Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJohn McCain's campaign launched a spiffy new blog on Friday, stepping up an effort to catch up to Barack Obama's web dominance. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds sent reporters a statement hitting several Internet priorities:
The blog will offer a fresh perspective and will include quotes, the candidate's schedule and photos not available anywhere else. As a part of our continual effort to reach voters, allow unprecedented access and bring greater transparency to American politics, our blog 'The McCain Report' will provide a sounding board for all.
The first two posts are cheeky. Michael Goldfarb, a campaign blogger and former Weekly Standard reporter, tells readers the blog almost sported a lime-green decor, and tweaks Obama for being "so changey." (Is "changey" the new flip-flop? I hope not.) The McCain campaign has always trailed Obama in online campaigning, lagging in fundraising, social networking, list-building and YouTube outreach, but it has repeatedly tried to engage the Internet community on its own terms. Conservative bloggers talk directly with the candidate via regular conference calls, which is more access than any Democratic candidate ever provided the (larger) liberal blogosphere. The McCain campaign's official sites are also open to commentators of all stripes, providing a more open dialogue than Hillary Clinton's websites, as The Nation documented in March.
McCain is even leaning left online. Right now the campaign homepage features a prominent banner directing supporters to visit Daily Kos, the powerhouse liberal blog, to engage voters:
Activists who post comments across the cyber-aisle can even earn "points through the McCain Online Action Center." Just compare that to the last presidential election, when the Democratic nominee stripped its link to DailyKos, the largest Democratic hub online, after a single controversial post appeared on the site. It was "Reject and Denounce 1.0." Four years later, liberal blogs are so embedded in national politics that even the Republican nominee is trying to engage them.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Wow. I am impressed that he is linking liberal blogs. Good stuff Mr. McCain.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/06/2008 @ 8:28pm
It's obvious isn't it?
He's hoping he can swoop up enough disgruntled Hillary'ites (the FRANK type), maybe a few moderates and Independents.
And he knows he can safely leave the Hard Right behind...where else can they go and they're so scared of the "Commie Black Guy" that he won't lose enough to matter.
He doesn't need to worry about his base...he'd lose what portion of them he'd lose regardless.
Move Center, even try to revive the "old McCain of 2000" that talked centrist. The one who said he wasn't planning on overturning Roe and had no litmus test.
Might even work on some. Not much, but some.
Posted by Mask at 06/06/2008 @ 9:44pm
I've heard that progressives are also invited to the McCain campaign's conference calls; and McCainBloggette is done quite well, so they're clearly making an effort here.
That said ... did anybody else notice that the "Suggested Blogs" options give 0 liberal blogs, 4 moderate ones, 13 "other", and 50+ conservative ones?
Hmm.
Posted by JonPincus at 06/06/2008 @ 9:46pm
Nice try.
No cigar.
A lame GOP is a lame GOP, no matter what the setting. In screwing so many tens of millions of Americans, CheneyBush & Co have also screwed their party.
One has a premonition, reinforced by this GOP 2nd try for Dem coattails, that at one of the post-Labor Day TV debates, poor McC will get so flustered & confused, he'll appear ill & Obama will have to give McC a hand to help the floundering fellow offstage. Mitt's moment, assuming he buys the VP spot, to step up to what he failed to buy before, the top slot.
Posted by sloper at 06/06/2008 @ 10:58pm
"and he may be correct..for all the whoopla of Obama, he is short on specifics and has no real back ground or experience, I mean a street organiser?WTF?"
I dunno, I heard plenty of specifics at his victory speech, more than McCain
community organizer is not street organizer, and in fact he helped a lot of people, including veterans.
Posted by johnny canuck at 06/07/2008 @ 12:22am
Wait wait wait Grandpa actually KNOWS what the Internet is? Is he just going to copy Obama's every move from here on out or what? "Well that whippersnapper sure raised a mess of change on that strange thing, maybe it'll work for me." It's a complete joke. Oh and linking to Kos is hardly a play for Hillary supporters, she wasn't exactly popular there. Lord knows what his handlers are thinking.
Posted by yutsano at 06/07/2008 @ 01:41am
Does no one else find the desired results for McCain obvious? This is just another attempt to distance himself from the least popular president in history. He knows Obama's going to try and nail him to the wall and proclaim him a neocon, He also knows if Obama succeeds he could launch an assault on Obama with more teeth to it then the swift boat campaign, and still when push came to shove, he'd lose.
Posted by shadow master at 06/07/2008 @ 03:28am
Ari Melber asks "Why is the McCain Campaign reaching out to Daily Kos, the powerhouse liberal blog?"
Why wouldn't he? John McCain is a lib. Other than on Iraq (he is not going to surrender in Iraq) his political leanings are lib through and through.
