,” he said.
Seems scientists do follow the money when trying to get a career going.
-
Maybe they meant some on the left would be brain dead
NASA 1986: All Life Extinct In A Few Decades Due To Global Warming…
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. Al Swearengen http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/childr ... bronco.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
youngterrier wrote:
No one said that, as a matter of fact scientists are probably brutal with their cross examining of data through the peer review process. It's no different in the Climate Change field, the thing is that we have a lot of neanderthals who are not scientists giving their input on the matter, when they have no idea about what exactly the controversy is.
You don't really have to know a lot about climate science in order to critique the AGW hypothesis. All you really need to know is about the historical validity of observational studies versus actual EXPERIMENTS. You ever wonder why there's constantly paradigm shifts in the health sciences with respect to diet and exercise? Because in the vast majority of cases what we "know" about that stuff is based on studies and not actual EXPERIMENTS. Why do the French have lower incidence of heart disease when they smoke so much and eat more saturated fats? No one seems to care yet health "experts" continue to make an anathema out of saturated fat.
The same thing that has happened with climate research as well. What about the global cooling theory and all the other gloom-and-doom theories from the 1970s? What about the predictions after Hurricane Katrina that hurricane seasons would get more violent? Why have temperatures been dropping lately when emissions have not? Why should so much stock be put into what is essentially an observational study with a sample size of 1 when the weather can't be accurately predicted over the next 24 hours and there are so many unexplained warming and cooling spikes over history?
And on the subject of appealing to authority, how many climate scientists do you think understand the mathematical underpinnings of the regression models used in climate scientists to know how appropriate that they are? It's not high school statistics that they are doing. How many of them are well-versed in the field and methods of paleoclimate study? How many of them understand ecology enough to know how microbial, plankton, and insect populations contribute to greenhouse gas productions (since all of them produce FAR more than all human activities)?
Oh and by the way, I've already addressed these straw men and falsehoods. You won't get much more attention from me in discussion until you stop using them.
