Arkansas Blog

Only in this country would we define climate in terms of 'right wing' or left wing. We politicize everything. We have been successful at politicizing disease and now climate. Where do you lefties plan on stopping? Man the great----now even we can change the climate of the earth. How powerful we are!!!!!! Since man can change climate how about more 72 degree weather?

It's high time Sanders bosses called him on this. His column, while not plagiarism, is certainly intellectually lazy. It's little more than a repetition of talking points issued by the big bucks neo-Con consulting firm. Sanders is an interesting on TV, decent on radio but a far from stellar writer. His column exists only to provide balance & that could be done better by others.

He defends his work by noting it sparks debate, etc. Rather it shows his lack of scientific understanding of the issue and his surface thin research. He was taken to task (kindly, I thought) by Rob Fisher and like too many who are caught continues to defend rather than just admitting the error. I'd almost be embarrassed for him were it not for the rather large & pompous knots in his ties.

Only on the internet can a high school graduate claim to know more than a Nobel Peace prize winner and be applauded for it. We've lost all reason. Facts have been replaced by opinion. Science has been replaced by profit.

If Rush Limbaugh says that the sun will not rise tomorrow because of the liberals, there are millions of people who will not only believe him but also heap derision on anyone who suggests the laws of physics might trump talk radio.

For example, to argue that the earth's climate will remained unchanged no matter what man does, to put forward the notion that the two are totally independent of one another, is ridiculous.

One cannot travel around much of the world without noticing every town the size of Conway has a dark haze over it... and quickly realize this blue ball we are on is getting smaller by the day in terms of its ability to digest the toxins we emit constantly.

Measurement from satellites show a daily reduction in the size (death) of the great coral reefs. No reefs are growing. The mighty Pacific Ocean's ph is turning acid, for pete sakes.

Even if one tosses out the idea of global warming against all reason. There are simply thousands (or more) other dangerous reasons to pay attention to what we are doing to ourselves, our atmos, our oceans, fresh water.. and any hope of a healthy future for those ahead of us.

Every soldier and laid off worker America has should be developing wind and solar (and related issues) right now, today.. it should be a war on energy right now. A work load which more than trumps what we did in world wars past.

Bombing the crap out of places like Iraq for the last twenty years was never going to work, because at best for our business-folks it would have insured we keep killing ourselves through burning oil on a global scale. Now that Bush has waved the white flag of surrender... there can be no questioning what we need to do.. and do it fast.. whether you see the same problems or not. Time is running out... and there is still a better (very obvious) way.

I don't mean to point the finger here (he said, right before he began the finger-pointing), but if the media didn't treat everyone's opinion as equally valid, we wouldn't be having this problem. It's the same with the evolution-creationism "controversy." I can't tell you how many times I've read an article on CNN.com or msnbc.com on evolution and creation, and both sides have been presented as equals. It's a wonder they don't do such a thing with phrenology or astrology. It's also this kind of "fair" journalism that allowed Dubya to get away with so much of his crap.

This is the United States, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. However, all opinions are not equally valid. The idea that my opinion on neurology is just as good as a brain surgeon's, or that Sanders' opinion on the climate is just as good as a climatologist's is anti-intellectual claptrap that has been promoted by the Republican Party since the days of Reagan.

Archaeopteryx, it's called anti-intellectualism and it's been around a long time. Unfortunately, even college graduates get infected with it.

dailykos doesn't entertain opposing views and neither do its adherents. I 'assume' that someone associated with that 'rag' has a college degree. I assume because it isn't apparent.

Does Dailykos ban people for posting conservative comments? I've seen quite a few there.

On the other hand, I've been banned from freerepublic two or three times, including once for simply asking how we were going to balance the budget with tax breaks. ANY voice which puts forward ANYTHING but Rush Limbaugh is swiftly silenced as a troll.

In general, "liberal" websites (like this one) are tolerant of opposing views, while "conservative" sites do not allow anyone who holds differing views to add their voice to the marketplace of ideas.

The only explanation I can find -- and I'm eager to hear others -- is that conservatives are are anti-intellectual and therefore their positions do not hold up to intellectual scrutiny.

Yes, but many on this blog have advocated rather strongly that I be banned from participating. How do you explain that? Apparently, my ideas cause some discomfort.

Dailykos's ideas hold up to scrutiny? How about their advocacy that Sarah Palin's youngest child was really her daughter's baby? Is that your idea of 'intellectual honesty'? Liberals have no monopoly on intellectual honesty. I hadly think that William F. Buckley was the paragon of intellectual barrenness.

Yes, but you're still here. You haven't been banned. That is my point.

No blog will be free of dumb ideas. But some blogs will at least allow dissenting views to those dumb ideas.

(When someone flies from Texas to Nowhere, Alaska with a high risk pregnancy, in labor, leaking amniotic fluid, I think that's newsworthy, personally.)

The GOP is no longer the party of Buckley. When it moved away from Bill and adopted Rush as its intellectual hero, that's when I left. I even have an autographed book of Buckley's.

You call yourself 'new deal' and you once embraced Buckley? Hmmmmmmm. That doesn't compute. You didn't address the craziness of dailykos that I mentioned. kos claimed that Sarah Palin's child belonged to her daughter. That was the crazy statement. That hardly stands as an example of intellectual prowess.

