Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming
By Judson Berger
A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.
“He came out with the truth. They don’t want the truth at the EPA,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he’s ordered an investigation. “We’re going to expose it.”
Sen. Inhofe is one of my heros. He has been all over the climate scam from day one, and he’s no friend of Al Gore.
“Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attacked Al Gore and global warming science, claiming that Gore was “full of crap†on global warming.”
He is sooooooo hated by the Left.
Who is hated by the left?. Most independent people that think/question their infinite wisdom is my quess. Inhofe is an “Independent!!” Love it!
Paul:
Can you expand on that a little? I honestly don’t understand what your point is in that last post. Are you saying that there are more people than the Left that hate him? I also don’t know know what you mean by independant. He is a Republican. At least his name usually appears with an R. Or are you saying that he stands alone? I’m really not following.
Neil,
I meant “Independent thinker”. Not an independent as in party. Inhofer is a free thinker with facts not b.s. People like him are hated by the left. They follow their leader with whatever “the leader” has to say. Inhofer looks at facts. He’s not a RINO. I like him as well and he has the guts to say the truth! Enough said?
Paul:
Much better! Thanks.
I wish more people would listen to what he says, but that is unlikley because he’s been portrayed in the media as a bully, and climate “denier”.
You two… get a room.
VANCOUVER, Jul 31 (IPS/IFEJ) – Environmentalists and researchers say that climate change is a significant factor in the pine beetle epidemic that has ravaged forests in the western Canadian provinces of British Columbia (BC) and Alberta.
In some areas of the BC interior, almost 80 percent of the lodgepole pines will have been devastated by the beetles within 10 years, resulting in widespread economic consequences, according to resource experts.
“The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada,” Doug McArthur, a professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, told IPS.
“The pine beetle has survived the warmer winters due to global warming. The result is the rapid cut of forests to salvage the wood, which could, within seven or eight years, result in some communities being without a forestry industry which has sustained many regions for decades. The potential economic impact of this climate change issue is massive,” he said.
A temperature of -40 degrees Celsius for a few days is needed in the winters to kill off the beetle adequately.
Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the BC chapter of the non-profit Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told IPS, “To contextualise the magnitude
Of course climates always change, at least they always have. Sometimes they warm and somtimes they cool. The Earth as a whole is presently cooling at a very rapid rate. I don’t know if they are offering this story as proof that man caused global warming is the problem. If they are, then maybe their science title should be removed. This is no evidence at all.
Rob:
How can global warming cause the pine beetle infestation when the temps have not gone up? Couldn’t the pine beetle infestation be just an infestation? Good grief! If you stub your toe is it global warming?
Is the pine beetle a new species? Nope! It’s been around for millions of years, and this is not the first, or worse infestation.
(this is talking about Colorado, but it’s the same bug in B.C.)
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05528.html
“attacks are limited largely to trees under stress from injury, poor site conditions, fire damage, overcrowding, root disease or old age.”
Note: it doesn’t say “global warming”.
Oh, and in articles I have read that claim it’s global warming they say a cold snap will kill them off, and because of global warming it’s been mild winters. Guess again.
“MPB larvae spend the winter under the bark. Larvae are able to survive the winter by metabolizing an alcohol called glycerol that acts as an antifreeze. They continue to feed in the spring and transÂform into pupae in June and July. EmerÂgence of new adults can begin in mid-June and continue through SeptemÂber. However, the great majorÂity of beetles exit trees during late July (lodgeÂpole pine) and mid-August (ponderosa pine).”
Oh, and another thing. It has never, in recorded history, been -40 degrees C. in British Columbia. If it ever reaches it, it will break all records. But in the article you posted, they just throw that out there like that would indicate normality. And you will be even more convinced that global warming is happening when it never gets anywhere near -40 in B.C.
“Across B.C., Tuesday’s coldest cold-weather record was in Chetwynd, at -36.5 C, breaking its 1987 record low of -30.7 C.”
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/brrr-eaking-news-city-sets-new-record-low/
You see Rob this is why the global warming alarmist don’t want to debate. Because they lose every single one of ’em.
Correction!
I was wrong to say that “It has never, in recorded history, been -40 degrees C. in British Columbia.”
