http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070727/ap_on_en_tv/tv_fox_protest

While I don't think that Fox News is "fair and balanced" (they are decidedly right leaning), I thought this was an interesting new "method" to try to drown out a news network. Seems that moveon.org is adopting the "Jesse Jackson" method of attacking it's opponents.

The biggest factor in Fox's success or lack thereof will be if it continues to produce content that people wish to see. The people at moveon.org and dailykos can scream and complain to those who advertise with Fox all they want, if Fox draws an audience, people are going to advertise. As the spokesman from Home Depot said "We're not in the business of censoring media, we need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."

I think the most disgusting thing about the article oldphart linked to was the blurb from the Sierra Club that wished to target Home Depot because they advertise on a network that dares to question global warming. Sorry Sierra Club but just because your group is stupid enough to fall for the global warming boondoggle doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line and join the Cult of Global Warming, dammit.

that's a real bummer. i'm sure the wackos that pay attention the moveon.org aren't watching Fox News anyways, and aren't being reached by their advertisers:rolleyes:

I would not be at all surprised if the corpses of every person alive now who is spewing the rabid, anti-science --"Aw, this global warming stuff is just a buncha hooey all them scientist fellers are making up! It isn't really happening!" -- viewpoint, as the last glaciers are melting and the earth is in its death throes, are dug up by future generations and hung in effigy.

I love how an organization called "move on" will still take money to help fire Tom Delay.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/delayradio.html

What "News network"?

You mean Fox?

They only do opinion.

Aw, this global warming stuff is just a buncha hooey all them scientist fellers are making up! It isn't really happening!"

Not many people hold that belief that I am aware of.

many hold the one that i do, that the world IS warming, but the effects of it are greatly exaggerated for political and funding reasons, and that there is really no way to tell if humans are a 5% or 50% cause of the warming.

many hold the (idea about global warming) that i do, that the world IS warming, but the effects of it are greatly exaggerated for political and funding reasons, and that there is really no way to tell if humans are a 5% or 50% cause of the warming.

Once, virtually every human on earth thught the planet was flat.....so, yeah. You may be correct. Many people may well share just such a notion.

But anyone who DOES hold to such an idea evidently imagines that they are more knowledgeable about the current state of the planet's climate than the 2500+ preeminent government scientists, academic scientists and researchers who are members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I mean, on the one hand, you have the reseach findings of people such as Dr Robert T. Watson, an atmospheric scientist who has been doing research on ozone depletion, global warming and paleoclimatology for over 25 years. And then on the opposing side of the issue, you have multitudes of people such as Joe Sixpack, the transmission mechanic from Bumfuck, Alabama. But hey!, who knows? Maybe Joe the mechanic DOES know more about the current state of the planet's climate than the entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But I tend to think that is not the case.

LMAO obviously you are clueless about the scientific community. Many well respected scientists think like I do. However, I could care less if they agree with me, I just go based off evidence and behavior of those who are so desperately trying to create the problem.

many hold the one that i do, that the world IS warming, but the effects of it are greatly exaggerated for political and funding reasons, and that there is really no way to tell if humans are a 5% or 50% cause of the warming.
And some people share parts of that belief. I think that politicians and the media exaggerate global warming, like they do every other issue they talk about. However, I think humans are a big part of the trend - closer to 50% than 5%.

sure freethinker, the only person who opposes the idea of man made global warming is joe sixpack from bumfuck, Alabama. Whatever.
Perhaps one day they will dig up all the guilt trip artists trying to say we will all be dead from global warmnig and mock them and then cast their bones into the North sea where they will freeze solid so they can be fished out and mocked again in another 100 years.

And some people share parts of that belief. I think that politicians and the media exaggerate global warming, like they do every other issue they talk about. However, I think humans are a big part of the trend - closer to 50% than 5%.

I would say closer to 5% considering that 95% of greenhouse gases consist of water vapor. I think CO2 is about 2-3%. So a big rise in CO2 WILL have an effect, but I doubt a catastrophic one.

Hell there used to be TONS more CO2 in our atmosphere back when volcanoes were so much more active.. and yet we are still here. The planet was NOT destroyed.

And some people share parts of that belief. I think that politicians and the media exaggerate global warming, like they do every other issue they talk about. However, I think humans are a big part of the trend - closer to 50% than 5%.

50%!?!?!?! sorry, that is impossible. We coud not influence the composition of the Earth's atmosphere that much if we tried. Unless we started launching nukes.

We have not been recording the temp of the Earth long enough to come to a stead fast conclusion on that question.


And some people share parts of that belief. I think that politicians and the media exaggerate global warming, like they do every other issue they talk about. However, I think humans are a big part of the trend - closer to 50% than 5%.

So dumb. If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it. Attacking advertisers is silly; they're in the business of making money...not making a political statement.

[QUOTE=Freethinker]Once, virtually every human on earth thught the planet was flat.....so, yeah. You may be correct. Many people may well share just such a notion.

But anyone who DOES hold to such an idea evidently imagines that they are more knowledgeable about the current state of the planet's climate than the 2500+ preeminent government scientists, academic scientists and researchers who are members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I mean, on the one hand, you have the reseach findings of people such as Dr Robert T. Watson, an atmospheric scientist who has been doing research on ozone depletion, global warming and paleoclimatology for over 25 years. And then on the opposing side of the issue, you have multitudes of people such as Joe Sixpack, the transmission mechanic from Bumfuck, Alabama. But hey!, who knows? Maybe Joe the mechanic DOES know more about the current state of the planet's climate than the entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

**************************************

Our Planet goes thru cycles of Glacial and Interglacial periods.
They last,usually around 11,000 years,as determined by studying
microfossils.We have currently been in an Ice Retreat or Interglacial
for the last 11,500 years.So we're due for a Glacial {ice advance}
Ice Age.

sure freethinker, the only person who opposes the idea of man made global warming is joe sixpack from bumfuck, Alabama. Whatever.

Here.

I will post again what I said.

Try reading it V_____E_____R_____Y slowly.

""And then on the opposing side of the issue, you have multitudes of people such as Joe Sixpack, the transmission mechanic from Bumfuck, Alabama.""

Here. I'll post it again, this time with a key portion underlined. Maybe that will help.

