Wingers: strip climate change from US classrooms
in [Toyota]
|
From: Shall not be infringed on 4 Jun 2010 21:24 On Jun 4, 11:51 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 7:09 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 29 May 2010 05:36:49 -0400, Cliff wrote: > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/28/rightwing-grou... > > > "Rightwing group seeks to strip climate change from US classrooms" > > > "Climate change is a 'liberal' cause, argues Colorado-based petitioner, > > > and > > > requires a 'balancing' counterpoint" > > > Sounds good to me. > > > If you or Al Gore actually knew anything, you'd know that this bout of > > "Global Warming" is cyclic and happens every 150,000 years. Followed by an > > extreme Ice Age (not to be confused with a minor "Glaciation period". > > > "Global Warming" is a term used mostly by scientists with agendas, > > politicians, and people who don't know any better. > > > If you take the time to Google "Vostok Ice Core data" and can actually > > read a chart you wouldn't post the propaganda you saw fit to attach to > > this message. > > > But, I have a feeling you swallow everything Liberals tell you hook, line > > and sinker anyway. > > 9. 10.
From: rehaines77 on 9 Jun 2010 12:31 On May 29, 10:04 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > On May 29, 9:30 am, "CharlesGrozny" <n5...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > "Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:fbbe0e4a-dbdf-4f78-9b6d-0cd4ab225d96(a)o4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... > > > > On May 29, 4:54 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > >> On May 29, 2:36 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> > > >> wrote: > > > >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/28/rightwing-grou... > > >> > "Rightwing group seeks to strip climate change from US classrooms" > > >> > "Climate change is a 'liberal' cause, argues Colorado-based > > >> > petitioner, and > > >> > requires a 'balancing' counterpoint" > > > >> They'er trying this in Texas and Louisana too. Banning > > >> information from classrooms and textbooks is a major > > >> right wing cause. Creationists try to ban the teaching > > >> of evolution. Racists try to prevent pictures of non-white > > >> peoples in textbooks. In Texas, right wing nuts on the > > >> state school board plan to remove references to the > > >> "Age of Enlightenment" and Thomas Jefferson from > > >> history textbooks. > > > > The same Conservatives who claim global warming isn't happening have > > > also decided that the jury is still out on Evolution. The conservative > > > conclusion on GW, which, and I'm sure this is just an amazing > > > coincidence, is precisely the same conclusion as groups funded by the > > > oil and gas industries, is that it isn't happening, and even if it > > > looks like it's happening it still isn't happening, couldn't happen. > > > Al Gore made it all up. You can tell it's a lie because it still snows > > > in North Dakota in January and who needs a computer model to see that, > > > right? Paradoxically, they still occasionally whip out "The sun is > > > responsible for it" in the middle of all the denials that it is > > > happening. Fortunately, the far right is blessed with followers who > > > have the logic chopping abilities of house sparrows and the > > > contradiction passes unnoticed. The right has decided that scientists > > > don't know anything about numbers or global trends or temperatures or > > > anything and the world would be better off listening to REAL climate > > > experts like Sean Hannity and JD Hayworth. Why spend years in college > > > and decades studying climate and meteorology when you can get all the > > > info you need on the "global warming" myth just by just turning on Fox > > > news at night or picking up a leaflet from some think tank funded by > > > The American Petroleum Institute? > > > What an idiot. > > > Climate change does happen. What we're debating about is if man's puny > > little efforts have any effect on it. If so, then why wasn't the climate > > markedly warmer in the 50's, with all that killer fog around London, eh? > > > Also, if Evolution is a proven theory, when did they publish the proof for > > macroevolution? Most theories require proof to move from a theory to a > > fact. > > > Unless you're the missing link, they haven't. > > > Since you seem to be another of those Marxist ranters, you're going into the > > blockfile. Apparently, you, too, have nothing to add to this discussion > > except the bs you get from the dailykospiece. > > > Say hello to your Uncle Joe. > > > Charles Grozny > > > Charles Grozny > > Show me two papers, one that disproves evolution and one that > disproves global warming. > > And what papers they would be! They would be published in any > magazine! Their authors would be famous! > > To disprove evolution? Why that would mean that most of biology > doesn't work. That would be a shock to every bio group in the world. > But if they had the facts..... > > To disprove global warming? What that would change our idea of > instrumentation! But if they had the facts.... > > But they don't have the facts. Repugs don't have a single fact. > > Evolution is real. > > Global warming is all too real. > > And butt monkies like the above author are too stupid to get the > point. > > There is no point. There is no scientific opposition to evolution, > you can see it working every day. There is no scientific opposition > to global warming. > > Now go and take the medicines that your psychiatrist prescribed for > you. How about showing a scientific paper that proves global warming is man- made? Because, from what I've read, there isn't any scientific proof of man-made global warming caused by our release of CO2, and many real scientists do not believe in it. By "real", I mean the ones whose jobs don't depend on the funding by governments and other special interest groups to try to show it exists. Those trying to "prove" man- made global warming have been caught fudging data, refusing freedom of information requests, stifling publication and peer review by dissenting scientists and a myriad of other bad scientific behavior trying to push the agenda. If you think about it, the global warming hoax is the biggest special interest lobby in Washington right now, and billions of dollars have already been wasted on it. It also seems to me, that if we are going to have to pay dearly in taxes and energy costs to"solve" global warming, the burden of proof should be on the warmists.
From: AM on 9 Jun 2010 12:35 rehaines77(a)att.net wrote: > How about showing a scientific paper that proves global warming is man- > made? Because, from what I've read, there isn't any scientific proof > of man-made global warming caused by our release of CO2, and many real > scientists do not believe in it. By "real", I mean the ones whose > jobs don't depend on the funding by governments and other special > interest groups to try to show it exists. Those trying to "prove" man- > made global warming have been caught fudging data, refusing freedom of > information requests, stifling publication and peer review by > dissenting scientists and a myriad of other bad scientific behavior > trying to push the agenda. If you think about it, the global warming > hoax is the biggest special interest lobby in Washington right now, > and billions of dollars have already been wasted on it. It also seems > to me, that if we are going to have to pay dearly in taxes and energy > costs to"solve" global warming, the burden of proof should be on the > warmists. Great post. -- AM http://sctuser.home.comcast.net http://www.novac.com
From: Sharx35 on 9 Jun 2010 21:02 <rehaines77(a)att.net> wrote in message news:f1da54c3-65f3-47d5-8c62-293040ff0426(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On May 29, 10:04 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >> On May 29, 9:30 am, "CharlesGrozny" <n5...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > "Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:fbbe0e4a-dbdf-4f78-9b6d-0cd4ab225d96(a)o4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > On May 29, 4:54 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: >> > >> On May 29, 2:36 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> >> > >> wrote: >> >> > >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/28/rightwing-grou... >> > >> > "Rightwing group seeks to strip climate change from US >> > >> > classrooms" >> > >> > "Climate change is a 'liberal' cause, argues Colorado-based >> > >> > petitioner, and >> > >> > requires a 'balancing' counterpoint" >> >> > >> They'er trying this in Texas and Louisana too. Banning >> > >> information from classrooms and textbooks is a major >> > >> right wing cause. Creationists try to ban the teaching >> > >> of evolution. Racists try to prevent pictures of non-white >> > >> peoples in textbooks. In Texas, right wing nuts