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/canada/Alberta-to-Nova-Scotia/British-Columbia.html
“The highest temperature recorded in British Columbia was 112°F (44.4°C) on 16 July 1941 at Lillooet; the lowest was -74°F (-58.9°C) on 31 January 1947 at Smith River. Overall, Victoria is ranked as having the mildest climate of any Canadian city, with an average daily temperature of 37°F (3°C) in January and 61°F (16°C) in July.”
But this does not negate my point. With average lows being +3 degrees C. in Alberta, (probably a little colder inland) a cold spell of -40 degrees C. for several days, would still not signify normalcy.
PS
That will make sense once my comment that is awaiting moderation is posted……..Dan.
That was quick…..Thanks Dan!
Sure Neil, whatever…
Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain “a prisoner of its energy dilemma” as long as Saddam Hussein was in power. That April 2001 report, “Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,” was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Why can’t you people just admit you are scared crap-less at the thought of no more oil. That’s why conservation simply makes sense, for whatever reason… But “sense” doesn’t seem to be in your dictionary.
Rob:
Off point as usual.
I’m wise to your tactic of changing the subject. It will not work anymore.
If it ain’t global warming, or posted story related, I don’t care.
Mr. Hood’s agenda never changes. Are you Al Gore?, or are you a surragate? Think, nameless one. You read too much People magazine!
The EPA has thrown science under the bus. Sen. Inhofe wants to investigate why a report that was not sympathetic to the AGW thoery was smacked down and its writer chastized for writing it.
Then here comes Rob, bringing up pine beetle infestation in a story that blames it on global warming. Unrelated to the Inhofe post, but has to do with the global warming scam, so I did a little digging and found some information that suggests that global warming has nothing to do with it.
So then he completely diverges from the subject and posts a little red herring.
Why don’t you want us to talk about the EPA Rob?
You do know that this site is not about you, right?
AGW is a lie, and you can’t prove it.
I’m sorry that may hurt your feelings……..wait……..no I’m not!
Speaking of global warming, let’s take a look at what the Arctic sea ice is doing. Well, I can tell you what it’s not doing, it’s not melting at the rate at which was predicted.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Now, why do you suppose that is?
I’m not making this up. It is just another example of observed conditions not mating up with what was predicted by the AGW fearmongers.
But gee, let’s get off the subject and talk about George Bush and Saddam Hussein………….NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but it is all about oil, mostly, and other fossil fuels. Global warming science scares the rich and powerful people (Bush family, and Cheney- both big oil businessmen for example). They have to debunk the real science to maintain their power and riches. A story as old as dirt, nothing new really. And I beleive what the EPA says, not a political whore like Inhofe.
Rob:
Then why don’t you prove the “real” science then?
You do know that there is like a million other products derived from petrolium right? Oil isn’t just about fuel.
Why do you always go back to the fuel?
See, you’re not hearing what is being said on this site: global warming is not happening, and people are lying about it to advance their political agenda. Your political agenda, I might add.
You are obsessed with the rich and powerful, and you have glommed on to this fantastic lie because of what it can do for you, or do to those that you have decided are your enemy.
I don’t have any interest in big oil. I have no investments in it, nor do I care if they go bankrupt, or are replaced by another type of fuel. As long as I don’t have to dramatically alter my lifestyle.
You keep claiming that us conservatives are just afraid of change and can’t handle it. And that is pure balony. When something BETTER comes along, I’ll hop on feet first.
I am concered about truth. I know you are unwilling to believe that, but I don’t care what you think. You see, global warming is a lie, and that is proven every single day that passes. My proof is in the temperature data, and the sattelite measurements of Arctic ice, compared to the doomsday scenarios propagated by people who can only be described as fearmongers because they had no idea what they were talking about, but presented it as fact.
I think you need to ask yourself why you believe them. Do you believe them because you know in your heart that global warming is happening, and therefore the world is truly in danger?
Or do you believe them because that is what it will take to take down the evil oil companies, and force the world into seeing things your way, wheather they are willing or not?
If it’s the first reason, I can respect that.
If it’s the second reason, then I can not respect that. Do you understand?
I do not think you fall into the category of one who believes the first reason.