""And then on the opposing side of the issue, you have multitudes of people such as Joe Sixpack, the transmission mechanic from Bumfuck, Alabama.""

My point was that yes indeed, many, many people (many very ignorant, very uninformed people) refuse to recognize --due to Rightwing anti-global-warming propaganda being broadcast 24/7-- that global warming is real.

While over 2500 scientists belong to the world's most prestigious panel and they have agreed --unequivocally-- that global warming IS happening. Right now. And that it will continue to happen.

Here is what their findings were in the IPCC Report: Climate Change 2007;

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) is due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So.

You can either believe the world's leading scientists. Or you can join Decka and Joe from Bumfuck, who imagine that they know more about the planet's climate than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

________________________________

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."_____finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[QUOTE=Freethinker]Here.

OK already.So you've managed to latch onto a Cause Celebre
to bark,intimidate,hound,badger,harass,annoy and even
belittle over.
Few Climatologists agree.And most of those so-called
esteemed Scientists were PAID.Given grant money to
study and write up their findings on.
Most Scientist get funded that way.

You can either believe the world's leading scientists. Or you can join Decka and Joe from Bumfuck, who imagine that they know more about the planet's climate than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Ugh... i hate being mislabeled...

I don't deny our world is getting warmer at the moment.. however the human cause is not a major factor in it. It contributes, no doubt... but humans driving cars is not going to cause doomsday.. like we are lead to believe.

And it's interesting hearing you criticize other people for "knowing more"... There are many people more qualified than you who would say that your points are retarded bunk. So I guess I can just bring that up every time you make some sort of biased point.. eh?

Oh, and while you try to paint that 99% of scientists believe what you believe... it's really not that tilted. There are a multitude of scientists who disagree that humans are the main culprit. However.. you have the LEADING scientists, so you claim. LMAO..

Ugh... i hate being mislabeled...

I don't deny our world is getting warmer at the moment....however the human cause is not a major factor in it.

You are stating the exact opposite of what the IPCC is saying.....ipso facto, you imagine yourself to know more about what is going on with the climate than they do.

They stated in no uncertain terms that there is more than a 90% certainty that man's actions ARE contributing to global warming. You stand in direct opposition to that.

They ALSO are on record as having stated that the probability that global warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone (ergo that man's activites do not enter into it) is less than 5%. You stand in direct opposition to that. This demonstrates that you imagine yourself to know more about the causes of global warming than they do.

Oh, and while you try to paint that 99% of scientists believe what you believe... it's really not that tilted.

First, I have not tried to paint it as being any particular number.

I do contend that an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that man's activites are contributing to global warming.

Your refusal to recognize the scientific method that led to that panel's conclusions seems to me nothing more than pure knee-jerk --"Aw, what do them smarty pants IPCC guys know anyway!!"-- rightwing nitwittery.

Don't worry though. Joe Sixpack, Bumfuck Alabama's leading redneck intuhlecksheull, has been brainwashed into the same (infantile) refusal to see it that you demonstrate.

You are not alone!

Wow.. where do i begin.

You are stating the exact opposite of what the IPCC is saying.....ipso facto, you imagine yourself to know more about what is going on with the climate than they do.

They stated in no uncertain terms that there is more than a 90% certainty that man's actions ARE contributing to global warming. You stand in direct opposition to that.

I Do not stand in "direct opposition" that man's actions are CONTRIBUTING to global warming. It's a no brainer on that one, no shit sherlock. My argument is HOW MUCH is man contributing. Try to keep up.

They ALSO are on record as having stated that the probability that global warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone (ergo that man's activites do not enter into it) is less than 5%. You stand in direct opposition to that. This demonstrates that you imagine yourself to know more about the causes of global warming than they do.

Again, you obviously misread my posts.. The issue for me is how much does man contribute to global warming. That is a measure that no scientist can state as fact. They can just say whatever will give them more funding.



First, I have not tried to paint it as being any particular number.

I do contend that an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that man's activites are contributing to global warming.

Your refusal to recognize the scientific method that led to that panel's conclusions seems to me nothing more than pure knee-jerk --"Aw, what do them smarty pants IPCC guys know anyway!!"-- rightwing nitwittery.

Once again, since you can't read my posts.. your moronic, sophomoric lingo is irrelevant. And who said that quote?.. oh that's right, you did.


You are not alone!

You are absolutely right, many people who are well respected in the scientific community agree with me.. that the human element of global warming is being drastically overexaggerated for political and economical purposes.

If only Freethinker was as bright as he thinks he is. All the problems of the world would be solved.

It is not only Joe Sixpacks who disagree with those who say humans are the primary cause of global warming (now called climate change so it can also account for global cooling, increased rain, decreased rain, more snow, less snow and any and all climatological or even short term weather changes)

Many of the scientists who are now screaming from the rooftops about global warming were not all that long ago screaming about the coming ice age. Some like Paul Erlich were also screaming about overpopulation as well as the coming ice age. If it wasn't one disaster it was another.

Lately more and more scientists are hopping off the global warming bandwagon. They are seeing that the hype is mainly that, hype with very little actual science to back it up.

Perhaps the planet is getting warmer. It has gotten far warmer in the past than it is today and in far shorter periods of time, sometimes mere decades or even years. The planet has been colder and the planet has been warmer. That's how it works in a dynamic system. Just look bact at the little ice age and the little and great optimum to see this dynamism in action.

The planet has been colder and the planet has been warmer. That's how it works in a dynamic system. Just look bact at the little ice age and the little and great optimum to see this dynamism in action.

Geepers! THAT'S where they must be going wrong!

I'll bet none of those silly scientists on the IPCC have ever heard anything about that important stuff. Chances are they never thought to take any of that into consideration!

Someone needs to write to them and give them a heads up about the little ice age and the little and great optimum.

Global Warming = a good political platform and a good fundraiser...

It is impossible to tell if humans are the cause... only theories can be presented.

Lately more and more scientists are hopping off the global warming bandwagon.

For example?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566&q=global+warming&total=16167&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Above is a controversial BBC documentary on global warming. It's one sided (like Al's movie is) but also brings up some points to ponder.

