This post started as a response to Jeff's but started to get overly heavy and in keeping with the monthly topic so here it is in it's own thread
( Read more... )
I was wondering the same--especially since most reputable scientists agree that global warming is real. In fact, when the GOP brought in an anti-global warming scientist to study the evidence, he ended up changing his mind and agreeing with the consensus.
You expect me to believe that the earth is a sphere and that negroes are people? Next you'll expect me to believe that the world was not created in 7 (24 hour) days. Surely you jest.
fact: there are muslims who want to sharia law to supplant western law. fact: there are scientists who dispute the tenets of climate change fearmongering.
There IS debate over whether Global Warming is anthropological,
Like there is debate we landed on the Moon, or the Earth is flat, or George W. Bush was responsible for the attacks on the WTC. There isn't a single scientific body that disagrees with the theory in large. Naomi Oreskes seminal study of 928 scientific research and papers found there was no disagreement within the scientific community on the root cause of climate change, but traditional media coverage would suggest otherwise. You then link to a Youtube video about Climategate, oh the lolz. Four independent studies of the controversy found nothing: e.g. a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010. The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. And I suppose you don't know about Mueller's recent work confirms AGW: "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding
( ... )
We ought to teach the controversy though. I mean, I for one believe that diseases are caused by invisible spirits and witches. ZOMG there is debate over the germ theory of disease! Common knowledge is wrong, and all the germophobes can stop washing their hands obsessively, and start washing their hands obsessively in holy water!
The tobacco industry used the same tactics with the links to lung cancer and tobacco use. They had scientists on the payroll that would routinely testify in Congressional hearings that the links were doubtful, and the studies that DID show the link were flawed and bad science. There are several letters from executives at these companies showing their goal was go create doubt in the public's mind. And it's no accident that some of the lobbyists for these same tobacco companies are now linked with global warming denier think tanks and fossil fuel PACs. Penn and Teller, hosts of "Bullshit" on Showtime, are fellows at the CATO institute and their shows as recently as a few years ago were denying the link between 2nd hand cigarette smoke and lung cancer. And you know what their position on human based global warming will be (they don't buy it).
That Yellowcake that was removed to Canada had all been there since before 1991. No-one claimed that wasn't there or that Bush ever lied about that. The U.N. inspectors had documented it because they had been the ones who put it into storage for the Iraqis after taking it from the reactor the Israelis destroyed.
That's actually IN the article you linked to. Jeezuz.
The lies that Bush told were about Iraqi attempts to source Yellowcake from Niger later on.
Prior to quoting that lone British intelligence report in his State of the Union speech that suggested that might be the case, the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, the CIA, the State Department, French Intelligence and British Intelligence all told him that the documents he was was basing that claim on were "highly dubious" "forgeries" "not to be trusted" etc.
He must have known it was almost certainly not true when he said it.
All of that information is also on Wikipedia, linked to under "Yellowcake_Forgeries".
The other ones the disagreement is a matter of degrees.
1. Climate Change/AGW: You're right, there is still debate. But not very much. If you want major scientific organisations, there is almost none about the basic fact of Climate Change/AGW
For instance, No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since 2007. Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who obviously have a vested interest
( ... )
There's a great confusion in the discussion about Sharia law in the US. Sharia means laws that are in compliance with the religious teachings of Islam. All Muslims should to a degree want Sharia law as it's what Islam teaches.
The thing with the US is ultimately Sharia hits a point where it's blatantly unconstitutional. And though minor, there have been US cases where sharia came up. Generally custody cases involving foreign courts where we gave sharia based laws weight in the decision.
Just as all US states but Louisiana should want common law and all Jews should want Halachah. The one thing that I'll give the USA is that we do not permit Bet Din and then turn around and declare the Muslim version a threat to liberty, as though one type of separate religious court hierarchy is more dangerous than another.
There IS a great confusion in the discussion about shari´a in the US. Like, for example, that shari´a means "laws that are in compliance with the religious teachings of Islam", like shari´a is a kind of civil law. But this kind of confusioni is what happens when you listen to non-expert partisan hacks, like the good folks at Fox News, who tell you that revisionist fundies (wahabis, etc.) are the real believers of a huge, international faith community.
Comments 188
Reply
Reply
Reply
I just think you should take everything you're told with a massive grain of salt.
Reply
Reply
Reply
^ that's sarcasm by the way.
Reply
fact: there are scientists who dispute the tenets of climate change fearmongering.
Reply
Like there is debate we landed on the Moon, or the Earth is flat, or George W. Bush was responsible for the attacks on the WTC. There isn't a single scientific body that disagrees with the theory in large. Naomi Oreskes seminal study of 928 scientific research and papers found there was no disagreement within the scientific community on the root cause of climate change, but traditional media coverage would suggest otherwise. You then link to a Youtube video about Climategate, oh the lolz. Four independent studies of the controversy found nothing: e.g. a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010. The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. And I suppose you don't know about Mueller's recent work confirms AGW: "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
I remember when people actually thought Penn and Teller were worth listening to.
Reply
That's actually IN the article you linked to. Jeezuz.
The lies that Bush told were about Iraqi attempts to source Yellowcake from Niger later on.
Prior to quoting that lone British intelligence report in his State of the Union speech that suggested that might be the case, the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, the CIA, the State Department, French Intelligence and British Intelligence all told him that the documents he was was basing that claim on were "highly dubious" "forgeries" "not to be trusted" etc.
He must have known it was almost certainly not true when he said it.
All of that information is also on Wikipedia, linked to under "Yellowcake_Forgeries".
Reply
1. Climate Change/AGW: You're right, there is still debate. But not very much. If you want major scientific organisations, there is almost none about the basic fact of Climate Change/AGW
For instance, No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since 2007. Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who obviously have a vested interest ( ... )
Reply
The thing with the US is ultimately Sharia hits a point where it's blatantly unconstitutional. And though minor, there have been US cases where sharia came up. Generally custody cases involving foreign courts where we gave sharia based laws weight in the decision.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment