UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (26) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1977420  
Subject: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/30/2013 9:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Ooops. I remember some hay being made on the Fool about how you were an idiot if you just blew off what The Economist had to say about global warming. But, just like with stem cells, "science" doesn't mean you declare a winner and that's that until the end of time. No, it means that you keep on learning. Something the left always screws up.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446...

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.


Huh. Imagine that. Some idiot wrote on this board a few times that planetary time scales are on the order of millennia and that looking at one decade or another was merely a blip in time...and was rounded attacked.

Sorry, libs. "The science is settled"? No it isn't. Climate science is still an evolving scientific topic and robust declarations of x or y as the final word are hardly warranted.

PS> For all you AGW purists, you should be the biggest fracking and nuclear power fans there are. If you're not you're a screaming hypocrite.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JediGALT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868264 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/30/2013 10:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Global Warming to the American Left is about lowering the standard of living of regular americans. Also, the American Left is in cahoots with that sorry body known as the "international community"....you know, the collection of LOSER nations that wish they were America. They all want a transfer of wealth from America to loser nations. Remember, to the American Left, America is evil, America owes the world.

Now to the Economist, a publication I've enjoyed and read since I was 16-ish, I think.

As responsible as their reporting is..... if you research the background of some of the Economist's bosses, Chief Editors, etc....you'll find Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, etc. Point being, The Economist favors One World Government....and Global Warming, via taxation, energy rules, etc is a HUGE step towards One World Government. (I know you might think my One World talk is nuts...but seriously look at Zbignew Brezinski, Trilaterals, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. Look at how the Economist dismisses any notion of sovereignty of nation-states)

There's a cabal or morons, American haters, losers, clue-impaired Leftists, Wall Street, and other corrupt entities on this global warming hoax bandwagon.

JediG

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868270 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 12:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 25
Ooops. I remember some hay being made on the Fool about how you were an idiot if you just blew off what The Economist had to say about global warming.

So are you saying the a economist is credible on AGW only when you think it supports your view. (It doesn't in this car, by the way.)

But, just like with stem cells, "science" doesn't mean you declare a winner and that's that until the end of time. No, it means that you keep on learning. Something the left always screws up.

Um. No. It's not the left that gets stuck on old science. You know, stuff like sun rotating around the Earth, the Earth being flat, cigarettes not causing cancer, stuff like that. That's you guys.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JediGALT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868311 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dope1....

Bob Woodward was their credible hero during Watergate and beyond.

But when Woodward decided to expose Obama as the 3rd rate professor's coffee-fetching-putz from campus......all of a sudden they ostracized Woodward.

They are hypocrites.

JediG

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868313 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 12:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dope1....

Bob Woodward was their credible hero during Watergate and beyond.

But when Woodward decided to expose Obama as the 3rd rate professor's coffee-fetching-putz from campus......all of a sudden they ostracized Woodward.

They are hypocrites.


Of course. Woodward dared to get off their plantation. They don't just keep blacks and women there, you know: if you're in good with them, you'll stay that way just so long as you don't rock the boat. If you do you're finished.

In a year they'll be posting how Woodward was lying about Obama and the re-write of history will be on. Fundamentally dishonest people work like that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868352 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 5:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 28
But, just like with stem cells, "science" doesn't mean you declare a winner and that's that until the end of time.

Dope, Dope, Dope, Dope....

Are you trying to rewrite history again -- even though all that needs to be done is to check what was actually written here to show the truth?

Why the hell would you do that? Oh yeah -- to try to heal your wounded pride.

This is what happened:

You asserted that embryonic stem cells were 1) not needed any more and 2) caused cancer.

http://boards.fool.com/science-savvy-libs-ought-to-know-that...

You were told on the first point that that was utter bullcrap and that on the second point no one vaguely credible at the time was doing work with humans with actual ESC therapy, inter alia related to this cancer risk.

You were also told that the tremendous advantage of ESCs was their pluripotency -- the ability to generate many different types of cells as opposed to adult stem cells which have less plasticity.