Here is another source of “proof” that has to do with predicted sea level rise. As in, that ain’t happening either.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
“In the last decade, they have attracted special attention because, in the IPCC-scenario, the Maldives would be condemned to become flooded in the next 50-100 years. Our research data do not lend support to any such flooding scenario, however. On the contrary, we find no signs of any on-going sea level rise.”
Bet you don’t see this story on CNN.
Rob:
It has become more appearant to me that you want a political change. And if that change can be brought about by a lie, then you’re ok with it.
Do you not see what is wrong with that?
You have to match what you believe to what is actually happening. And what is actually happening is not what was predicted by the IPCC, James Hansen, Al Gore, and computer models.
This is at the heart of what this post is all about. Did the EPA dismiss Alen Carlin’s report because it was false?
Or did they supress it because what it said, they didn’t want to hear, because they have a predetermined view, and his report did not fit into that view?
You know, I can compare this to what is said about Bush lying about WMDs to invade Iraq.
The global warming lie is THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a lie to further a political agenda. So if you are furthering the lie, knowing it is a lie, then you are no better than those that you despise.
Everyone needs to read Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner’s interview on the falsehood of rising sea levels:
“When I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that’s not very much. And in recent years, I even improved it, by considering also that we’re going into a cold phase in 40 years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus a few centimeters. That’s our best estimate. But that’s very, very different from the IPCC statement.
Ours is just a continuation of the pattern of sea level going back in time. Then you have absolutely maximum figures, like when we had all the ice in the vanishing ice caps that happened to be too far south in latitude after the Ice Age. You couldn’t have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years….”
“…And like this State of Fear (book), by Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice. Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re already floating, and it has no effect.
There is much more in this interview. Mostly, the Al Gore socialists are being exposed over and over again as frauds.
Oh, according to Rob N’ Hood, this story is fake, it never happened. So now let’s all shut up about it because we are only assuming it’s a real story.
Neil,
We are talking to a person with a “BB in a boxcar brain.” All we hear is the swooshing of air with no facts behind it. Why are we wasting our energy with a namelss person? I will take my frustrations out at the VOTING BOOTH as well as others as stated in previous posts. That’s the way it should be and always will. Let this “Rob N Hood” person, as well as others, be what he is, a provacator. Nothing less, nothing more. Drop it. Let’s get on to the real issue at hand. Stop cap & trade as well as other issues and get involved in our local, State and National community, vocalize your beliefs, be active and go forward. I assume that our “friend” has never participated in anything other than to chastise people like you and others. Let the “Rob N Hoods” of the world exist in simply hitting a keyboard only. Only community action will help the people get involved!!! Enough said. Later. P. S. Hood is probably a member of ACORN?
I didn’t say oil is just about fuel. You don’t read or comprehend very well. I am well aware of all the things derived from oil. Thai is simply another reason to support alternatives so we can continue to use oil for things that we need to use it for. Cutting back to do that and to defend our country (without oil, we are some waht defenseless, except for nuclear weapons, of course). so you see there really isn’t any down side to supporing/believing global warming because it basically means conservation of fossil fuels via alternatives. but we will still have and continue to enjoy most of not all of the things in life we’ve become accustomed to. AND at the same time we become less dependent upon foriegn countries, many who use oil profits to fund terrorism, we possibly gain a cleaner world environmentally speaking, etc. The benefits are great. All you people are worried about is the same old thing- raising taxes !! Speaking of proof, you have no proof that any particular aspect of what I mentioned would do that. You assume it will, and to you NOTHING is worth it, not any of those important and wonderful things listed above. You are the ones who are stuck and blinded. I’d bet if you had lived a few centuries ago you’d be burning people at the stake (or stonig to death) who believed the earth was round… (some of them were probably pissed off that some of their taxes went to the exploration costs that were involved with that, just like green technology haters today). So you see, you really are not in good company…
And, oh, FYI, I cannot “prove the real science”. I am not a scientist and neither are you. We both have to rely on what we think is reasonable and logical. Problem is it is sometimes 180 degrees from one to the other. I have been trying to point out why I think that is- to see where we possibly agree or could agree- some kind of middle ground. But you see no middle ground at all, and probably never will. That’s just sad for you, and for this country.