Not many people hold that belief that I am aware of.

many hold the one that i do, that the world IS warming, but the effects of it are greatly exaggerated for political and funding reasons, and that there is really no way to tell if humans are a 5% or 50% cause of the warming.
Who cares if it is 5% or 50% if it is really happening? Why nitpick over a percentage? The Bush administration has even acknowledged the earth is warming and the most likely cause is burning fossil fuels! Actually, the "US Climate Action Report" says that most likely global warming will destroy alpine meadows,barrier islands and corral reefs. Also there will be more storms and global warming will increase heat stress,air pollution and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. And this is not a recent acknowledgement by the Bush administration! They said this over 5 years ago!!Since they have finally admitted that greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of the global warming,something which scientist have been saying for many years, what did the administration say we should do. Get use to the warming. Yikes, that is what it says in the report? No measures for combating global warming like conserving fossil fuel or finding alternative energy sources? They acknowledge global warming is a disaster in the making and refuse to help the problem?

Who cares if it is 5% or 50% if it is really happening? Why nitpick over a percentage? The Bush administration has even acknowledged the earth is warming and the most likely cause is burning fossil fuels! Actually, the "US Climate Action Report" says that most likely global warming will destroy alpine meadows,barrier islands and corral reefs. Also there will be more storms and global warming will increase heat stress,air pollution and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. And this is not a recent acknowledgement by the Bush administration! They said this over 5 years ago!!Since they have finally admitted that greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of the global warming,something which scientist have been saying for many years, what did the administration say we should do. Get use to the warming. Yikes, that is what it says in the report? No measures for combating global warming like conserving fossil fuel or finding alternative energy sources? They acknowledge global warming is a disaster in the making and refuse to help the problem?

You hit the nail on the head as to why nothing ever gets done. Everyone spends so much time wondering who's to blame, what's to blame, and how much to blame they are. If these emmissions are contributing AT ALL, wouldn't it be wiser to find something different to use? Of course that would mean spending some money on UNBIASED research, but I think that is just a pipe dream since so much of the problem is simple greed.

They stated in no uncertain terms that there is more than a 90% certainty that man's actions ARE contributing to global warming. You stand in direct opposition to that.


This is a perfect example of arguing from a false premise. Freethinker is claiming that man is a major contributor to global warming and uses as one of his proofs a statement that says man's actions are contributing to the effect without quantifying how much of an effect. The effect, according to the quote, could range from 100% down to less than .01%.

The Kyoto Accords want to have certain nations, ie. The Westm curtail their industrial capacity to such an extent that their economies will be crippled while allowing other nations, ie. China, India, et al, to continue their polluting unabated. In fact they propose allowing those countries to profit from their polluting by being allowed to sell what amount to pollution shares.

Global Warming has become more an anti-West political statement than anything else.

also the fact that there is nothing that can be done.

Vilepagan,

You requested some names. How about these for a start.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Virginia, who served as the first Director of the US Weather Satellite Service (which is now in the Department of Commerce) and more recently as a member and vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) ·

Dr. Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who found that if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented by all signatories, it would reduce temperatures by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050, and 0.13 degrees Celsius by 2100. What does this mean? Such an amount is so small that ground-based thermometers cannot reliably measure it. ·

Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has specialized in climate issues for over 30 years. · Jerry Mahlman, Director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, who points out that when regional climate models, of the kind relied upon by the IPCC, attempt to incorporate such factors as population growth "the details of future climate recede toward unintelligibility." ·

Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station, agrees that the IPCC's predictions are baseless, in part because climate models are highly imperfect instruments. As he said after the IPCC report came out: "It's extremely hard to tell whether the models have improved" since the last IPCC report. "The uncertainties are large."

Peter Stone, an MIT climate modeler, said in reference to the IPCC, "The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been reduced at all." ·

Dr. David Wojick, an expert in climate science, who recently wrote in an article in Canada's National Post, "The computer models cannot...decide among the variable drivers, like solar versus lunar change, or chaos versus ocean circulation versus greenhouse gas increases. Unless and until they can explain these things, the models cannot be taken seriously as a basis for public policy." ·

Climate modelers from four separate climate modeling centers who wrote in the October 2000 edition of Nature that, "Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain." They go on to explain that, "A basic problem with all such predictions to date has been the difficulty of providing any systematic estimate of uncertainty," a problem that stems from the fact that "these [climate] models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior." ·

NASA scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy whose satellite data, validated independently by measurements from NOAA balloon radiosonde instruments, show that the atmosphere has not warmed as alarmists theorize. · Dr. Thomas R. Karl, senior scientist at the National Climate Data Center, who corrected the U.S. surface temperatures for the urban heat-island effect and found that there has been a downward temperature trend since 1940. This suggests a strong warming bias in the surface-based temperature record. ·

Scientists from the Scripps Institution for Oceanography who concluded that the temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost 400 to 1,000 years later. This contradicts everything alarmists have been saying about man-made global warming in the 20th century. ·

University of Illinois researchers who reported "a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000." In some regions, like the McMurdo Dry Valleys, temperatures cooled between 1986 and 1999 by as much as two degrees centigrade per decade. ·

Dr. Paul Reiter who convincingly debunks the claim that higher temperatures will induce more deaths and massive outbreaks of deadly diseases in a 2000 study for the Center for Disease Control. ·

Dr. David Legates, a renowned professor at the University of Delaware and world's leading expert in the hydrology of climate. ·

Over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which says that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. · I also point to a 1998 recent survey of state climatologists, which reveals that a majority of respondents have serious doubts about whether anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases present a serious threat to climate stability. ·

Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who have just completed the most comprehensive review of temperature records ever. ·

Then there is Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University. ·

Over 17,000 independently verified signers of the Oregon Petition, which reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." ·

Kenneth Green, D. Env., is Chief Scientist and Director of the Risk and Environment Centre at The Fraser Institute. He most recently wrote Global Warming: Understanding the Debate. ·

George H. Taylor, who is the State Climatologist for Oregon, and a faculty member at Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, manages the Oregon Climate Service, the state repository of weather and climate information. Mr. Taylor is a member of the American Meteorological Society and is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. ·

Pat Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels has authored tests on climate and is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming. ·

Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, since 1953, is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science, and has received numerous international awards; ·

Robert Balling, Jr., Professor & Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University who received his Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma, has authored three books on climate; ·

Professor Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario and of the Niels Bohr Institute's Orsted Laboratory and the Canadian Climate Center co-authored Taken by Storm with Professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and the Fraser Institute in Vancouver; ·

Dr. John Reilly, of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, who established the benefits of CO2 on flora; · and many, many others.


