Yes, but do you expect folks like Rush to care about that? The opposition lied, therefore they’re evil, because we know Rush would never lie or be hypocritical. Except when it comes to things like Oxycotin, but that wasn’t his fault, really. It was the doctors, and the police, and everyone else. Really.
I do not share your optimism. (And Dean is a bit of a nutter. I’m sorry, but it’s true.)
Do you expect him to care anyway??
ETA: he’s going to call them liars any which way, whether they take him in with a hoax like this or not. Most of the dittoheads aren’t going to notice why he’s calling someone a liar.
I’d have to have it for you to share. I used the comparative rather than the absolute for a reason. 
Perhaps, but if Rush is a 10 on the ‘disconnected from reality’ scale, Dean’s well under 1.
No, but there’s no point in handing him more poo to fling.
So you’re hoping that the sound of their fapping will get to the point where it’s so loud they can no longer hear him speaking?
You’re still being optimistic. As proof of this I offer that the media has refused to shut [del]Skeletor[/del] Coulter up.
Meh, Rush ain’t that crazy. Rush is just a bit off. Coulter, OTOH. . .
I enjoy a good haw haw on Limbaugh (actually, I long for the day he get’s caught with drugs or with a live boy/dead girl) but you know, if someone who did what Thorpe did on the SDMB, wouldn’t they get banned for trolling?
Indeed, it’s happened before. A couple years back, longtime poster **Holy Bogus ** was banned for writing a hoax article on the candiru fish and linking to it. Story here.
I don’t quite see the problem. The article was transparently fake to anyone who bothered to check the cited sources. It reminds me of some of James Randi’s stunts-- a faith healer curing a transvestite of ovarian cancer, or psychic researchers pronouncing amateur magicians as genuine evidence of psi. In all cases, the message is the same: if you can’t recognize such an obvious hoax, you shouldn’t be claiming knowledge of this subject.
Of course, we may now expect to see a barrage of retaliatory hoaxes from the AGW denial camp, attempting to prove AGW proponents are just as gullible. One wonders how the hoaxers will bait their hook. Maybe their article will present the argument that corporations are not only responsible for global warming, they’re doing it intentionally.
Or Dan Rather with memos that couldn’t have been written in the 1960s. . .
Maybe they will do a study with a phoney “hockey stick” type graph that shows little temperature change for 900 years followed by 100 years of temperature increases.
The problem with object lessons is that they are really subject lessons. People tend to take whatever they’re already inclined to take from incidents like these. That’s why so many people on the left think Clinton was impeached for a blow job, and so many of their counterparts on the right think Muslims hate us for our freedom.
“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.” John Lubbock
That’s a link to this thread.
You really cannot help yourself, can you. Do you acknowledge that the revised and more detailed graph of the last 1000 years still shows a pronounced increase of temperture starting around 1900?
Show me “the revised and more detailed graph” and I’ll tell you.
ID theory does not hold evolution is bunk, only that it must have been guided by an Intelligent Designer (who has not necessarily retired, be it noted) to produce the results we see. And some versions of young-Earth creationism do not even rule out microevolution, i.e., adaptations over time within an established species.
Applause. This is a very solid post, and a plan that I wish I had thought of myself. I’m jealous.
That was in my mind too but I could not remember the name. I was also thinking of a Barney hoax a few years back – a couple of “preachers” here in Tampa denounced Barney the Dinosaur as Satanic (a plot to deceive our children into believing in evolution, among other things) and local media picked up on it and everybody laughed at it as an example of how silly these religious-right nuts have become, but then it turned out the preachers were pranksters using a fake name, to point up the credulity of the media. Anyone can be fooled once – but Rush has not that excuse, especially since he had an AGW-skeptical climatologist telling him this article was a hoax!
In science – and in law, and in daily discourse – “proof” and “evidence” are synonymous terms and neither implies any greater level of certainty or confidence than the other. (In mathematics the term “proof” is used exclusively to show a logically certain conclusion and the term “evidence” is not used at all; that is what may have confused you.) But that’s been hashed over, too.
That may be at least in part because Rush, unlike Dean, is part of the media. Not a journalist, no, but definitely part of the media.
Here are few from the NOAA site.
This one was published in Reviews of Geophysics Vol. 42, No. 2, RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143, 6 May 2004.
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
or maybe Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
Jim
Yep, and it looks like you bought it – hook, line, & sinker.
Here’s a web site you might want to check out:
:rolleyes:
I showed you three different reports from three different studies and you point me to climateaudit.org, is this who you do your volunteer work for?
Steve McIntyre is a blogger. His scientific & work credentials are
**Please note he works for an oil and gas exploration company. **
So I ask you again you dishonest shill, who do you work for and can you think for yourself?
Jim
Yer shittin’ me. A semi-lefty like myself and you agreeing on something? Is that a sign of the apocalypse or that we need to be on the Unity '08 ticket?