Gee, Paul, you are just one cranky dude. So what’s wrong with ACORN? It is a group that does just what you recommend others do- that is become politically acitve locally, etc. Oh, it’s bad just because you don’t agree with that side of the political spectrum. Why so hypocritical? Is that becuse hypocrisy comes natural to you? Or don’t you thnk things thru very well? Your brain MUST be bigger than a BB, right?? Well, come on then, start demnstrating that fact. Not only that I thought this site was about Gloal Warming- NOT Cap and Trade. Oh wait, you can decide what to focus on because you are a right-winger, is that correct? Because you like having your way, and you don’t like being bothered by ideas left of your extreme right wing world…? Just askin’ you cantakerous old (young?) cuss you.
Rob:
Stop before you pop an anurism.
My heart goes “pitter patter.” I read both sides and in my humble opinion, which it is, climate change is natural and always will be and you and I are not affecting it whatsoever. Read Spencer! Enough said.
By the way, that is Roy W. Spencer, PHD. Check him out. You may learn something that Hanson/Gore hasn’t told you nor the media. Let me know.
Neil, Yes I have. More proof of no global “Man made” warming that is as the media states it is. Read Albert Gore’s comments today? I didn’t know that I was a nazi, did you?. This guy with his millions made off this scam are the “rich ones” Rob talks about but never brings up. George Soros, Al Gore all run in the same pack. Money in their pocket on a scam that you, I and Rob will pay for over our lifetimes as well as our children. Sadly it is never reported. Later.
Paul:
I have not read Gore’s statements, nor am I. I don’t have to because I watched his movie, and I know where he stands.
This is a war of propaganda, rhetoric, and agitprop that is currently being won by the alarmists. They have successfully made it a partizan issue and I’m afraid that people, who have the same point of view that our friend Rob N’ Hood has, will not be able to discern the truth until it is much too late.
To steal a phrase from Bob Carter, an Austrailian professor of geology, it’s the “do-goodery” about the whole green-save-the-world-from-us message that people really buy into. What better way to coerce people into allowing things that they may normally not allow, than to tell them that it’s going to save the planet?
It’s all phony fakery. And even when the evidence is as overwhelmingly contrary to the dire predictions, the people, who think they are saving the world, ignore it because, I think, they would lose the feeling that they are important, that they are saving the planet.
That is a very powerful opiate indeed.
Rob:
“So what’s wrong with ACORN? It is a group that does just what you recommend others do- that is become politically acitve locally, etc. ”
Is this what you mean by ect.???????
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7195
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9178869&nav=menu102_2
http://www.rollcall.com/news/33365-1.html
There is a lot more on ACORN. Lots of investigations into voter fraud and other crimes.
Do you know of any Conservative, or Republican organizations that are under investigation, for anything?
It’s just another example of the ends justifying the means. I mean, it’s ok right? as long as they keep getting Democrats elected there’s no problem. Right?
You seem so certain. What if you’re wrong? Could you live with yourself? Also, the fact that certain people like Al Gore, G. Soros, etc. are positioned to make money doesn’t appear to me to be a “smoking gun” at all. Isn’t it simply ordinary capatilism, just risk takers (yes powerful ones) out there willing to go for it? Isn’t that what you guys say you respect? Yes it is, and yet when it is a Liberal person or group doing it, you get all lathered up. Isn’t that hypocrisy? Yes, it is. Your enthusiasm for this issue is based and clouded by your political beliefs and mind-set. Until you admit that (to yourselves, I know you will never admit that here) then you can never consider this or any issue honestly. And admit this too: without me this would be quite the boring site… (I’m really not an ego-maniac, I just like to point out truths).
Rob:
Get over yourself.
The “truth” is that the world’s temperatures are not rising. The “truth” is that all of the predictions made by the IPCC, Al Gore, James Hansen and the computer models have been wrong.
It is not us who are making guesses. We are just pointing out that emperical data is saying that the guesses made by the alarmists are not manifesting into reality, that they are incorrect.
Do you think we are just making it up? That one day we decided that they must be wrong because they’re Democrats, mostly, who are saying it? And that there is nothing at all to back up our point of view?
Why do you think I keep posting the NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent graph?