on the >> > >> state school board plan to remove references to the >> > >> "Age of Enlightenment" and Thomas Jefferson from >> > >> history textbooks. >> >> > > The same Conservatives who claim global warming isn't happening have >> > > also decided that the jury is still out on Evolution. The >> > > conservative >> > > conclusion on GW, which, and I'm sure this is just an amazing >> > > coincidence, is precisely the same conclusion as groups funded by the >> > > oil and gas industries, is that it isn't happening, and even if it >> > > looks like it's happening it still isn't happening, couldn't happen. >> > > Al Gore made it all up. You can tell it's a lie because it still >> > > snows >> > > in North Dakota in January and who needs a computer model to see >> > > that, >> > > right? Paradoxically, they still occasionally whip out "The sun is >> > > responsible for it" in the middle of all the denials that it is >> > > happening. Fortunately, the far right is blessed with followers who >> > > have the logic chopping abilities of house sparrows and the >> > > contradiction passes unnoticed. The right has decided that scientists >> > > don't know anything about numbers or global trends or temperatures or >> > > anything and the world would be better off listening to REAL climate >> > > experts like Sean Hannity and JD Hayworth. Why spend years in college >> > > and decades studying climate and meteorology when you can get all the >> > > info you need on the "global warming" myth just by just turning on >> > > Fox >> > > news at night or picking up a leaflet from some think tank funded by >> > > The American Petroleum Institute? >> >> > What an idiot. >> >> > Climate change does happen. What we're debating about is if man's puny >> > little efforts have any effect on it. If so, then why wasn't the >> > climate >> > markedly warmer in the 50's, with all that killer fog around London, >> > eh? >> >> > Also, if Evolution is a proven theory, when did they publish the proof >> > for >> > macroevolution? Most theories require proof to move from a theory to a >> > fact. >> >> > Unless you're the missing link, they haven't. >> >> > Since you seem to be another of those Marxist ranters, you're going >> > into the >> > blockfile. Apparently, you, too, have nothing to add to this >> > discussion >> > except the bs you get from the dailykospiece. >> >> > Say hello to your Uncle Joe. >> >> > Charles Grozny >> >> > Charles Grozny >> >> Show me two papers, one that disproves evolution and one that >> disproves global warming. >> >> And what papers they would be! They would be published in any >> magazine! Their authors would be famous! >> >> To disprove evolution? Why that would mean that most of biology >> doesn't work. That would be a shock to every bio group in the world. >> But if they had the facts..... >> >> To disprove global warming? What that would change our idea of >> instrumentation! But if they had the facts.... >> >> But they don't have the facts. Repugs don't have a single fact. >> >> Evolution is real. >> >> Global warming is all too real. >> >> And butt monkies like the above author are too stupid to get the >> point. >> >> There is no point. There is no scientific opposition to evolution, >> you can see it working every day. There is no scientific opposition >> to global warming. >> >> Now go and take the medicines that your psychiatrist prescribed for >> you. > > How about showing a scientific paper that proves global warming is man- > made? Because, from what I've read, there isn't any scientific proof > of man-made global warming caused by our release of CO2, and many real > scientists do not believe in it. By "real", I mean the ones whose > jobs don't depend on the funding by governments and other special > interest groups to try to show it exists. Those trying to "prove" man- > made global warming have been caught fudging data, refusing freedom of > information requests, stifling publication and peer review by > dissenting scientists and a myriad of other bad scientific behavior > trying to push the agenda. If you think about it, the global warming > hoax is the biggest special interest lobby in Washington right now, > and billions of dollars have already been wasted on it. It also seems > to me, that if we are going to have to pay dearly in taxes and energy > costs to"solve" global warming, the burden of proof should be on the > warmists. Excellent post. WHEN will the LIEbrawl saps wake up and expose Al Bore for the fraud he is?