You were informed of work where scientists were attempting to tease pluripotency out of adult stem cells. This work has shown some promising results, but is far from over or free of problems. It also STILL requires ESCs to be used as a reference to judge against.

So, your original claim that ESCs aren't needed is as wrong as it is when you first dribbled it out.

You can go back and look it up. It will still be the same no matter how many times you try to pretend that it isn't.

Some idiot wrote on this board a few times that planetary time scales are on the order of millennia and that looking at one decade or another was merely a blip in time...and was rounded attacked.

You're at it again!

You were told at the time the incredibly simple concept that although NATURAL planetary climate cycles have rhythms of thousands of years, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere via unnatural methods could very likely be introducing new perturbations that have an effect on a much quicker timescale.

Climate science is still an evolving scientific topic

Wow.

What a revelation.

For all you AGW purists, you should be the biggest fracking and nuclear power fans there are.

Again, lil' Dope -- you demonstrate your tremendous skill at not listening or synthesising. Neither fracking nor nuclear power are without their own very large problems. One with nuclear power is its very long onlining time -- another is its geopolitically difficult chains of supply.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868360 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 6:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You know, stuff like ... cigarettes not causing cancer, stuff like that.

Ask Al Gore and the southern democrats about their role in big tobacco. Lol.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868362 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 6:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sorry, babe. You're the one rewriting history. My point was, "Hey, let's figure out all the uses from other stem cells so that we don't run into ethical concerns". You know. That whole sciencey thing.

You responding with a pack of insults and a couple of years' worth of stalking. Congrats. The science that you and others like you dumped on ended up proving you hilariously wrong.

But keep up the all caps ranting and high rec count nonsense. Maybe it'll be like Everquest or something and you and the intellectual brigades here can create a market for them.

PS. You have a really bad habit if reading what you want into responses and then attacking them, Commnander Strawman.

PPS. Be sure and lead off your next rec ho effort with Jeeezusss Keriiiist.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868363 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 7:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
My point was, "Hey, let's figure out all the uses from other stem cells so that we don't run into ethical concerns".

That's what you tried to spin it to - but your opening shot over the bow was quite explicit:

Science-savvy libs ought to know that you don't need embryonic stem cells. Cord cells are more plentiful and don't carry the cancer risk that embryonic cells do (or so I've read).

How the hell you think you can extract yourself from that degree of certainty with after-the-fact rephrasing is beyond me.

Why didn't you just say: "I have ethical concerns" rather than "you don't need embryonic stem cells?".

But please -- line up your foot again and blast away. It seems to be your greatest skill.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868364 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 7:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
LOL. I love the double standard and how dishonest posters have to try and shove others into the margins so they can reserve all the reasonable middle ground for themselves.

Play that game with somebody else. Or play with yourself if that's what floats your boat. It's uproariously ironic that anybody who helped chant "The science is settled!!!!" and helped ridicule others would be shameless enough to try it, but go ahead.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868366 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 7:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I love the double standard and how dishonest posters have to try and shove others into the margins

... what, by being so devious as to quote your own words that show you to be saying something very different to what you now claim you meant?

It's uproariously ironic that anybody who helped chant "The science is settled!!!!"

I'll make this so easy for you that it might even penetrate your skull:

"The science is settled" refers to the contention that human activity is having an effect on the climate -- in answer to the paid shills and oddballs who claim that it isn't.

NO ONE - not one single, solitary person of credibility - is claiming that they can predict exactly what that human-induced effect will be. That part of the science isn't settled.

How hard is that to understand? Not very. Unless you are being wilfully obtuse for ideological reasons. But you'd never do that, would you?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868368 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's not the left that gets stuck on old science. You know, stuff like sun rotating around the Earth, the Earth being flat, cigarettes not causing cancer, stuff like that. That's you guys.
---
Ask Al Gore and the southern democrats about their role in big tobacco. Lol.


Huh? What's that got to do with it?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868369 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 7:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Failure. Rather than actually discuss the issue, you went and made it personal. And now here you're distorting history in epic proportions.

