Lady.hawke

Climategate

Recommended Posts

Ummmm, Inter-glacial? Climal Warnging alarmism?

 

They want to talk about apples because your oranges are too distracting Perch. They can't address the topic directly so they bring on non-related side bar issues to fight about (and have sucked you right in).

 

Bad science based in political agenda and money to be had for the select few that support their social agenda. You will be rewarded for your loyalty comrade!

 

When the left drops the phony, feel nice, "Its good for the planet" charade and wants to talk about real solutions to solving pollution problems in a way that doesn't enslave the masses, then we might accomplish something. As for now it is smoke and mirrors and not worth discussing because they don't really care about the climate. It is all about control over our lives.

 

It is a position of hypocrisy and lies. There is no rational discussion. You either agree or you are a heretic, brow beat into submission because you are not "sensitive" to the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is not whether it has an effect but rather, how great of an effect does it have?

 

imagine what sort of effect that constantly smoking would have on your body...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back and read the link I posted Pope. It specifically says their news broadcasts. It's sad that you and your ilk are trying to pick this apart and defend these "news" organizations. Yet ya'll are the first to jump all over Fox.

 

Wait a minute ..

 

First you say that it "isnt" news unless it is on CBS, ABC . . . .then you point out people jumping over Fox . . . .

 

:wacko:

 

This gets better and better . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back and read the link I posted Pope. It specifically says their news broadcasts. It's sad that you and your ilk are trying to pick this apart and defend these "news" organizations. Yet ya'll are the first to jump all over Fox.

 

 

You f'ing simpleton. So your link is concerned that of the nightly 22 minute news shows they haven't yet addressed the climategate emails. What, exactly, does that prove? You do realize that news organizations are multi tiered and focused these days, correct?. Evey news organization you bash has this story running on their websites. EVERY ONE. Did you notice my link explaining how those nightly news hows are now less watched than cable and online? In other words, they have covered this story on their most trafficed locales and it hasn't made the cut to their lightly watched 22 minute news shows. Oh, the horror. The problem with the news shows is just that: what, really, can you cover in any type of depth in 22 minutes? How many stories? And like it or not, Obama's afghan decision, the health care bill movement and the Tiger Woods story are all more important than climate gate to many people.

 

What does that prove? I'll tell you: if they wanted to hide the story it wouldn't be on their website but rather probably ONLY on their nightly shows since those are the lowest viewed sections of their tiers.

 

Also, MRC's claim of bias in the 1980's is demonstrably false. In fact, the news corps then were incredibly conservative, and by and large still are even though you recognize it for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They want to talk about apples because your oranges are too distracting Perch.

 

What exactly do you guys do down there in Texas? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You f'ing simpleton. So your link is concerned that of the nightly 22 minute news shows they haven't yet addressed the climategate emails. What, exactly, does that prove? You do realize that news organizations are multi tiered and focused these days, correct?. Evey news organization you bash has this story running on their websites. EVERY ONE. Did you notice my link explaining how those nightly news hows are now less watched than cable and online? In other words, they have covered this story on their most trafficed locales and it hasn't made the cut to their lightly watched 22 minute news shows. Oh, the horror. The problem with the news shows is just that: what, really, can you cover in any type of depth in 22 minutes? How many stories? And like it or not, Obama's afghan decision, the health care bill movement and the Tiger Woods story are all more important than climate gate to many people.

 

What does that prove? I'll tell you: if they wanted to hide the story it wouldn't be on their website but rather probably ONLY on their nightly shows since those are the lowest viewed sections of their tiers.

 

Also, MRC's claim of bias in the 1980's is demonstrably false. In fact, the news corps then were incredibly conservative, and by and large still are even though you recognize it for something else.

 

Ok, I'm the f'ing simpleton. It's been nice talking to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I'm the f'ing simpleton. It's been nice talking to you.

 

 

Yes, that's what me and my "ilk" think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could just eliminate Christmas and save the planet...

 

To the Editor:

 

I believe we should think about doing away with Christmas. Our planet is in big trouble, and giving up Christmas would help to save it in many ways.

 

Not having to do extra driving, looking for gifts, would save on gas and therefore on carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Millions of trees would not be cut down, allowing them to grow large and to eat up the carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming.

 

The land normally used for Christmas tree farms could be planted with fast-growing hardwood forests to suck up even more CO2.

 

No Christmas lights or decorations would mean fewer utilities would be used, therefore saving on our natural resources.

 

There wouldn't be so much stuff to swell our already fast-expanding landfills.

 

I think people would be calmer, happier and less stressed if they didn't have to deal with the holiday. Many who live alone or have no family ties get depressed around Christmastime. There are even increased numbers of suicides. Not celebrating Christmas would mean folks could save money and not go further into debt buying presents that the recipients didn't even want or need.

 

Those wishing to celebrate Christ could have their religious and/or family get-togethers and remember Him for whom Christmas was named. It seems like we've gotten rather far away from that.

 

Mary Armstrong

 

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that's what me and my "ilk" think.

