Most political cartoon commentary this week focused on Tiger Woods, Obama's decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan (which liberals skewered), or ClimateGate. [UPDATE, 10:45p: There was more to the Woods cartoon than I realized, so I'm removing it. I'm sorry if it offended anyone.]
Read this good commentary on ClimateGate. Not that the exposure of fraud matters to hardcore ideologues, as illustrated by these 2 sketches, the 1st by a conservative, the 2nd by a liberal...
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com...
by Steve Sack at GoComics.com...
Finally, this cartoon was ironic in a couple ways beyond the writer's intention. Of course Obama doesn't care that he is saddling our children and grandchildren with monstrous debt; we already know his regard for them is as so low he's fine with them dead. This cartoon also demonstrates Obama's foolishness on practical terms. He is partially responsible for there being fewer children and grandchildren to pay that debt.
by Scott Stantis at Townhall.com...
Yeah Polar Ice Caps that have been melting for 11,000 years, ya better stop now!
Did I or did I not say many a time on this site that global warming was a crock?Posted by: Mary at December 6, 2009 1:42 PM
This whole global-warming/climate change thing is an interesting study in human behavior. Al Gore became the revered leader of the humanist world and hyper-environmentalism is their religion. The MSM is ignoring the scandal and it needs to be investigated. What has President Obama said? Anything?
IMHO, the industrial countries of the world (USA included) should not be punished monetarily by having to compensate the poorer countries of the world as is being proposed by people like Gore. If not for our innovation and industry, almost every country in the world would have a much lower standard of living. Is that not worth something? Hypothetically, shouldn't the USA be compensated in return? With the poor state of the world economy, the US is not in a financial position to take on the problems of every country in the world. I have read a few interesting articles in the past week about projects that different countries are working on to solve the potential problems in their own countries if disastrous flooding were to occur. That should be happening everywhere right now. Perhaps one or two countries on each continent could take a leadership role in directing a plan for themselves.
"Yeah Polar Ice Caps that have been melting for 11,000 years, ya better stop now!"
"Did I or did I not say many a time on this site that global warming was a crock?"
Posted by: Mary at December 6, 2009 1:42 PM
Yes, you did. :) It's amazing what a picture of a polar bear on a piece of floating ice can move people to believe. It would be nice if scientists could re-check the findings of the fudging scientists using the original data, but alas, the original data was discarded. These researchers were using government grants. Disgusting. Al Gore should be forced to pay it back.Posted by: Janet at December 6, 2009 2:00 PM
Please! The Tiger Woods story needs to go away. Who cares? It's much easier to report on Tiger than healthcare and climate-change, but news reporters need buck up. They screwed up on the election campaign. Leave the fluff to TMZ and let's hear the real news.Posted by: Janet at December 6, 2009 2:07 PM
Mary, how could the polar ice caps have been melting for 11,000 years? Creationists claim the earth is only 6000 years old. Are you a creation skeptic as well as a global warming skeptic?Posted by: Bystander at December 6, 2009 2:16 PM
I also have the perfect solution for those who believe that this country's economic woes would instantly disappear if the population was 50 million people larger. It is simple. Offer US citizenship to every citizen of Mexico. I am pretty sure at least 50 million Mexicans would gladly take that offer. Instant prosperity!
I'd get Lou Dobbs on that right away. Since he is currently without a job, he needs a project. :)Posted by: Bystander at December 6, 2009 2:50 PM
Bystander, your lack of understanding of what Christians believe is stupefying.
Not all Christians who believe God created the universe are also what is called "young earth creationists," who rest their case on an extremely literally interpretation of Genesis. Most Christians do accept the findings of science about the age of the earth.
Since Mary has stated that she thinks the earth is at least 11,000 years old, it's pretty obvious she's not a young earth creationist.
I know Mary will probably want to answer your herself, but I would bust if I tried to keep my response in!
Please go away and get some kind of an education on Christianity, because you are only embarrassing yourself when you post stuff like this here.Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 6, 2009 5:25 PM
just like it's quite hilarious to discuss science with the proaborts too Minnnnnnoooowwwww!
seems to me they are the ones with the science brain freeze.
a very new human being is not living, is a "fertilized egg", not human etc etc etc.....
yep, them there proaborts, they're right on top of their science stuff......
