BTW, a second look at the OP reminds me:
Carthage is a small town in Middle Tennessee famous for two things: the now defunct Norma’s Diner and a local lad who grew up to win a majority of the popular votes for President of the United States in 2000 – Al Gore.
You forgot the "111"s mixed in with the exclamation points, I think. Meanwhile, I hereby propose TimeWarp’s Law: anyone who’s principal rebuttal consists of restating another person’s assertions in Leetspeak automatically loses the argument.
As for why conservatives so often deny that Global Warming may be partially caused by human activity, well, they’re conservatives. I always thought that one of the central assumptions of conservatism is that everything’s just peachy for conservative me the way it is now, so no changes should be made, or maybe that things were even more peachy a few years ago and we thus need to roll back to the way things were then. I guess they feel that reacting to the effects of global warming wouldn’t achieve either of those goals.
Ah, I see. So, if the “other” kids on the playground like it than you’re justified in ignoring it? It’s somehow the people’s who believe the science fault that you don’t believe it because . . . they were frustrated that you didn’t believe it? Neener-neener-neener, I’m not listening!
Excuse my language, but fuck you, and everyone like you. There are few issues that really get me angry, but this is one of them. There is no good reason to ignore and discount the mounting evidence of global warming, and yours has got to be the worst I’ve seen. You don’t even make up some lame pseudo-intellectual excuse about how it’s all “bad” science. You just ignore it because you hear about it too much? Fuck you.
It was 19º in Charlotte this morning, so there is obviously no such thing as Global Warming.
Can I have my $10,000, please, Exxon-Mobile?
Well, of course you wear shoes–it’s cold outside! :rolleyes:
In some respects, I think that it has. The bloodletting of 2006 was due in large measure to Iraq and to corruption. I think that E-Sabbath has something of a point. People, Mothahump not withstanding, aren’t stupid, and would prefer that leaders lead in directions that yield positive results. Science is actually a pretty good way to make informed decisions about outcomes, so the more divergent over time leaders become from well-informed predictions on a range of topics, the less people will want to support them. I do believe that “God, guns and gays” will only perpetually work for a small portion of the people.
Well, the “unspeakably dumb” title expressed my feelings best at the time. 
The thing is the context of this quote, which actually makes it all a lot worse. The head of the Republican party in Wilson County really, really doesn’t like Al Gore. That’s his right. They’re both from Carthage, which was a pretty small town then, and for all I know, the dislike was literally based on Al stealing A.J.'s favorite crayons in third grade. But this disbelief in global warming is based on a political/probably personal dislike, which is the part I truly do not care for.
Let us know when you’re done with your leftist circle-jerk.
As someone who has listened to decades worth of predictions of “imminent doom and destruction”, none of which panned out, I think I’m entitled to be skeptical. Especially given the gross ignorance of science and economics that is painfully obvious in most leftist propaganda. It doesn’t help when the visual presentations of data neatly match up with many of the examples given in Darrell Huff’s classic work “How to Lie with Statistics”.
The “Nuclear Winter” controversy was notable because it showed that many scientists were more interested in achieving their political goals “by any means necessary”, than in doing good science.
Oh, I don’t know. I suspect there are those who will stand firmly on the new coastline in Kansas on a balmy 120° January afternoon and refuse to believe global warming is anything other than a liberal fantasy. All that death and destruction? God’s punishment for taking prayer out of schools and letting the queers run loose. Go blame the Godless sodomites. Could you pass the Soylent Green?
Wanna explainhow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is “leftist propaganda”? I thought it was made up of, I don’t know, experts on climate.
Oooooh, burn! You just come up with that?
Yes, you are. But you present a view that suggests that the facts of the matter are tainted by the political views of the observer.
The evidence being a failure to agree with you? If the evidence against the global warming hypothesis is so clear and unambiguous, why does American Enterprise need to offer money? If a whore already wants to fuck you for free, why offer money?
Why, bless your heart, of course they do! If you are going to present a false case with statistics, you will, necessarily, present those statistics in a manner that would mirror a presentation of truth! You don’t start out saying “Here’s my lie…” A false case will be buttressed by statistical evidence that looks like truth to the extent possible. Duh.
That political goal being avoiding nuclear war? The scoundrels!
And one would hope that a true case would be similarly buttressed.
Has the theory ever been discredited, to your knowledge?
Shorter mks57:
I have no ability whatsoever to evaluate the merits of a given claim. Thus, I simply reject anything deemed to be leftist.
Yes. I remember reading a number of critiques of the work. The model was very primitive and used questionable assumptions, producing results that overestimated the effects of a nuclear exchange. It was useful as a first step in analyzing the problem, but it was irresponsible to use it as the basis for political advocacy.
One of the most telling things that Al Gore brings up in AIT is that out of a sample of (about) 1000 peer reviewed journal publications on global warming, there were ZERO (maybe 1) dissenting opinions. (numbers from memory, but close)
Out of a sample of numerous mainstream media articles about global warming, about 50% (again, close) of them said that it didn’t exist, or wasn’t caused by people.
And, yet it’s the conservatives who continue to rail that the people who believe in GW are the ones who are brainwashed, or who have succumbed to groupthink.
It’s even more bizarre than people who believe in creationism. At least they can fall back on the fact that “It’s inthe bible”. I might not respect it, but I understand it. This GW denial is even weirder though. It’s the same thought process as a religious person oncreationism, yet it’s not a religious topic at all.
Just weird, weird, weird.
Go fsck thyself.
I can detect gross problems with a claim, such as unsupported assertions, misleading presentation, logical fallacies, and crude models.
There are many people out there, not all of them leftists, who cynically produce propaganda to gain public support for their agenda. To them, the ends justify the means.
Obviously you cannot.
I think some religious conservatives get upset about human-caused global warming because it implies that God did not do a good enough job preparing earth for the presence of masses of humanity. You know the basic idea – God told us way back in Genesis that we were to go forth and multiply! So it is not going to matter how many of us there are, or what we do to the environment with our various and sundry technological advances – God made the earth specifically for us, we can do whatever we want to it, and it will be fine! If our actions can actually cause harm to the planet, that makes God less than omniscient, and we can’t have that!
What do you guys think of that? I have had discussions with some of my religiously conservative friends, and while they did not exactly come out and say this, I got the impression that global warming was seen as threatening precisely because of this “God did not do a good enough job creating earth” implication!
I proposed exactly that theory on another message board a while back. I’m inclined to think it’s true.