"The science is settled" was a chant used by AGW folks to dismiss anyone who didn't toe the line all the way. If you thought that the Kyoto treaty was a stupid idea then you were some kind of "denier", I suppose something not dissimilar from a holocaust denier.

Double fail. You know, you're not an idiot. We don't have to do this dance every time. We could actually have a discussion. But you seem to prefer taking potshots...so be it. We'll continue to have it your way.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868371 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 8:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
you said it's not the left that was involved with saying tobacco was not causing cancer.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868377 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It's not the left that gets stuck on old science. You know, stuff like sun rotating around the Earth, the Earth being flat, cigarettes not causing cancer, stuff like that. That's you guys.
---
Ask Al Gore and the southern democrats about their role in big tobacco. Lol.

Huh? What's that got to do with it?


you said it's not the left that was involved with saying tobacco was not causing cancer.

Correct. Again, what does your comment about Gore and Southern Democrats accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies have to do with it?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868383 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 10:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"The science is settled" was a chant used by AGW folks to dismiss anyone who didn't toe the line all the way.

Again, the vast consensus -- and by vast I mean in the high-90s percent-wise -- relates to the question "is human-displaced C02 having an effect on the climate of the planet?". The answer to that is basically settled. And that's what right-minded people mean when they say something akin to your pet phrase. They are not claiming that the entire story is written, however.

You can pretend otherwise, but it doesn't make it true.

Please show me one example of a scientist -- or someone with enough scientific literacy to be able to comment in an informed manner -- saying that the ENTIRE topic (both cause and predicted effect) is settled and that there are no facets or mechanisms that are not understood.

Show me just one.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868387 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 11:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Show me just one. "

http://www.drroyspencer.com

Good luck on doing what libs do best and attack and discredit anyone who disagrees with the climate change religion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868388 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 3/31/2013 11:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Good luck on doing what libs do best and attack and discredit anyone who disagrees with the climate change religion.

Oh, for the love of....

I didn't ask for evidence of a denialist -- we all know those exist.

Try actually reading the post you are responding to, and then you'll realise your mistake. Maybe. Or possible not.

Come back when you can prove that you can read basic English and say "oh, I'm sorry -- I went off half-cocked and gave you the wrong thing".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868389 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/1/2013 12:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Again, the vast consensus -- and by vast I mean in the high-90s percent-wise -- relates to the question "is human-displaced C02 having an effect on the climate of the planet?". The answer to that is basically settled. And that's what right-minded people mean when they say something akin to your pet phrase. They are not claiming that the entire story is written, however.

Oh come on. Freaks from around the spectrum throw "denialist" around like you're some kind of Holocaust denier. You've done it yourself a hundred times:
http://boards.fool.com/i-dont-believe-man-causes-global-warm...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868393 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/1/2013 1:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Freaks from around the spectrum throw "denialist" around

... you're just not getting it, despite the many times I have explained this.

Of course there are denialists. These are people who deny.

Considering climate change, denialists come on 3 broad forms:

- The first order are those who deny that human-displaced CO2 has ANY effect on the atmosphere with regards to climate change.

- The second order are those who deny that human-displaced CO2 has ANY IMPORTANT effect on the atmosphere with regards to climate change in the face of natural cycles.

- The third order are those who say that human-displaced CO2 might have an effect on the atmosphere with regards to climate change -- but that we can't do anything about it so we may as well not try.

Definitely the first two orders and much of the third order is in opposition to the orthodoxy on this issue. THAT is the part that people refer to as "settled" -- the part about whether or not humanity is having an effect. The overwhelming majority of credible sources agree on this.

What no one in the orthodoxy claims is a complete understanding of the mechanisms and results of the human-induced effects of climate change. That part of the science isn't settled -- and only people with an agenda to try to make the scientists look bad claim that anyone on the orthodox side is saying that it is.

Do you understand now? If not - it can't be made any clearer.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868401 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/1/2013 9:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Considering climate change, denialists come on 3 broad forms:

- The first order are those who deny that human-displaced CO2 has ANY effect on the atmosphere with regards to climate change.