The names are from a floor speech given in the Senate on September 25, 2006, by U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

Who cares if it is 5% or 50% if it is really happening? Why nitpick over a percentage?

Because, if humans are 50% of the problem, it is a much bigger urgency to fix than if we are merely 5%... I am all for doing our part, just don't try to scare me into buying a hybrid and hating myself for driving a car.

The Bush administration has even acknowledged the earth is warming and the most likely cause is burning fossil fuels!

No shit sherlock.. fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide, sulfer dioxide, nitrous oxide, and ozone... that is not in dispute. However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know how much of an effect our coal power plants and automobiles will have on the earth as a whole.

Remember, you might see graphs about how much carbon dioxide has gone up in the past years, but you never see the one that tells you that carbon dioxide only makes up about 3-5% of all greenhouse gases.

Actually, the "US Climate Action Report" says that most likely global warming will destroy alpine meadows,barrier islands and corral reefs. Also there will be more storms and global warming will increase heat stress,air pollution and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. And this is not a recent acknowledgement by the Bush administration! They said this over 5 years ago!!

Those are side effects of global warming.. as are animal migrations, deforestation, and an increase in deserts. This is basic stuff.. I don't get why you are reciting this ecology 101 stuff.

Since they have finally admitted that greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of the global warming,something which scientist have been saying for many years, what did the administration say we should do. Get use to the warming. Yikes, that is what it says in the report? No measures for combating global warming like conserving fossil fuel or finding alternative energy sources? They acknowledge global warming is a disaster in the making and refuse to help the problem?

Okay sherlock... can you tell me what the biggest greenhouse gas is?

I bet you think its CARBON DIOXIDE... or METHANE.. right?

It's water vapor, which is 95% of all greenhouse gases. We have no control over water vapor, our cars don't emit water vapor, our power plants don't blast it into the atmosphere. It's freakin water for crying out loud.

So NO SHIT that "greenhouse gases" are the main cause of global warming... that's like saying Taco Bell is the main reason you have the shits the next morning. Except you have scientists saying it was because you had a carrot along with taco bell.. THAT is why you have the shits!

The Kyoto Accords want to have certain nations, ie. The Westm curtail their industrial capacity to such an extent that their economies will be crippled while allowing other nations, ie. China, India, et al, to continue their polluting unabated. In fact they propose allowing those countries to profit from their polluting by being allowed to sell what amount to pollution shares.

Global Warming has become more an anti-West political statement than anything else.
That's my whole aversion to the global warming scare, and what's it become here (i.e. a political gimmick). Well said, Frogger.

Dr. Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who found that if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented by all signatories, it would reduce temperatures by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050, and 0.13 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Which demonstrates one thing.

The damage has already been set into motion. It is virtually irreversible, absent a massive, 180 degree shift in human consciousness as it regards protecting the planetary climate.

The situation is so grave that no matter WHAT mankind does now, they can have very little effect on averting the coming catastrophe.

But that does not mean humankind should not try.

I'd much rather go down fighting than to simply unquestioningly follow the Luddite RightWing cretins whose infantile attitude is ------

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/U/bush_whatmeworry.jpg

Several things.............

First off, back in the 70s, scientists everywhere insisted that the earth was COOLING. Cooling, not warming but cooling. The earth was supposed to be on the brink of an ice age and such a drastic change in temperatures were to result in increased floods, hurricanes, droughts, food shortages. So on and so forth. Barely a decade later, and it was just a decade later, the earth is supposed to be WARMING, and all sorts of terrible things are supposed to happen, floods, droughts, hurricanes, food shortages. NOW, before I begin to believe all this global warming crap, I'd like an explanation from all these climate "experts" on how they got it so wrong in the past and why we should believe them now, dammit.

I can also point out that THE greenhouse gas, the most effective, prevelant gas the gas most responsible for regulating the Earth's tempurature is water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas that keeps the earth insulated. 95% of greenhouse gas is water. The thing is, there is plenty of potential water vapor floating around in the form of oceans, which mankind doesn't have a hell of a lot of control over. HMMMMMMM, when was the last time any of you people learned that the most prevelant greenhouse gas is water vapor? Have you ever wondered why? Did I mention the minor little fact that when the climatologists went and computer generated models of global warming forecasts, they left out water vapor. One would think that in modelling greenhouse gasses and the effect on earth's climate they would include water vapor, which accounts for nearly ALL greenhouse gas on earth. If you pulled this stunt in any other endeavor, you'd get an F if you were in the field of acedamia and probably get arrested if you were in the real world. Imagine trying to sell a house and leave out the minor little fact that 95% of it burned down or trying to write a book report when you didn't read 95% of the book.

Carbon Dioxide accounts for just less than 5% (methane makes up a tenth of a percent or something like that as well as a couple of other gasses) of the greenhouse gasses when you run the numbers correctly and include water vapor. Then you figure that between valcanoes, oceans and life on earth produce some 95% of the CO2 and mankind accounts for only 5% of CO2 emmissions. Add up ALL the global warming gasses correctly and mankind emits some THREE ONE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of all global greenhouse gasses. Someone please explain to me how a percentage of a percent of the greenhouse gasses emitted by mankind is going to change earth's climate at all, dammit. It's bogus, bunk, a boondoggle. And there's more folks, in this bilge known as Global Warming.

The earth is a long, long way from being the hottest it has ever been. Glaciers have been melting in Europe, I believe it was the Alps or something like that. Anyway, after the glaciers retreated and scientists of various stripes were able to poke around, they found mines, and mining tools and equipment. You see, what happened was back before the LITTLE Ice Age, it was warmer than it was now. The Climate was a lot nicer. And people in the Middle Ages, were able to move up into those mountains and do some mining. What happened was that the miners put down their equipment for the winter, thinking to be back in spring, and it got so cold and snowy and it never warmed and a glacier overtook the mines and the people back then never did get back to working the mines. It was just too cold. You see, before the Little Ice Age, things were warmer than what they are now and because of this warmth, people were able to mine further up in mountains and grow nice crops like wine grapes further north and Greenland was a bit more habitable and Vikings were able to farm and raise crops there. Which is rather hard to do nowadys, dammit. So much for the Earth being warmer than it ever was before, dammit.