I suggest that everyone just ignore Virginia/asitis/tommy/minnow/minnnnnow/the psychotic person who continues to post here despite being banned.
Don't feed the troll.Posted by: Lauren at December 6, 2009 6:08 PM
we try to argue from the science POV because it is often inaccurate science that is used to shore up abortion rights (example, abortion is ok because a pregnancy is just a blob of cells.....hmmm no it isn't)
if the science is bad, the argument falls apart
However, the science meshes with the philosophy and ethics - they both support one another
If a newly conceived being is human, is it a person and does it have rights, particularly the right to life.
Science and ethics say yes. If you arbitrarily pick when a being has rights then we are all at risk at some time in our lives to losing our right to life. There will always be a time when someone else's right might supercede ours. That is why, if an unborn baby is human and a person it must have the right to life. There's no other logical way to work it Minnnowww.
unfortunately, I don't have the time to debate this more with you.Posted by: angel at December 6, 2009 6:49 PM
Lauren, I was kinda aware that this was who I was talking to, hence my last statement.
too bad she isn't locked up somewhere. For someone with two boys,, a rich husband, interesting how she spends all her time trolling here...... haha
like I said, she's obviously post-abortivePosted by: angel at December 6, 2009 7:09 PM
interesting how that first cartoon portrays a Tiger Woods who despite his womanizing can still hit a hole in one.
Except that's not what's happening. My understanding is that Woods hasn't won a major tournament this year.....
oh well, I guess his priorities are elsewhere.....:(
The EPA is moving probably Monday to declare CO2 a health danger.
Maybe we should all hold our breath.
This in spite of admission by climate scientists that they skewed their research data and that the earth has actually been cooling.
At least Gore had the common sense to cancel his speech at the Global Warming Summit.
Not BO. Right, wrong, who cares, we gotta get this climate bill passed! He presssures the EPA to come out with this "declaration", based on bad data (lies), then he's going to try to ram some big goverment regulations on cars and power plants down our throats. This will be the equivilant of a big tax, further burdening our economy and pushing us closer to a financial meltdown.
What is our country going to look like with 3 more years of this clown.Posted by: Ed at December 6, 2009 10:58 PM
?Posted by: Ed at December 6, 2009 10:59 PM
Just out of confusion, why is it exactly that you don't believe in global warming? I mean this honestly- I would like to hear your opinions on this.
I've never seen anything saying that the scientists lied about global warming and I can't understand the motive for why anyone would lie about it- they're not making money off of this; the only people who make money in relation to this topic are people who run powerplants and gas companies.
I'm just confused and I really want to know what you think. Thanks. :)Posted by: Vannah at December 6, 2009 11:33 PM
Vannah, have you not read my posts before about Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote in congress which mandated ethanol be put into gasoline as an environmental protection measure when he and other congresspeople who voted likewise all were huge stockholders in ethanol-producing companies? They are getting rich off of this, don't kid yourself. Global warming is a money-stealing scheme.Posted by: xalisae at December 7, 2009 1:15 AM
"I've never seen anything saying that the scientists lied about global warming..."
You mean you haven't watched the news lately?Posted by: xalisae at December 7, 2009 1:18 AM
Speaking as a scientist and knowing that you have not as yet started college, allow me to give you some insight into the scientific community that you may not have encountered in school.
The ideal for the scientific community is to have a society of scientists who use the scientific method rigorously and honestly. Research is presented to scientific journals in the form of an article intended for publication. The journal editors then send the article to a few experts in the field who review the paper and critique it for its methodological soundness, as well as the soundness of the data analysis and conclusions. They may recommend some weak spots be addressed before the paper is fit for publication. This process is called 'peer review'.
We not only publish our research in professional journals, but present our research at scientific conferences where we are challenged and respond on the spot.
When we have published, we then apply to the government and private foundations for grant money to support our next phase in the ongoing research project. We submit grant proposals, only a fraction of which actually get funded from an ever-shrinking pool of money, so competition is fierce.