Since he is a Republican, as well as the Republican candidate for President, he is what is known as a RINO (Republican in Name Only).
Since I don't want us to surrender in Iraq, I will be voting for the RINO candidate for President this fall, but I do not understand how anybody could be surprised that a lib puts a link to a lib organization on his website.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/07/2008 @ 06:51am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/7/2008
Well, obvious SJCHER is pretty far to the Right if he thinks McCain is a "liberal". He probably considers Tom Coburn to be a "moderate".
True, McCain is less Hard Right (global warming, closing Gitmo, stem cells), but on the BIG issues (war, economy, Supreme Court justices)...he's just more of the McSsme.
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 07:08am
Hi Mask,
If it is obvious that I am pretty far to the Right, it is also obvious that a lot of the bloggers on this site are pretty far to the Left.
Whoops, I forgot! There is no such thing! I have seen many Liberals say they are not liberals. They imply what they believe is mainstream and that most in the country believe that way.
In the book BIAS, by Bernard Goldberg, he theorized that if you were to hook Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather up to lie detectors and ask if they were liberal biased, they would say no, but the detector would not indicate they were lying.
And that would be because they really would not be lying. They really believe they are not liberal biased, and that the basic liberal belief is the middle of the road American belief.
That, of course, is re-defining things on the fly, kind of like moving the goalposts in the middle of a football game.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/07/2008 @ 08:30am
JOMMAMA, shall I collect my pint now, or wait till after Denver?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 08:59am
I doubt you are coming near The Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor soon, so how would you like to do this? I do have a regular watering hole
http://neotech.net/ABC/?site=brewpub
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 10:01am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/7/2008
so what?
As you said yourself, their are two non-conservatives (you call them all liberals, even McCain) running for President, would that not strongly imply that that is the "mainstream"?
As Chimpy has a approval rating in the 20's and congress is in the teens, couldn't we look at what congress has done to achieve such a dismal appreciation level? Can you point out their "liberal" legislation? Did they impeach? I submit they are poorly regarded because they have failed to move to the left, which is where the country wants to go now. Just look at how super poorly the so-called "real conservatives" did in the republican primaries.
And what doe Brokaw and Rather have to do with the rest of the country? You keep attempting to show that "the media" is left biased, but you never write about the actual owners and string pullers at the Big Media, VIACOM, GE, FOX, Clear Channel, Cumulus, along with Rush, Hannity and Bubba "Oh Really?". As has been claimed here, if they control the airwaves, does that not make your argument incredibly weak?
The "liberal media" was full bore behind the invasion of Iraq. The American electorate has overwhelmingly rejected the path the right has set for the last 8 years. Abortion remains safe and legal after 30 years of right wing whining about their side being " mainstream".
and what is a liberal in your mind? As BALROG pointed out last week, most folks have interests that could put them either "left" or "right". I am pro-choice, I hunt, I think we need to get our monetary house in order but fast, I am against our invasion of Iraq but was in favor of the Afghanistan invasion (both handled as if children were running them BTW). Hunters in Colorado have vociferously opposed new drilling regulations due to the disruption of game along the Rocky Mountain foothills in eastern Colorado. They believe in CONservation, one would be hard pressed to call them liberals, but they support the "librool agenda" in their backyard and have built anti-Bush campaigns. The CEO's of Exxon/Mobil and BP firmly believe that global warming is a threat, are they libs? Is protectionism left or right? Ron Paul is protectionist, but so is Kucinich.
In your mind, what am I? Left of Mussolini, hence a 'merica hating lib?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 10:21am
And SJ, before you jump me for being a resident of The Peoples Republic of A2, I am not. I do spend time there as my office is located downtown. A2, with it's reputation as a liberal haunt, has the lowest unemployment in Michigan and some of the fastest growing businesses. It is home to more venture capital firms than any other region in MI. Many of those capitalists support democratic/liberal causes with their wallets.
don't fry your brainpan.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 10:24am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/7/2008
SJ, name 4-5 American politicians YOU consider "moderates" or "Middle of the Road'ers"?
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 10:33am
Hello crabwalk,
You say my argument about liberal bias is weak, and vent on about Big Media, VIACOM, Rush, Hannity, and how they control the airwaves.
Slow down, crabwalk. When you open the pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, Sacramento Bee or many other lib-biased newspapers across the country, you have what is supposedly straight news presented many times in a biased manner. I am not talking about what may be on the opinion page, but what may be on the rest of the paper. For example, most media present the subject of global warming as though it is a given fact (which is for the most part the liberal position on this issue). I am talking about articles that have nothing to do with politics. So readers "see" that global warming is an actual problem. They do not receive information that there are growing numbers of scientists who do not agree with this, and thus a reasonable person could conclude that if scientists are not in agreement on this, and no scientific debate has taken place, that it is not a done deal that global warming is a threat.