On a more practical note, the pointy heads can scream all they want about Global Warming and cataclysmic climate change and all that, but the Chinese and the Russians are NOT going to pay that any mind. Those countries are expanding, they need oil, gas and coal and all they're worried about is quantity and price. They'll be more than happy to have the West go and hamstring themselves by adopting Kyoto Treaty protocols. But if anyone, any government or advocacy group tries to suggest that China and Russia follow Kyoto, they'll be told to go and screw themselves. China and Russia will be somewhat diplomatic when telling people to go screw themselves, but they'll mean it. We're talking about communists here. These guys don't believe in human RIGHTS, never mind the latest pyschobabble called global warming. C'mon guys, old Mr Putin poisons his critics, what do you think he's going to do with people who make too much noise over Global Warming? Can you say gulag? The Chi-Coms are just as bad.

This whole global warming thing is all a bunch of crap, dammit.

Wow Frogger, that's pretty impressive. That evidence provides the foundation for a very solid argument. Kudos. Personally, I'm partial to just rhetoric because I'm lazy. ;)

However, also remember that there are just as many scientists on the other side claiming the opposite. Yet this is good evidence to support your claim that the assumption of a "scientific consensus" on this subject is false. In general, there is almost never a scientific consensus on anything. While it sounds impressive when posing an argument, it's also hopelessly felacious.

:D

Now let's see who gets the joke...

There's a pretty good scientific consensus going on the basics of evolution...

So dumb. If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it. Attacking advertisers is silly; they're in the business of making money...not making a political statement.

I too believe that that is the only way to kill the BEAST, I go along with what moveon.org proposes... To hurt these NeoNazis, the best way is to hurt their pockets.

However, also remember that there are just as many scientists on the other side claiming the opposite.

False. There are far, far more scientists in agreement with current global warming data and projections than there are those who are denying it.

Half or more of the names Frogger listed were not in any way shown to be "hopping off the global warming bandwagon".

No info was provided in evidence that the people below (named by Frogger) are in opposition to view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Dr. S. Fred Singer -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Dr. Tom Wigley --simply says that temperatures will be reduced very litle if the Kyoto protocol is followed

Dr. Richard Lindzen-- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Jerry Mahlman --simply says that attempts to incorporate such factors as population growth cause the data to be unreliable.

Gerald North -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Peter Stone --simply notes that the major climate prediction uncertainties have not been reduced.

University of Illinois researchers --simply noted that some regions have cooled instead of warmed. This does not contradict the findings of the IPCC.

Dr. Paul Reiter --simply disagrees with the consequences of warming, not agreeing that higher temperatures will induce more deaths and massive outbreaks of deadly diseases

Dr. David Legates -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas -- no evidence given that they oppose the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Dr. Frederick Seitz, -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Over 17,000 "independently verified signers of the Oregon Petition" -- the vast majority of these people are not climatologists or scientists. Many are not connected with science in any way.

Kenneth Green, -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

George H. Taylor, -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Pat Michaels -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Freeman Dyson, -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Robert Balling, Jr., -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Professor Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Dr. John Reilly, -- no evidence given that this person opposes the view of the majority of the world's climate researchers and scientists on the subject of global warming

Freethinker,

Science is not about concensus. It is about investigation and trying to arrive at a truth. Once science becomes a religion it ceases being science and in the eyes of many proponents Global Warming has entered the realm of religious truth. There are calls to stifle those who disagree as the church once sought to stifle heritics. People who don't believe as the Global Warming proponents do are being called Deniers, placing them in the same category as Holocaust Deniers. There are calls to defund scientists who do not agree with the present theories about Global Warming.

True science welcomes dissent. What is going on is not science but politics.


You seem to be very concerned about Global Warming. Remember, every journey begins with one step. I suggest that since you are so concerned about the problem you begin taking that one step and then another and another and another. Get rid of your car and begin riding a bicycle. Stop purchasing products made from petroleum products, no more CDs, no more items wrapped in plastic bubbles, no Crocs, etc.. Stop using appliances that need electricity. No more television, no more electric lights, no more computer. Replace your lawn which you should not be mowing anyway with an organic garden. Be sure to not use pesticides but instead pick the bugs off your plants with your fingers. Turn off the air conditioning and when winter comes don't turn on the heat. Don't use your barbecue or start a fire to cook with. Eat all your food raw. You should not be eating animals anyway since they, especially ruminants like cows have been found to be a major source of greenhouse gasses.

Do your bit, Freethinker and then come back and preach to the rest of us.

Freethinker,

Science is not about concensus. It is about investigation and trying to arrive at a truth. Once science becomes a religion it ceases being science and in the eyes of many proponents Global Warming has entered the realm of religious truth. There are calls to stifle those who disagree as the church once sought to stifle heritics. People who don't believe as the Global Warming proponents do are being called Deniers, placing them in the same category as Holocaust Deniers. There are calls to defund scientists who do not agree with the present theories about Global Warming.

True science welcomes dissent. What is going on is not science but politics.


You seem to be very concerned about Global Warming. Remember, every journey begins with one step. I suggest that since you are so concerned about the problem you begin taking that one step and then another and another and another. Get rid of your car and begin riding a bicycle. Stop purchasing products made from petroleum products, no more CDs, no more items wrapped in plastic bubbles, no Crocs, etc.. Stop using appliances that need electricity. No more television, no more electric lights, no more computer. Replace your lawn which you should not be mowing anyway with an organic garden. Be sure to not use pesticides but instead pick the bugs off your plants with your fingers. Turn off the air conditioning and when winter comes don't turn on the heat. Don't use your barbecue or start a fire to cook with. Eat all your food raw. You should not be eating animals anyway since they, especially ruminants like cows have been found to be a major source of greenhouse gasses.

Do your bit, Freethinker and then come back and preach to the rest of us.


I don't think Freethinker will appreciate living with Ivan, dammit.

Free, from Frogger's post, the evidence comes from the fact that these scientists signed the Heidelberg appeal. Besides, the point is that the community is not in consensus. And on the others you're drawing semantical lines that don't really exist. The point is that there are a lot of respected scientists who don't tow the alarmist line.

And Napster, actually, the community has gone through many disagreements about evolution. First there was the cataclysm theory, then gradualism, and now punctuated equilibrium. Also, there have been drastic reordering of lines of relation between species.