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 10 Jun 2010 13:44
On 6/9/2010 9:02 PM, Sharx35 wrote: > > > <rehaines77(a)att.net> wrote in message > news:f1da54c3-65f3-47d5-8c62-293040ff0426(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On May 29, 10:04 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >>> On May 29, 9:30 am, "CharlesGrozny" <n5...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > "Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >news:fbbe0e4a-dbdf-4f78-9b6d-0cd4ab225d96(a)o4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> > > On May 29, 4:54 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: >>> > >> On May 29, 2:36 am, Cliff >>> <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> >>> > >> wrote: >>> >>> > >> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/28/rightwing-grou... >>> >>> > >> > "Rightwing group seeks to strip climate change from US > >> >>> > classrooms" >>> > >> > "Climate change is a 'liberal' cause, argues Colorado-based >>> > >> > petitioner, and >>> > >> > requires a 'balancing' counterpoint" >>> >>> > >> They'er trying this in Texas and Louisana too. Banning >>> > >> information from classrooms and textbooks is a major >>> > >> right wing cause. Creationists try to ban the teaching >>> > >> of evolution. Racists try to prevent pictures of non-white >>> > >> peoples in textbooks. In Texas, right wing nuts on the >>> > >> state school board plan to remove references to the >>> > >> "Age of Enlightenment" and Thomas Jefferson from >>> > >> history textbooks. >>> >>> > > The same Conservatives who claim global warming isn't happening have >>> > > also decided that the jury is still out on Evolution. The > > >>> conservative >>> > > conclusion on GW, which, and I'm sure this is just an amazing >>> > > coincidence, is precisely the same conclusion as groups funded by >>> the >>> > > oil and gas industries, is that it isn't happening, and even if it >>> > > looks like it's happening it still isn't happening, couldn't happen. >>> > > Al Gore made it all up. You can tell it's a lie because it still >>> > > snows >>> > > in North Dakota in January and who needs a computer model to see >>> > > that, >>> > > right? Paradoxically, they still occasionally whip out "The sun is >>> > > responsible for it" in the middle of all the denials that it is >>> > > happening. Fortunately, the far right is blessed with followers who >>> > > have the logic chopping abilities of house sparrows and the >>> > > contradiction passes unnoticed. The right has decided that >>> scientists >>> > > don't know anything about numbers or global trends or >>> temperatures or >>> > > anything and the world would be better off listening to REAL climate >>> > > experts like Sean Hannity and JD Hayworth. Why spend years in >>> college >>> > > and decades studying climate and meteorology when you can get all >>> the >>> > > info you need on the "global warming" myth just by just turning >>> on > > Fox >>> > > news at night or picking up a leaflet from some think tank funded by >>> > > The American Petroleum Institute? >>> >>> > What an idiot. >>> >>> > Climate change does happen. What we're debating about is if man's >>> puny >>> > little efforts have any effect on it. If so, then why wasn't the > >>> climate >>> > markedly warmer in the 50's, with all that killer fog around >>> London, > eh? >>> >>> > Also, if Evolution is a proven theory, when did they publish the >>> proof > for >>> > macroevolution? Most theories require proof to move from a theory >>> to a >>> > fact. >>> >>> > Unless you're the missing link, they haven't. >>> >>> > Since you seem to be another of those Marxist ranters, you're going >>> > into the >>> > blockfile. Apparently, you, too, have nothing to add to this > >>> discussion >>> > except the bs you get from the dailykospiece. >>> >>> > Say hello to your Uncle Joe. >>> >>> > Charles Grozny >>> >>> > Charles Grozny >>> >>> Show me two papers, one that disproves evolution and one that >>> disproves global warming. >>> >>> And what papers they would be! They would be published in any >>> magazine! Their authors would be famous! >>> >>> To disprove evolution? Why that would mean that most of biology >>> doesn't work. That would be a shock to every bio group in the world. >>> But if they had the facts..... >>> >>> To disprove global warming? What that would change our idea of >>> instrumentation! But if they had the facts.... >>> >>> But they don't have the facts. Repugs don't have a single fact. >>> >>> Evolution is real. >>> >>> Global warming is all too real. >>> >>> And butt monkies like the above author are too stupid to get the >>> point. >>> >>> There is no point. There is no scientific opposition to evolution, >>> you can see it working every day. There is no scientific opposition >>> to global warming. >>> >>> Now go and take the medicines that your psychiatrist prescribed for >>> you. >> >> How about showing a scientific paper that proves global warming is man- >> made? Because, from what I've read, there isn't any scientific proof >> of man-made global warming caused by our release of CO2, and many real >> scientists do not believe in it. By "real", I mean the ones whose >> jobs don't depend on the funding by governments and other special >> interest groups to try to show it exists. Those trying to "prove" man- >> made global warming have been caught fudging data, refusing freedom of >> information requests, stifling publication and peer review by >> dissenting scientists and a myriad of other bad scientific behavior >> trying to push the agenda. If you think about it, the global warming >> hoax is the biggest special interest lobby in Washington right now, >> and billions of dollars have already been wasted on it. It also seems >> to me, that if we are going to have to pay dearly in taxes and energy >> costs to"solve" global warming, the burden of proof should be on the >> warmists. > > Excellent post. WHEN will the LIEbrawl saps wake up and expose Al Bore > for the fraud he is? Al Gore's Own wife is running from him and his frauds. |