The NSIDC is not a bastion of Conservative thought. In fact they are trying their little hearts out to prove the AGW hypothesis, but I give them a lot of credit because they will not lie or alter the data to prove their theory. They have proven to have scientific integrety, which is more than I can say for James Hansen, or the IPCC because they have lied and altered data.
But you seem to have bought into the doomsday scenarios. You really believe that we are going to destroy the planet with CO2. And you seem to be willing to say anything to promote that idea.
And that is what this site is about. It is not about partizan ideaology, it’s not about Left vs. Right. It’s not about George Bush and Saddam Hussein. And it’s not about the super rich elites. It’s not even about you and I. It is about the fact that we are running at top speed over a cliff. Making draconian changes to our sociciety, and economy because a computer model said we are warming the planet with CO2 emissions.
And there are a lot of people who are saying exactly what I have said time and time again that the world is not warming and there is evidence that the computer models were wrong.
And this is the place where we have a say.
It is tough cookies that you don’t like it.
Neil, Thank you. You said it all. About Gore taking risks as well as Soros to make money, at least speaking for myself I don’t earn my keep by telling untruths to the public and making movies that are folly and not fact. Rob still doesn’t get it. Honest people “earn” their money with hard work not conning people. There is a difference. Madoff comes to mind.
Cameron Bird:
Hi! Thanks for your comment. I don’t know if you noticed but I posted this http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm in a comment earlier in this thread.
It is the findings of the study that Nils is more than likely being interviewed about.
Could you post a link to the interview that you mentioned? I would like to read the whole thing. Thanks!
Let’s take another look at the Arctic. How can this be?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
But I’m just assuming this means that the Arctic sea ice isn’t melting as rapidly as predicted. For all I know it could mean we’re doomed! I’m not a scientist so I don’t know how to read a graph. I wonder what a scientist would say.
The only warming that has taken place beyond a doubt is the heating up of the anthropomorphic global warming issue. This cause has gathered such momentum, that I doubt if any scientific examination of data (such as exists) will stop it. I suspect that this issue will gradually go away not with a bang but a whimper. We don’t have the data or the analytic capacity to reliably predict the weather tomorrow, far less predict the effect of green house gases (from all sources) on the environment.
It is certain that huge shifts in the earth’s atmosphere have occured over the billions of years that our planet has existed; the few thousands of years that our present human-friendly climate has existed are only a tick of the clock of our total geoenvironmental history. It is also certain that, for example, CO2 used to exist in vastly higher quantities in our atmosphere, at a time when a remarkable vastness and diversity of flora and fauna existed. I am certain that, regardless of human activity, the earth’s environment will change (as it always has) and, at some point, will deviate from the way Al Gore intends our environment to be. If I were to pray for the survival of my great (X100) grandkids, I would pray that they have adequate energy to see them through the next ice age. In the mean time, Al Gore can buy carbon credits from the fund he helped start until he turns blue in the face to no real benefit for the environment. I guess Al buying his own carbon credits will justify the energy expenditures of his life style, including paying the rather large power bill for his mansion and keeping his private jet in the air. I read recently that the “Blood and Gore” fund was going to put a cap on its investments. For the moment, they have made all the money they need. That’s no problem for me, I wasn’t going to invest any money there anyway.
Here’s what at least one scientist says:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/in_search_of_an_intelligent_en.html
“Professor William Happer’s statement to the US Senate on February 25, 2009. Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He was also the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990-93, where he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. His statement includes the following:
The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.”
I’m sorry. I’m no scientist. I don’t know what I was thinking posting that last bit. Professor Happer is not with the IPCC, and he don’t work fer Jim Hansen neither. I guess I’m only assuming that he said that………….
David E.:
Thanks for that comment, and I agree with you 100%
That said, there is one thing that I feel I have to take issue with. Call it an anal adhearance to the meanings of words, only because words have meanings, and I cringe every time I read an incorrect usage.
You called it anthropomorphic global warming.
Anthropomorphism is “Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.”
In other words you are descibing global warming as having some kind of human characteristic or atribute.
You are not the first person I’ve attempted to correct on this. Jason Lewis, a talk radio guy from St. Paul, who just recently had his show go national, used to call it anthropologic global warming. Anthropologic is describing anthropology which is ” The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.”
I sent him an email. I don’t know if it was me that corrected him, probably not, but I did explain that it is called anthropogenic global warming.
Anthropogenic simply means “caused by humans”.
Please don’t take this as an insult, I just think that it is important that the right words are used especially when the meaning of the word is so crucial to what is at the center of the whole debate.
Neil. You know, you are exactly right. I would call that a middle-aged brain toot on my part. I have always used anthropomorphmism to describe those who depict a fawn in the woods as the humanized Bambi characterized by Disney. Another example might be the cute little polar bears who look pitfully at the audiance as their diminishing ice flows melt in An Inconvenient Truth, as if their little faces question how humans could have done this to them. A definite slip-up on my part. Anthropogenic is the word I should have used, but, apparently, in the absence of the youthful cognitive editing skills I used to posses, my aging mind defaulted to a similar word. Thanks for picking up on this.
David E:
Hey, no biggie. Like I said I’m a little anal when it comes to meanings. I am glad you took that in the spirit with which it was intended.
I am a horrible speller. I always have to go over what I’ve typed and correct my spelling. And sometimes I still miss some. So, I am by no means trying to say that I write with any kind of perfection.
Gee, Neil, you’re right- no Republicans are being investigated for anything. How could I be wrong about THAT? You correctly believe the propaganda about ACORN. It’s being attacked because it was successful at enfranchising the poor, minorities and the lower middle class re: voting. Outrageous! Not in my America!
Rob:
I did not say Republicans. I said Republican, or Conservative ORGANIZATIONS.
So, are you saying that the poor, minorities and the lower middle class, did not have the right to vote, and ACORN endowed them with that right?
Because, as I pointed out to David E., I am a little anal when it comes to meanings of words.
To enfranchise means:
1. To bestow a franchise on.
2. To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote.
3. To free, as from bondage.
Are the poor, minorities and the lower middle class barred from voting?
These people were not disenfranchised.
The only people in this country that are actually disenfrachised are most felons.
Oh, and it is demonstrable that ACCORN is under investigation in many places including Florida, Las Vegas, and Wisconsin, to name just a few. I would hardly call that propaganda.
But who cares right? As long as it gets Democrats elected it’s OK. The ends justify the means.
You know exactly what I meant. You bring a whole new meaning to the word anal, Neil. For being so, you sure have huge blinders on.
And it is G.W.B. with much Republican help, who stole two elections- not to mention the Supreme Court (the majority right-wingers) who “selected” him for Us to begin with.
You are assuming the “investigations” of ACORN are not frivolous charges, or so minor as to be silly. They are being politically hit.
Rob:
The planet is not warming, and in fact is cooling.
Rob:
You know it’s funny how facts have no bearing on your point of view. I am not going to argue these things with you because they are meaningless to the scope of this website. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion about them, I do, but that’s not why I’m here.
The reason I am here is because there is a big lie going around that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the Earth to warm due to the so called greenhouse effect. And there are politicians and social elitists that are using that lie to bring about draconian changes to our society and economy, and this is the place for me, and anyone else, to speak out against it.
So, if you don’t want to talk about the climate and RELATED political and social issues, I suggest you find somewhere else to pedal your pap.
I get so tired of the argument that we people can’t discuss global warming because we don’t have a certain set of degrees that signify us as “climatologists.”
Science is available to anyone. And it’s been proven that AGW based on CO2 is wrong, using science I learned in 8th grade. And, without fail, those that defend AGW can’t do it with any facts or scientific methods. They always and forever change the track of the discussion with polemic and their failsafe, “well, I’m not a scientist and neither are you.” Fine, neither is Gore or the directors of the IPCC and neither is your messiah, Obama.
CO2 follows temp rise, not leading it. CO2 only absorbs 3 frequencies. You could double or triple the amount of CO2 and it will still only absorb the same amount it absorbed before. Increasing CO2 does not increase the number of frequencies it can absorb. If there is only x amount of IR a mass of CO2 will absorb and re-emit that x amount and that’s it.
Really, basic, basic science.
Thank you Ron. I thought that Neil and I were the only one’s left out there! I agree. You don’t have to be a climatologist to read the facts from ones that are experts in their field. Gore is a profiteer, not a climatologist. He’s no different than you or I. He profits, we pay. It’s that simple. That said, you will never hear that in the media as it is today.