Science is always changing.

And Napster, actually, the community has gone through many disagreements about evolution. First there was the cataclysm theory, then gradualism, and now punctuated equilibrium. Also, there have been drastic reordering of lines of relation between species.
So?

I thought Frogger was going to provide evidence of scientists who are "hopping off the bandwagon".

Are there any on his list who were ever "on" the bandwagon?

If Fox is leaning to the right, that must mean all other news stations are leaning to the left?

Why does fair and balanced have to mean it's in a direction. I mean shouldn't' people have the basic ability to entertain the validity of a statement before accepting it as truth?

Or are we all just becoming sheeple?

I thought Frogger was going to provide evidence of scientists who are "hopping off the bandwagon".

Are there any on his list who were ever "on" the bandwagon?

I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for the response Frogger, but I was hoping to see some scientists who had changed their stance on the issue. Your suggestion seemed to be that scientists were abandoning the notion of global warming in droves, and I just don't think that's true.

...it's also hopelessly felacious.

:D

Now let's see who gets the joke...

Funny. ;)

Freethinker,

Science is not about concensus.

Quite true, which is why your comment about scientists "hopping off the bandwagon" is a bit disingenuous.

Quite true, which is why your comment about scientists "hopping off the bandwagon" is a bit disingenuous.

The logical question should be : How come SO many
so-called Scientists are actively making written or vocal
statements about - Global Warming - ?
The answer is age old. MONEY.
Scientists need funding or contributions to their Research group.
So,by participating and submitting written reports on their findings
regarding - Global Warming - they get Cool Cash.
That should take care of the Motive part of the Scientist equation.
I Rest Me Case !

Vilepagan thinks my post about scientists changing their mind about Global Warming is disingenuous. He also thinks that none of the scientists I named hopped off the Global Warming bandwagon. I think it is more disingenuous of him to suggest that scientists, including those I named have not jumped off the Global Warming bandwagon.

I have a list of thousands of academics who have signed a petition saying they feel the present Global Warming scenerio as stated by such people as Al Gore is wrong. The list is so long that it would take at least twenty full length post to post all the name. While some of the people may not be scientists I do notice an awful lot of them have PhD degrees debunking the theory that those who oppose the present thinking on Global warming are a bunch of unintelligent, redneck yahoos.

Here is the site if you are interested in seeing the names of just a few who oppose the media hyped views on Global Warming. If your mind is already made up simply don't click on the site.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

why message board Posters are so doggone finicky about
Proof.Someone's always gotta prove this or prove that.
That's the kinda stuff that should have exhausted itself on
the schoolyard in grade school.
Like... Oh My Daddy's tougher than YOUR Daddy.
Oh yeah...Prove it.?
Same damn thingy.

I don't think Freethinker will appreciate living with Ivan, dammit.
I don't either considering the fact that FT's IQ is roughly 60 times what Ivan's is, HOWEVER, whereas FT's a raging hypocrite/political hack without equal - Ivan's poor, dumb ass lives by (or so it seems - sans his computer usage) what he preaches.

OTOH, I'd be willing to bet they go for the same caliber of female. Ivan's posted pictures, and they match, almost perfectly, with what FT's described as "ideal". They both hate trim, good-looking women.

I'd much rather go down fighting than to simply unquestioningly follow the Luddite RightWing cretins whose infantile attitude is...
"Luddite"? You fuckers are the luddites, not us - we (corporate America/big business) build the shit, you use it - and then complain that we're using it..... Guffaw.

WTF!? ::scratches head::

Free, from Frogger's post, the evidence comes from the fact that these scientists signed the Heidelberg appeal. Besides, the point is that the community is not in consensus.

Not entirely.

But the VAST preponderance of research and evidence is on the side of --solidly on the side of-- those who agree that global warming is real, and is happening right now.

The point is that there are a lot of respected scientists who don't tow the alarmist line.

I will not disagree with that statement.

There ARE respected scientists who don't toe (Not "tow". Sorry. Pet peeve.) the alarmist line. The number, however, who flatly deny that global warming exists are outnumbered --exponentially- by those who have concluded it does.

The fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world are convinced by their (and other's) reasearch that global warming is real ought to tell you something.

AMEN.. Rev. Freethinker...

AMEN.. Rev. Freethinker...

:rolleyes:

Contrary to what some clueless naybobs have claimed, the scientific study of the earth's climate has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Lowes and Home Depot have already announced they will drop their advertisements on O'reilly's show. The pressure by the dems is working.

Lowes and Home Depot have already announced they will drop their advertisements on O'reilly's show. The pressure by the dems is working.

I find that almost impossible to believe.
Conservatives LOVE places like Lowe's.
Few Liberals wood bee caught dead,in a Home Improvement place.
Plus those very Conservative Home Improvement types,happen
to be very patriotic,as is FOX.
You'll need to back up that charge,Bub ?

Lowes and Home Depot have already announced they will drop their advertisements on O'reilly's show. The pressure by the dems is working.
It won't hurt them in the slightest. The people who need a new armoire aren't going to purchase one at (the notoriously shitty, mind you) Menards just because the "evil" conservatives used to take money from Lowes and Home Depot to advertise on their network. Every die-hard fan of FOX is going to look at this as political coercion, period. Hell, let's face it - this is FREE advertising for them, and contrary to popular belief, it's decent press – regardless of one's political perspective. That said, Jose Laboro couldn't give a shit either way. As long as the isles in hardware and plumbing are multi-lingual, he's shopping there, like it or not. As a matter of fact, my guess is that most contractors and construction foreman watch Bill O'Reilly, and their lack of advertising on ONE network (especially their preferred network - during ONE segment, no less) isn't going to affect theirs (or ANYONE else's, for that matter) future purchasing decisions one iota. What - are YOU gonna drive outta your way to pay more for a wall switch at ACE Hardware? Especially when your selection is piss-poor? - ROTF.

Think again, hippie.

I find that almost impossible to believe.
Conservatives LOVE places like Lowe's.
Few Liberals wood bee caught dead,in a Home Improvement place.
Plus those very Conservative Home Improvement types,happen
to be very patriotic,as is FOX.
You'll need to back up that charge,Bub ?

Too lazy to google home depot drops o'reilly / lowes drops o'reilly ???

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/30/lowes_drops_advertising_on_the_oreilly_factor.php
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/6/5/46AF20F80B72F65B/

:rolleyes:

Contrary to what some clueless naybobs have claimed, the scientific study of the earth's climate has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

the fact that no one knows for certain.. yet people are putting their scientific careers by it... is evidence enough.

Science becomes a religion when you can't prove it, but you still insist on it being the truth.

I have never argued against the claim that the earth is warming.. all i argue is how much humans have to do with it. That is something nobody knows... so when I hear scientists come out and claim some fact about it, it is a BELIEF, not "scientific fact"...

Few Liberals wood bee caught dead,in a Home Improvement place.
What odd little nook in your brain did this fall out of?

Must have been the same place this came from:

Science becomes a religion when you can't prove it, but you still insist on it being the truth.

As a matter of fact, my guess is that most contractors and construction foreman watch Bill O'Reilly, and their lack of advertising on ONE network (especially their preferred network - during ONE segment, no less) isn't going to affect theirs (or ANYONE else's, for that matter) future purchasing decisions one iota.If that's the case, someone is spending too much on advertising.

deck of fools.

Too lazy to google home depot drops o'reilly / lowes drops o'reilly ???

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/30/lowes_drops_advertising_on_the_oreilly_factor.php
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/6/5/46AF20F80B72F65B/

Poppycock ! ... a Favorite word of O'Reilly.
Will never see the Light of Day.
Mere sensationalism.Obviously some loose-lipped
board member,got cocky,and popped off their mouth after
an O'Reilly segment.Probably had some junior league GenXer
working in PR,blab somethin to their Advertising firm.
5 will getcha 10,that by summer's end,Lowe's will Retract that
statement,and make ammends to both O'Reilly and all the
faithfull customers who Shop at Lowe'.s and also Like Fox.

Poppycock ! ... a Favorite word of O'Reilly.
Will never see the Light of Day.
Mere sensationalism.Obviously some loose-lipped
board member,got cocky,and popped off their mouth after
an O'Reilly segment.Probably had some junior league GenXer
working in PR,blab somethin to their Advertising firm.
5 will getcha 10,that by summer's end,Lowe's will Retract that
statement,and make ammends to both O'Reilly and all the
faithfull customers who Shop at Lowe'.s and also Like Fox.

There's no such thing as Gen-X'ers any more FoolsWorth -- it's the millenium gen now ...

Look at the gen-X crowd -- the spoiled wannabe hippies who've had the steering wheel for the past twenty or so years -- lost and carrying a grudge because their lives are void of the sex, drugs and rock-n-roll that molded their parents lives.

Sure, they're now considred old timers and society no longer pays much attention to their once worldly trend-setting charge to the top of the 'most likely to succeed' list but I suspect they are the last to know they have had their day in the sun and sunset is on schedule -- bringing relief to what's left of the civilized world as it slowly but surly writes their demise and relegates them to the garbage heap of generational phases which is the eventual end of all ego trips; intentional or not.

Yes, I was thinking it was safe to go back in the water and intended on celebrating an atmosphere cleansed of the nighmare of the past two decades of manical utterances and then it happened ...

Enter their replacements. A new phenom known as 'The Millenial Generation' -- not long ago high-schoolers that dressed in flamingo colors, drove Mustang convertibles and backpacked their laptops -- thank you god that Starbucks doesn't place their stores too close to the schools. I'm not sure I could have handled anymore signs of independence and 'watch out world, I've arrived' attitudes.

So now we find the Millenial generation at the universities still driving mommy's car and living in a dorm, or in a house with forty of their closest friends, taking classes that will teach them new things to enhance a career which they have yet to figure out and feel no sense of urgency in doing so.

If we're lucky, they might forget enough of their boring, sensless, rich whitebread suburban existence and learn some real human skills while giving up the pink new ager pretense of caring enough to send money to Greenpeace -- the perceptional fashionability in their minds notwithstanding. Of course, asking them to drive more than three blocks without a beer in hand is probably too much to ask for.

Maybe there's just enough substance left in their personalities that will allow them to get out from under the herd mentality that will eventually lead them into that traincar bound for the Ministry of Normalcy -- a place which they are not yet aware, yet awaits for all that are willing to enter. I can personally atest to the success of normal behaviour. I've subscribed all my life and look how things have worked out for me.

We can always hope they realize no one will do it for them -- only individual power will help them make the transition into the peaceful netherworld -- nature's natural detour from the blind apathy of becoming career-oriented yuppies or worse yet, being spoon-fed the corporate dogma of a upwardly-mobile society -- either of which will lead to the fighting a relentless attack on the psyche which can only offer hellish dreams of drowning in a pool or being replaced by a conspiracy clone.

No one will know the difference and there might not be one.

No one will care as the only sounds will be those last, frantic, dying shrieks of souls going under while caving in to a mainstream barrage of Polycratic Bulldada that works it's way by osmosis into the skull cavities where it will rot the forebrain powers, the effects of which are irreversible. The end will then be closer than appears in the rearview mirror.

In the meantime, I will no longer be a people but I will continue to pray for the Millenial generation to make the correct choices -- choices that tell the world we have returned to sanity. Maybe, just maybe there will be a sign.

Perhaps I will pull up next to a car at a stoplight and hear a Gene Vincent tune playing on the car's CD player. That would be nice and then, possibly I will once again listen to people like FoolsWorth that think the gen-X'ers still run things. Phew .....

And ... Lowes ain't gonna retract crap ... they know the dems make up 55% of the electorate. Unlike some people they ain't fools ... :D

There's no such thing as Gen-X'ers any more FoolsWorth -- it's the millenium gen now ...

Look at the gen-X crowd -- the spoiled wannabe hippies who've had the steering wheel for the past twenty or so years -- lost and carrying a grudge because their lives are void of the sex, drugs and rock-n-roll that molded their parents lives.

Sure, they're now considred old timers and society no longer pays much attention to their once worldly trend-setting charge to the top of the 'most likely to succeed' list but I suspect they are the last to know they have had their day in the sun and sunset is on schedule -- bringing relief to what's left of the civilized world as it slowly but surly writes their demise and relegates them to the garbage heap of generational phases which is the eventual end of all ego trips; intentional or not.