- The second order are those who deny that human-displaced CO2 has ANY IMPORTANT effect on the atmosphere with regards to climate change in the face of natural cycles.

- The third order are those who say that human-displaced CO2 might have an effect on the atmosphere with regards to climate change -- but that we can't do anything about it so we may as well not try.



Meanwhile this thread should include the orders of AGW propagandists.

- The AGW apostles. Anything stated that can be categorized as substantiating the AGW theory is gospel. Any word attempting to contradict this or question any aspect of it should be seen as blasphemy. Any attempt at discussing this with a critical pov is also blasphemy.

- The AGW apologists. When facts or understandings of AGW move away from the strong platform held by strident supporters of AGW-combat policy wonks, they will go into overdrive to prove the sky is not blue, or the world doesn't turn on it's axis. When faced with the decline in temperatures, instead of admitting their perplexities, they either drill down further into data and confuse the issue with complex formulas that result in proving that 'up' is 'down', or they simply refuse to discuss the finding.

- The AGW realists. They, like the third order of 'denialists', agree with CO2 being a greenhouse gas, and that the greenhouse effect does play a part in global climate. However they are not committed to furthering the belief that it is the most important factor --- instead believing that it is a single factor in an infinite number of chaotic occurrences that result in the climate we currently have and will have.

The realists do not believe in over-manipulation of greenhouse gasses as a means to an end; because it is as foolhardy as those intent on polluting and wastefully emitting CO2.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868431 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/1/2013 12:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Correct. Again, what does your comment about Gore and Southern Democrats accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies have to do with it?

I didn't comment about Gore and Southern Democrats accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies. Why do you have to make things up?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868516 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/1/2013 8:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Pat: Ask Al Gore and the southern democrats about their role in big tobacco. Lol.
---
Felix: Again, what does your comment about Gore and Southern Democrats accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies have to do with it?
---
Pat: I didn't comment about Gore and Southern Democrats accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies. Why do you have to make things up?


I didn't make anything up. I misunderstood. If you weren't referring to Gore and other Democrats accepting campaign contributions, what were you referring to? To my knowledge, Gore's never denied that cigarettes cause lung disease. A few conservative Southern Dems may have, but that supports my point.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868564 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/2/2013 8:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I didn't make anything up. I misunderstood. If you weren't referring to Gore and other Democrats accepting campaign contributions, what were you referring to? To my knowledge, Gore's never denied that cigarettes cause lung disease. A few conservative Southern Dems may have, but that supports my point.


Al Gore and many other southern Democrats, Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats, made a nice living growing the tobacco that decimated American lungs. DECADES after the Surgeon General publication on the dangers of smoking...even years after Al Gore's sisters death from lung cancer, Gore would wax nostalgic about his time walking the tobacco fields and the curing barns.

I have not seen anything that would convince me that, in the south, it was the army of Democrats who fought to end the charade that smoking has no ill effects. Also, there was no cabal of southern Republicans who were trying to hide the research. Any information otherwise would be appreciated.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868595 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/2/2013 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Al Gore and many other southern Democrats, Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats, made a nice living growing the tobacco that decimated American lungs. DECADES after the Surgeon General publication on the dangers of smoking.

Okay. I know that. Again, what does it have to do with what we're talking about, which is rejection of science and whether liberals or conservatives are more prone to do it?


...it was the army of Democrats who fought to end the charade that smoking has no ill effects.

Sort of. Conservative Democrats, most of whom became Republicans.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1868598 of 1977420
Subject: Re: The Economist cools on AGW Date: 4/2/2013 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I know that. Again, what does it have to do with what we're talking about, which is rejection of science and whether liberals or conservatives are more prone to do it?

I reject the theory based on the fact that there is nothing that I have read that delineates "rejection of tobacco research" on political affiliations. If you have something other than ... "I would like to think that is true" please post it.

>...it was the army of Democrats who fought to end the charade that smoking has no ill effects.

>>Sort of. Conservative Democrats, most of whom became Republicans.


So Conservative Democrats who became Republicans fought to end the charade that smoking has no ill effects.

You are all over the place.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (26) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement