NOAA RELEASES REAL DATA: CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE A LIE

[travelinman67]

I actually was directing that comment at Hippie.

You're right about the leads...that were layed over during the original studio recording. The live versions, not so much. Still a cool imagery song...well written.

I would be mightily impressed if a three-piece band could play the studio version live... great song regardless. Great album regardless...

The lead/rhythm was tracked.

[houndawg]

Whoa..!!!
T-Man you cannot be serious?

You're going to tell me that Exxon-Mobil who's profits amble along at about $10 Billion net gain a QUARTER - doesn't have a dollar to spend on forwarding the idea that everything is fine..?



Seriously you have FLOWN THE COOP
Now don;t get me wrong - I don't care because I'll be dead soon and none of this is actually meaningful in the long run... but seriously you need to check yourself a bit Bro.. you actually sound insane

Kinda sounds like the AGW con hasn't cut into E-M's profits.



And I didn't need a doctorate to figger it out. Who'd a thunk?

BTW, anytime you'd like to compare Psych Inventorys...

...the most disordered coughs up a guitar.

I'll take your Flying V, please.

I'll take an old Kay upright bass when you psychos get time....

[houndawg]

I would be mightily impressed if a three-piece band could play the studio version live... great song regardless. Great album regardless...

The lead/rhythm was tracked.

Hard to play them simultaneously with only two hands...

[Chizzang]

Kinda sounds like the AGW con hasn't cut into E-M's profits.



And I didn't need a doctorate to figger it out. Who'd a thunk?

BTW, anytime you'd like to compare Psych Inventorys...

...the most disordered coughs up a guitar.

I'll take your Flying V, please.

ALL business by definition is in the business of "self preservation"
The idea that Exxon-Mobil isn't in the "image and self preservation" business as you suggest is just silly... they are as selfish and greedy as your average company (no more no less)

Again:
I'm NOT saying "good or Bad"
I'm saying lets be realistic - not delusional and misleading - Saint Exxon

[Chizzang]

[SeattleGriz]

Kinda sounds like the AGW con hasn't cut into E-M's profits.



And I didn't need a doctorate to figger it out. Who'd a thunk?

BTW, anytime you'd like to compare Psych Inventorys...

...the most disordered coughs up a guitar.

I'll take your Flying V, please.

ALL business by definition is in the business of "self preservation"
The idea that Exxon-Mobil isn't in the "image and self preservation" business as you suggest is just silly... they are as selfish and greedy as your average company (no more no less)

Again:
I'm NOT saying "good or Bad"
I'm saying lets be realistic - not delusional and misleading - Saint Exxon

So are you saying Exxon should spend their profits to oppose poor science?

I used to work with an old Exxon exec and he told me years ago (2003 is when I asked him - didn't ask when their study was) Exxon asked people if they would be willing to pay a small increase in fuel prices so they could develop alternative fuels, and the answer was a resounding "no".

Maybe that is another reason Exxon doesn't care, because their consumers don't.

[Chizzang]

ALL business by definition is in the business of "self preservation"
The idea that Exxon-Mobil isn't in the "image and self preservation" business as you suggest is just silly... they are as selfish and greedy as your average company (no more no less)

Again:
I'm NOT saying "good or Bad"
I'm saying lets be realistic - not delusional and misleading - Saint Exxon

So are you saying Exxon should spend their profits to oppose poor science?

I used to work with an old Exxon exec and he told me years ago (2003) Exxon asked people if they would be willing to pay a small increase in fuel prices so they could develop alternative fuels, and the answer was a resounding "no".

Maybe that is another reason Exxon doesn't care, because their consumers don't.

This is AMERICA..!!!
A study shows that the average american household owns 2.28 cars
(Just ponder that for a few moments)

We're a Oil Based Economy (period)


http://www.autospies.com/news/Study-Fin ... old-26437/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

I'm sorry you were unable to answer my question...

I'll answer it, Fuckstick.

Corporate America doesn't throw money at a spin campaign, BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO! A rational mind does not waste time or money responding to a lie.

Being a meme liberal, you clearly don't understand rational thought. In liberal world, change is attempted by imagining a narrative, repeating it over and over, declaring you've won the non-existent debate, and then shouting down everyone who attempts to remind you the absence of reality in your "world".

Grow up. Stop wasting our time.

you know what klam?

it isnt that you're a smug ass sometimes

its that you think everyone on this forum is stupid

you are the most stereotypical liberal on here

like a caricature

Wow, seemed to have struck a nerve here. No need to be vicious, ladies.

I've just noticed that in certain circles, AGW is allegedly driven by government funding of grants and such. It's practically a known scientific fact.

Now, perhaps the sheer size of government research dollars is so vast that it's not worth while for corporations that benefit from AGW denial to spend money seeking the truth. But you'd think there might be a little incentive. According to the Washington Post, Sheldon Adelson and his wife spent $93 million on the last campaign. There are countless other businessman both liberal and conservative that donate millions to campaigns. There are billions spent lobbying for various special interest groups. Are all these people and corporations just idiots, pissing their money away? Wouldn't it be advantageous for industries that benefit from non-renewables to spend a little dough on fighting the good fight?

Just want to know how government is winning this PR battle...

[houndawg]

I'll answer it, ****.

Corporate America doesn't throw money at a spin campaign, BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO! A rational mind does not waste time or money responding to a lie.

Being a meme liberal, you clearly don't understand rational thought. In liberal world, change is attempted by imagining a narrative, repeating it over and over, declaring you've won the non-existent debate, and then shouting down everyone who attempts to remind you the absence of reality in your "world".

Grow up. Stop wasting our time.

you know what klam?

it isnt that you're a smug ass sometimes

its that you think everyone on this forum is stupid

you are the most stereotypical liberal on here

like a caricature

[kalm]

you know what klam?

it isnt that you're a smug ass sometimes

its that you think everyone on this forum is stupid

you are the most stereotypical liberal on here

like a caricature

Funny thing is, it was actually a semi-honest question (trying to see the conk point of view) and I think that most people on this board are much smarter than me…especially Cid.

[houndawg]

Funny thing is, it was actually a semi-honest question (trying to see the conk point of view) and I think that most people on this board are much smarter than me…especially Cid.

CID is smarter than everybody here. He is the orifice from which all knowledge emanates.

[CID1990]

Funny thing is, it was actually a semi-honest question (trying to see the conk point of view) and I think that most people on this board are much smarter than me…especially Cid.

no i just choose not to play smug childish games with you

and bullshit on your "who me? im just trying to unnerstand!" crap. its about as believable as the "im not a hardcore liberal" act you frequently try to put on

go back and read what i have written on this subject. do it several times if thats what it takes

im done arguing climate science (or its absence) with ideologues

[kalm]

Funny thing is, it was actually a semi-honest question (trying to see the conk point of view) and I think that most people on this board are much smarter than me…especially Cid.

no i just choose not to play smug childish games with you

and bullshit on your "who me? im just trying to unnerstand!" crap. its about as believable as the "im not a hardcore liberal" act you frequently try to put on

go back and read what i have written on this subject. do it several times if thats what it takes

im done arguing climate science (or its absence) with ideologues

You'd have a right to name call and get your panties in a bunch if I had directly leveled the question at you. But I didn't. You got all butt hurt anyway which speaks volumes regarding your own ideology. We should all be more skeptical of our leanings, including me.

So yeah...quit arguing with yourself. Probably a good idea.

[CID1990]

no i just choose not to play smug childish games with you

and bullshit on your "who me? im just trying to unnerstand!" crap. its about as believable as the "im not a hardcore liberal" act you frequently try to put on

go back and read what i have written on this subject. do it several times if thats what it takes

im done arguing climate science (or its absence) with ideologues

You'd have a right to name call and get your panties in a bunch if I had directly leveled the question at you. But I didn't. You got all butt hurt anyway which speaks volumes regarding your own ideology. We should all be more skeptical of our leanings, including me.

So yeah...quit arguing with yourself. Probably a good idea.

face it

youre the Seattlegriz of climate change theads

married to your ideology

seriously i cannot tell you apart

[Chizzang]

face it

youre the Seattlegriz of climate change theads

married to your ideology

seriously i cannot tell you apart

Oh I can tell them apart...

See, Kalm is on the left

[SeattleGriz]

You'd have a right to name call and get your panties in a bunch if I had directly leveled the question at you. But I didn't. You got all butt hurt anyway which speaks volumes regarding your own ideology. We should all be more skeptical of our leanings, including me.

So yeah...quit arguing with yourself. Probably a good idea.

face it

youre the Seattlegriz of climate change theads

married to your ideology

seriously i cannot tell you apart

And you're the guy so married to his ideology, that you can't see the connection between the two fields.

I am in awe that even though you are not only a climate scientist, but you are an evolutionary biologist as well and always post opinion and no facts.

Amazing.

[AZGrizFan]

So are you saying Exxon should spend their profits to oppose poor science?

I used to work with an old Exxon exec and he told me years ago (2003) Exxon asked people if they would be willing to pay a small increase in fuel prices so they could develop alternative fuels, and the answer was a resounding "no".

Maybe that is another reason Exxon doesn't care, because their consumers don't.

This is AMERICA..!!!
A study shows that the average american household owns 2.28 cars
(Just ponder that for a few moments)

We're a Oil Based Economy (period)


http://www.autospies.com/news/Study-Fin ... old-26437/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. I'm DEFINITELY driving that average UP.

[Skjellyfetti]

So are you saying Exxon should spend their profits to oppose poor science?

I used to work with an old Exxon exec and he told me years ago (2003 is when I asked him - didn't ask when their study was) Exxon asked people if they would be willing to pay a small increase in fuel prices so they could develop alternative fuels, and the answer was a resounding "no".

Maybe that is another reason Exxon doesn't care, because their consumers don't.

Twin studies about global warming show American citizens are ready for change, while businesses are already altering their practices.

Most Americans are willing to pay more to help curb pollution amid increasing fears of climate change, according to a new poll.

The findings are just one of many from two surveys exploring public attitudes about pollution and efforts to reduce it. The results show that many people are grumbling for change and that some businesses are taking steps to curb pollution independent of government mandates.

In the Bloomberg U.S. National Poll’s latest findings published on Wednesday, climate change proved a divisive issue. In perhaps one of the most surprising responses was the willingness of many Americans to make a financial sacrifice to help reverse climate change. Sixty two percent of those surveyed said would pay more for energy if it would reduce air pollution from carbon emissions.

But there was a large gap based on political ideology. More than eight out of ten Democrats said they’d pay more, while only 46% of Republicans said they would do so, according to a Bloomberg report about the results.

Climate change elicited strong reactions in a number of other areas including the seriousness of the problem. For example, of those polled, 46% consider climate change a “major threat” while 24% said it was “no real threat.”

http://fortune.com/2014/06/11/climate-change-risks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SeattleGriz]

So are you saying Exxon should spend their profits to oppose poor science?

I used to work with an old Exxon exec and he told me years ago (2003 is when I asked him - didn't ask when their study was) Exxon asked people if they would be willing to pay a small increase in fuel prices so they could develop alternative fuels, and the answer was a resounding "no".

Maybe that is another reason Exxon doesn't care, because their consumers don't.

Twin studies about global warming show American citizens are ready for change, while businesses are already altering their practices.

Most Americans are willing to pay more to help curb pollution amid increasing fears of climate change, according to a new poll.

The findings are just one of many from two surveys exploring public attitudes about pollution and efforts to reduce it. The results show that many people are grumbling for change and that some businesses are taking steps to curb pollution independent of government mandates.

In the Bloomberg U.S. National Poll’s latest findings published on Wednesday, climate change proved a divisive issue. In perhaps one of the most surprising responses was the willingness of many Americans to make a financial sacrifice to help reverse climate change. Sixty two percent of those surveyed said would pay more for energy if it would reduce air pollution from carbon emissions.

But there was a large gap based on political ideology. More than eight out of ten Democrats said they’d pay more, while only 46% of Republicans said they would do so, according to a Bloomberg report about the results.

Climate change elicited strong reactions in a number of other areas including the seriousness of the problem. For example, of those polled, 46% consider climate change a “major threat” while 24% said it was “no real threat.”

http://fortune.com/2014/06/11/climate-change-risks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't doubt that. Global warming has been pounded into everyone's head. But don't you think Exxon would sit back and say, "why lend any credence?'. Also, I'm sure there are still plenty of customers that will buy their gas. Why does Exxon have to change? Why can't the users of gas be better about their usage? Exxon has been making their product for a LONG time.

I get your point though. Never hurts to look like you care.

[kalm]

face it

youre the Seattlegriz of climate change theads

married to your ideology

seriously i cannot tell you apart

Oh I can tell them apart...

See, Kalm is on the left

Damn…SG is as smoking hot as I am!

[kalm]

face it

youre the Seattlegriz of climate change theads

married to your ideology

seriously i cannot tell you apart

And you're the guy so married to his ideology, that you can't see the connection between the two fields.

I am in awe that even though you are not only a climate scientist, but you are an evolutionary biologist as well and always post opinion and no facts.

Amazing.

He's the Bill Maher of CS.com…never going too far out on that limb…content to smugly take pot shots.

[CID1990]

And you're the guy so married to his ideology, that you can't see the connection between the two fields.

I am in awe that even though you are not only a climate scientist, but you are an evolutionary biologist as well and always post opinion and no facts.

Amazing.

He's the Bill Maher of CS.com…never going too far out on that limb…content to smugly take pot shots.

i dont have to go out on any limbs

im smart enough to know not to waste time spilling ink over idealogues and their faith

i do enjoy seeing you and SG being cooperative though... like cats and dogs living together or something

[kalm]

He's the Bill Maher of CS.com…never going too far out on that limb…content to smugly take pot shots.

i dont have to go out on any limbs

im smart enough to know not to waste time spilling ink over idealogues and their faith

i do enjoy seeing you and SG being cooperative though... like cats and dogs living together or something

Yeah…I'm constantly amazed at your ability to rise above the fray!

[houndawg]

This is AMERICA..!!!
A study shows that the average american household owns 2.28 cars
(Just ponder that for a few moments)

We're a Oil Based Economy (period)


http://www.autospies.com/news/Study-Fin ... old-26437/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. I'm DEFINITELY driving that average UP.

Just sold a W100 Power Wagon (factory 440) you would have loved in your neck of the woods...

[houndawg]

He's the Bill Maher of CS.com…never going too far out on that limb…content to smugly take pot shots.

i dont have to go out on any limbs

im smart enough to know not to waste time spilling ink over idealogues and their faith

i do enjoy seeing you and SG being cooperative though... like cats and dogs living together or something

You punks get off my lawn!