Yes, I was thinking it was safe to go back in the water and intended on celebrating an atmosphere cleansed of the nighmare of the past two decades of manical utterances and then it happened ...

Enter their replacements. A new phenom known as 'The Millenial Generation' -- not long ago high-schoolers that dressed in flamingo colors, drove Mustang convertibles and backpacked their laptops -- thank you god that Starbucks doesn't place their stores too close to the schools. I'm not sure I could have handled anymore signs of independence and 'watch out world, I've arrived' attitudes.

So now we find the Millenial generation at the universities still driving mommy's car and living in a dorm, or in a house with forty of their closest friends, taking classes that will teach them new things to enhance a career which they have yet to figure out and feel no sense of urgency in doing so.

If we're lucky, they might forget enough of their boring, sensless, rich whitebread suburban existence and learn some real human skills while giving up the pink new ager pretense of caring enough to send money to Greenpeace -- the perceptional fashionability in their minds notwithstanding. Of course, asking them to drive more than three blocks without a beer in hand is probably too much to ask for.

Maybe there's just enough substance left in their personalities that will allow them to get out from under the herd mentality that will eventually lead them into that traincar bound for the Ministry of Normalcy -- a place which they are not yet aware, yet awaits for all that are willing to enter. I can personally atest to the success of normal behaviour. I've subscribed all my life and look how things have worked out for me.

We can always hope they realize no one will do it for them -- only individual power will help them make the transition into the peaceful netherworld -- nature's natural detour from the blind apathy of becoming career-oriented yuppies or worse yet, being spoon-fed the corporate dogma of a upwardly-mobile society -- either of which will lead to the fighting a relentless attack on the psyche which can only offer hellish dreams of drowning in a pool or being replaced by a conspiracy clone.

No one will know the difference and there might not be one.

No one will care as the only sounds will be those last, frantic, dying shrieks of souls going under while caving in to a mainstream barrage of Polycratic Bulldada that works it's way by osmosis into the skull cavities where it will rot the forebrain powers, the effects of which are irreversible. The end will then be closer than appears in the rearview mirror.

In the meantime, I will no longer be a people but I will continue to pray for the Millenial generation to make the correct choices -- choices that tell the world we have returned to sanity. Maybe, just maybe there will be a sign.

Perhaps I will pull up next to a car at a stoplight and hear a Gene Vincent tune playing on the car's CD player. That would be nice and then, possibly I will once again listen to people like FoolsWorth that think the gen-X'ers still run things. Phew .....

And ... Lowes ain't gonna retract crap ... they know the dems make up 55% of the electorate. Unlike some people they ain't fools ... :D

*****************************
HuH ?
Kindly rephrase dat.

I tend to agree with Foolsworth on this one....

Do what?

I think the entire essay could be boiled down to the oft-repeated phrase, "Kids these days..." 'Course, I could be wrong, you know.

I think the entire essay could be boiled down to the oft-repeated phrase, "Kids these days..." 'Course, I could be wrong, you know.

Me thinks you may be correct

I tend to agree with Foolsworth on this one....

Do what?

You agree that gen-X'ers still rule .... ????

End of transmision ...

I think the entire essay could be boiled down to the oft-repeated phrase, "Kids these days..." 'Course, I could be wrong, you know.

Kids ?...what Kids.
They gots Kids round dis pop stand.?
Like where.?
Behind the Lemonade stand.
If I was a Kid,I'd find a nice stacked Poster babe,and snap
her bra.
I wood.

You agree that gen-X'ers still rule .... ????

End of transmision ...
No, that your essay is unreadable.

In other words, TLDR. Google it.

*****************************
HuH ?
Kindly rephrase dat.

C'mon Fool ... You toss out the gib ... don't neglect it now dude(ette) ...

I'm just warming up ... ya wanna play ??? GOTCHA (sorry IMDB didn't mean to infringe on your CP) ... Gibs it is .... ROTFLMAO

C'mon Fool ... You toss out the gib ... don't neglect it now dude(ette) ...

I'm just warming up ... ya wanna play ??? GOTCHA (sorry IMDB didn't mean to infringe on your CP) ... Gibs it is .... ROTFLMAO

That retort reminds me of Al Franken,commenting on O'Reilly's
last book.Franken kept makin snide remarks about O'Reilly's
cover pic.Bill was shown wearin a windbreaker,as if he was
out on a sailboat.
There was a lot of good material,on that funny sailboat reference,alone.

That retort reminds me of Al Franken,commenting on O'Reilly's
last book.Franken kept makin snide remarks about O'Reilly's
cover pic.Bill was shown wearin a windbreaker,as if he was
out on a sailboat.
There was a lot of good material,on that funny sailboat reference,alone.

Screw Franken .... we're talking about you and me ... and the gibs ...

Got game on that ??

Dude

Your post still makes no sense... LP.

Sorry, I tend to like your writing and pics... but I have to agree with Fool and Nap here. I have no idea what you are saying.

Consider me "slow" I guess.

He is doing an imitation of Fool.

Granted, nobody could be as Foolish as the original Fool. ;)

He is doing an imitation of Fool.

Granted, nobody could be as Foolish as the original Fool. ;)

Whatever ...

Fox "News" is really Fox "Noise" --- I do not consider it an legitmate "news" source!

To do an imitation of da fool
youse would have to use atleast sum of
his types of post pentameters.
Do you hear whut I'm saying?
I hab no idea what eider one of dese
guys be sayin. I'm joust tryin to decipher
dis post here.

Fox "News" is really Fox "Noise" --- I do not consider it an legitmate "news" source!

Fox Noises' plummeting ratings show that more and more people are waking up to that fact also.

To do an imitation of da fool
youse would have to use atleast sum of
his types of post pentameters.
Do you hear whut I'm saying?
I hab no idea what eider one of dese
guys be sayin. I'm joust tryin to decipher
dis post here.

Bravo OP

Screw Franken .... we're talking about you and me ... and the gibs ...

Got game on that ??

Dude

**********************************

Malicious mischief? I confess
the quicker I forget the role
and do not think of you,the less
I am obliged to repossess.








Last lines of a Villanelle.
You DO know what I refer to ?

Bravo OP

BRAVO is a Cable outlet.
OP ?
Oblique Pentameter ?
Some do so unbend their Oblique to think so brainsickly of
udders !