If one wishes to become a college professor, one needs to apply to the college with grant money in hand to show that they are an intellectually and financially viable candidate for the job. Once in the job, one has five years to rack up a significant body of research and publications in order to get 'tenured', which is lifetime employment at the institution. If one does not get voted on favorably for tenure, they find themselves on the unemployment line. In this way, colleges assure themselves that they are retaining intellectually productive ad viable faculty members.
Here's where the fun begins.
Scientists are not gods in white lab coats. We're people, just like anyone else. We are given to petty and not-so-petty rivalries, jealousies, backstabbing, quests for fame and fortune, etc. Lots of us are prima donas.
The competition for research funding is very, very intense. Careers lay in the balance. Peer reviewers for papers unfortunately, and not uncommonly, hold up people's research from being published by recommending change upon change in the research design. Needlessly. It's frowned upon and considered really slimy, but it happens all the time.
Then there is the issue of orthodoxy. Some hypotheses gain early followers and quickly become the accepted model in a field, and that is the direction in which grant funding flows. People have much at stake in maintaining a steady revenue stream. Contrarian avenues of research that challenge the prevailing thesis (the antithesis) in theory ought to be welcomed. They almost never are.
Because Dr. Stinkybottom has made his name in the prevailing hypothesis. His graduate students, having pursued his research in the lab are now scientists themselves and pursuing related areas of study, and getting funded.
Along comes Dr. Rosyvision who sees things differently. That represents a threat to Dr. Stinkybottom's funding, but more importantly, standing in the community. How do you think stinkybottom feels? Humiliated. Envious of Rosyvision's newfound celebrity status? Sounds kinda like junior high doesn't it? It is, except that the consequences of data suppression and such rivalry can have deadly consequences.
Derailing the pursuit of truth and subordinating it to one's personal enrichment can mean vital discoveries being left undiscovered for decades or longer. Depending on the field, thousands, millions of lives could hang in the balance.
Because TRUTH is all we have in science, it must be protected with the utmost vigilance. Many scientists have been caught fabricating data to fit the prevailing hypothesis, or actually dumping data that suggest otherwise. Again, sadly it is not uncommon. When discovered, their names are forever ruined. There is little forgiveness, and rightly so.
When I began Ph.D. studies, my faculty informed us that IF we made it, there is no one looking over your shoulder to check your veracity. TRUST is the coin of the realm among Ph.D's. When that paper is submitted for peer review, the validity of the data is presumed.
In global warming, we have the worst case scenario. Scientists have been caught dumping data indicating that the earth is actually cooling, and conspiring to ruin scientists whose data indicate this as well. Additionally, they have been caught fabricating data.
Because the governments have made a POLITICAL decision that there is no more debate on the issue and have accepted global warming as incontrovertible FACT. Guess who hands out the grant money? The government. What happens if you want money for research into global cooling? You don't get any. Right from the outset, the data are skewed at the level of who gets funded.
If you only ever look up at the sky, you'll never believe in the existence of earthworms and anthills.
Global warming is NOT accepted by all scientists, not even close. Follow this link:
God BlessPosted by: Gerard Nadal at December 7, 2009 3:44 AM
Vannah,I have a relative who is a meteorologist and he's told me that if you look at the data over the last 100 years, it shows an overall trend towards cooling down.
The majority of geologists and meteorologists do not support the global warming theory. In a study released this year, interestingly these are the two scientific professions containing the most skeptics.
Thank you for your post.
"Dr. Stinkybottom" - that's good!
I do not get into religious debates or discussions. I personally do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old but if others do, that's fine with me. I believe the polar ice has been melting for 11,000 years and will leave it at that. And yes, I am an adamant global warming skeptic.Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2009 4:30 PM
And nothing from Vannah once again. I expect she will ignore this post as usual, then come back with something else in a future article about global warming, utterly bewildered as to how we all cannot believe it, asking for some friendly critique of the theory, which we will supply, which she can then also ignore. Lather, rinse, repeat.Posted by: xalisae at December 8, 2009 8:07 AM