Like the freerepublic obsession with Obama not being a citizen, why doesn't Sarah just give up her DNA and settle it?

A guy drives past a home every day on his way to and from work. There's a sign on the fence that says "Free: Republican puppies." The sign is vaguely interesting, but he doesn't need a dog and so goes on.

One day, the sign changes to "Free: Democrat Puppies." Unable to resist his curiosity any longer, he stops and inquires why the puppies have changed parties.

The owner replies, "Now their eyes are open."

I stole that from someone on this blog - don't remember who - but it's a good one.

"Although scientific consensus on global warming is almost unanimous, he said/she said media coverage can often make it look like it's a 50/50 battle, that each side's arguments are equally legitimate."

You know, opposition and agreement on this or any issue doesn't have to be 50/50 for each side's argument to be considered legitimate. In science, it's often the very small minority as opposed to the majority consensus that ends up being correct. I'm not taking sides, because I know nothing about the weather, but the argument that "most scientists agree on this" isn't totally convincing when you look at science's track record. Remember the solar system.

Yeah, Moxie, you're so right. Look at science's track record. Why, we're not able to come up with a consensus on anything. We've never gotten anything right. We're wrong about evolution, about atomic theory, about that whole "germ theory of disease" deal. You know that computer you're using? Magic. That TV you're watching? Op[erated by TV fairies. That car you drive? You guessed it--operated by internal combustion gnomes. Yes, science has an awful record.

I believe if you'll check, it was scientists that figured out how the solar system worked. Not pundits or Rush Limbaugh. Just saying.

Archaeopteryx, if science was never wrong about anything, I could have been using this computer 10,000 years ago. Well, not me, but you know... And the gnomes are in my TV, not my car. Jeez, what kind of science do you study?

Sorry, new deal, I was giving you credit for not being one of the moonbats but I see that you are. Yea, sure, you embraced Buckley once!!!!! I also met a little green man in my back yard.

"Archaeopteryx, if science was never wrong about anything, I could have been using this computer 10,000 years ago"

So, you're saying the computer wasn't invented 10k years ago because, uh, science got it wrong? You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that the scientific method and consistent scientific inquiry only came about, ya know, thousands of years later? You don't think the fact that people were largely nomadic/wasting time hunting food/still befuddled by the complexity of agriculture that the computer was not invented 10k years ago?

-------------

Strange, we're not opposed to your ideas, but your lack of them. A scientist shouldn't debate a creationist, just as a social sciences professor/history professor shouldn't debate a KKK wizard over the merits of immigration in America. The latter two shouldn't be put on the same stage because they are not anywhere on the same level. There's no use in allowing someone to debate who doesn't have an understanding of the framework in which they are arguing.

Some of your comments have been legitimate on other matters, but when you say something like "CO2 is natural and therefore it can't hurt," it shows you don't deserve to debate on the same stage, because you don't even have a clear grasp of what global warming is. Like I said, look it up. I'm not going to bother and explain it to you--you don't deserve that.

The is NO scientific consensus on man-made global warming, although most scientists believe it's a myth. It's like believing that the earth is the center of the universe. We are not the center of the universe and we don't even know all the factors involved in the changes of weather and have very little impact on it.

At the recent conference on global warming in Poznan, Poland, more 650 scientists from around the globe challenged the man-made global warming claims. The dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of United Nations scientists (52) who authored the media hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://current.com/items/89613636/650_scientists_deny_man_made_global_warming.htm

Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.pr-inside.com/the-petition-contains-the-signatures-of-r613239.htm

Preparing to use the global warming hoax, President-elect Barack Obama has already telegraphed his intended agenda of "cap and trade" along with other heavy investments from increased taxes on the US population. Thus, Obama will increase his power and his control over the economy and the people.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama's friends), increase the power of the UN and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

Global warming IS a hoax that is putting money into the pockets of many people...Al Gore is certainly among them.

As for some person's view that dailykos doesn't filter "conservative comments", you have got to be OUT OF YOUR MIND. That place is groupspeak central. You will be flamed and eventually have your comments removed via their websites established method (a kind of rating system whereby enough people can have everything you write removed).

Let's talk REAL. That means getting away from left wing and right wing politics. The most ultra-right folks are no more intolerant and ignorant as the far left. They are equally ridiculous.

However, global warming is promoted by people who have an agenda like any other group that has an agenda. Why would you get, say "mobile exxon" to consult for your state to determine which the best fuel is used for cars. That would be laughed at, right? Then why isn't getting a consulting group known to promote global warming to inform you of what you should do?

Global warming/climate change happens whether we are here or not. Rather than concentrate on ridiculous money-making carbon credit welfare schemes, why don't we use money to make sure our water resources remain clean, pollution is kept to a minimum, and alternative energies that are efficient and useful can be applied?

We all want to get off our dependence on foreign oil. So why not go for an angle we can all agree with instead of spouting "global warming" nonsense? Encourage technologies like algae produced biodiesel and ethanol products (preferably not the current inefficient government-handout corn ethanol programs) as well as use techniques to encourage people to use these technologies.

If you tie your efforts to global warming, you'll look like an idiot in 20 years when the oceans aren't flooding into the streets of New York city as predicted by alarmists and environmental extremists. There is nothing that turns me off faster than a global warming alarmist. How has global warming truly effected any of them other than in the brain?