 

Well on this issue you seem to be in lockstep with grunge, EGOP, and wacked so they are your "ilk". It wasn't meant to be derogatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any of the mainstream media reported on climategate? Yes or no?

Yes. As I pointed out days ago, I've been following along in the Star Tribune which is also where I first noticed the story, so please, enough with the victimization nonsense where the media isn't reporting this. It is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well on this issue you seem to be in lockstep with grunge, EGOP, and wacked so they are your "ilk". It wasn't meant to be derogatory.

 

 

I'll tear a page from your book: read what I wrote. I actually haven't commented on climategate, but rather your interpretation of its reporting and classification of what "mainstream media" means in 2009/2010, not 1982.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that's what me and my "ilk" think.

Watch it, Pope. They hunt ilk down in Texas.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. As I pointed out days ago, I've been following along in the Star Tribune which is also where I first noticed the story, so please, enough with the victimization nonsense where the media isn't reporting this. It is.

 

Go back and read what I linked. I was specifically talking about the ABC, CBS, and NBC television news broadcasts, not a regional newspaper, a website, or a cable channel. No victim here just pointing out bias as you are so quick to do with Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. As I pointed out days ago, I've been following along in the Star Tribune which is also where I first noticed the story, so please, enough with the victimization nonsense where the media isn't reporting this. It is.

 

No, no, that's not what he was asking you dummy. Can't you put 2 and 2 together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll tear a page from your book: read what I wrote. I actually haven't commented on climategate, but rather your interpretation of its reporting and classification of what "mainstream media" means in 2009/2010, not 1982.

 

And the issue we've been talking about since you and your ilk started trying to pick apart my every word isn't climate change but the bias of ABC, CBS, and NBC's news broadcasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko:

 

This gets better and better . . .

 

When most people here whine about something and then end up being completely incorrect they simply stop posting. Not Perchie, he wants to keep stepping in the same pile of poo. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the issue we've been talking about since you and your ilk started trying to pick apart my every word isn't climate change but the bias of ABC, CBS, and NBC's news broadcasts.

 

A bias I do not believe is there, for the numerous reasons I laid out, the main one of which is this: those nightly news casts aren't where people get their news these days so you're simply extrapolating something that isn't there. With 22 minutes of real estate they've covered other numerous topics at hand in the past 2 weeks while covering it online extensively.

 

You ever go online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bias I do not believe is there, for the numerous reasons I laid out, the main one of which is this: those nightly news casts aren't where people get their news these days so you're simply extrapolating something that isn't there. With 22 minutes of real estate they've covered other numerous topics at hand in the past 2 weeks while covering it online extensively.

 

You ever go online?

 

Nope, never. And you are absolutely right, the plight of Tiger Woods and his wife is much more important than something that may affect long term legislation in the US. What was I thinking.

Edited by Perchoutofwater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When most people here whine about something and then end up being completely incorrect they simply stop posting. Not Perchie, he wants to keep stepping in the same pile of poo. :wacko:

 

If I was incorrect I might, but I'm not. This will be my last post for a while though as I'll be taking my bride out to dinner now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, never. And you are absolutely right, the plight of Tiger Woods and his wife is much more important than something that may affect long term legislation in the US. What was I thinking.

 

 

It is to advertisers. :wacko: Welcome to America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When most people here whine about something and then end up being completely incorrect they simply stop posting. Not Perchie, he wants to keep stepping in the same pile of poo. :wacko:

This where I think you become an idiot (imho). Who has whined and then been incorrect? It has been said a couple times that this is more about the fact that scientists have lied and deleted e-mails that show this and also talk about ways too handle certain data that does not seem to fit with what they want.

 

You and other libs just brush on by that and say "there has to be global warming". I guess scientists can do whatever they want to get govt to spend billions as long as people think something is happening in this world and to push those thoughts even more by having "trusted" scientists be unethical with data and the message they try to portray.

 

Pathetic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This where I think you become an idiot (imho). Who has whined and then been incorrect? It has been said a couple times that this is more about the fact that scientists have lied and deleted e-mails that show this and also talk about ways too handle certain data that does not seem to fit with what they want.

 

You and other libs just brush on by that and say "there has to be global warming". I guess scientists can do whatever they want to get govt to spend billions as long as people think something is happening in this world and to push those thoughts even more by having "trusted" scientists be unethical with data and the message they try to portray.

 

Pathetic!

 

You might want to read through the last couple pages of the thread before jumping in and haphazardly commenting on a different tangent to what you assumed I was talking about.

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to read through the last couple pages of the thread before jumping in and haphazardly commenting on a different tangent to what you assumed I was talking about.

Maybe I was wrong about what you were talking about when you were talking about whining and being incorrect. But the other parts of my post was still dead on - again imho.

 

I think have read all of the posts in this thread and nowhere does a lib come out against what these scientists have done. It is just blather about how GW has to be happening and then running off on other topics without admitting these scientists have done something very unethical.

 

If something similar came up with Bush you dudes would be all over it. Now that it fits your left agenda you quietly sweep it under the rug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.