But many people do believe it is a threat, not because they have studied the science and come to some conclusion, but because they read the "news" over and over again, in many different contexts, that global warming is a "threat".
And thus the lib position on this issue has been successfully advanced.
On the other hand, when somebody listens to Rush or Sean Hannity they are listening to political commentary and discussion where there is no attempt to present it as anything other than that. Thus the listener knows they are hearing opinion and not "news" and they can interpret it as they wish.
See the difference?
Yet leftists rail against corporate ownership of media as "proof" somehow that liberal bias does not exist and that it may well be "proof" that the media is "not doing it's job", as a leftists sees it.
You proclaim, "The "liberal media" was full bore behind the invasion of Iraq. "
When was the media "full bore"? All I remember is the media covering the situation as it was unfolding. I contend that your comment "full bore" comes as a matter of perspective - that leftists probably believe the media should have been engaged in a campaign to denounce the possible invasion of Iraq and since they did not they were "full bore" behind the invasion.
As you can see, I have proven my point. You said my argument is weak. There is no argument to be weak about. Liberal bias by the media is a fact.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/07/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/7/2008
Wait a minute....to YOU, George W. Bush is a "moderate"?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by mihnea at 06/7/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Long cut and pastes? Spammed on every thread?
Off to the ignore bin with you.
Posted by Lillian at 06/07/2008 @ 1:06pm
"George Bush is a moderate?"
A moderate fascist, that is.
It's all relative.
Posted by sloper at 06/07/2008 @ 1:46pm
go back through this entire website and all the articles for the past year or more - and you will see liberal after liberal just declare things -
If it is OK for libs to do this (I am assuming you think it is) then why is it not OK for me? Huh?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/7/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
First, I notice you didn't actually post any examples. You just threw that out there about "liberal after liberal". Really, if there are so many examples...show them.
Then, if such examples do in fact exist, consider whether you actually gave them much weight. You can follow suit of course...and just 'declare stuff' with no backing or demonstrated basis in fact...feel free by all means. That's your right. But when you do, don't complain when the rest of us think you a shallow twit for doing so. Sorry, that's our right too.
Now, considering global warming (and acting like a shallow twit), The science of atmospheric CO2 and its ability to affect the climatic environment, is nearly 100 years old and is quite well understood. Crab posted the fact the overwelming majority of climate scientists and oceanographic scientists (yes...ocean science is at the heart of climate science), you know...the actual experts on the subject...something on the order of 95% - 98% of them...are in agreement that their scientific research indicates that mans activities are having a detrimental effect on the global climate...which will result in global warming....which will manifest in more severe weather of all kinds.
YOU countered with the opinions of **politicians** and pretended like that somehow countered the science. You did loosly claim that 'a growing number' of scientists are disagreeing...but again....no actual examples. What I have found (much more often than not) is that the scientists who make up this 'growing number' aren't climatic or oceanographic scientists at all. Many are experts in other fields. (math or biology)..or are being paid by the oil companies or political organizations with a stake in the status quo. That's why it's so relevant that you post examples...so we can all investigate for ourselves...to see if their opinions are based in fact, of if they are just...
...shallow twits.
Posted by Lillian at 06/07/2008 @ 1:47pm
Librool media and the war:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.ht ml?ex=1400990400&en=94c17fcffad92ca9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
"we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations -- in particular, this one."
...On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified.
On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector -- his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri -- to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers.]
*******
[ If we were headed into an Ice Age in the 1970's (because of global cooling), what happened that now up it's global warming? Global cooling in the 70's, global warming now. What happened?]- SJ
Do you think that science has remained static the whole time? That there are no new methods for measuring or that computers in the 70's were capable of running models that are necessary to make predictions?
how do you explain the receding Arctic ice caps?
When speaking of scientists that don't believe in GW, are you citing the "400 scientists" claimed by Sen. Inhofe? "Scientists" that turned out to be mostly economists?
http://tinyurl.com/2mjav9
How about your claims that nobody refutes these scientists?
http://tinyurl.com/5x3mnf
http://tinyurl.com/2gaotc
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 1:49pm
SJ, what about the growth in "green" technology that is taking place in the world now? Regardless of whether GW is real or not, cheap energy is about gone. Will you allow your fear of leftists to slow the influx of capital and tax breaks that will create the next generation of job and economic growth? Do you want Europe to leave us in the dust when it comes to designing and building non-carbon sources of power?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 2:07pm
Here are some quotes from the librool media celebrating the end of the war in Iraq
"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?" (Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)
"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it." (CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)
"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war." (Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)
"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking." (Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)
**** do you remember that episode SJ? It came right before Jessica Lynch heroically emptied her clip fighting off Iraqi military bent on raping her. Just after that there was the heroic rescue of Lynch, with Rangers engaged in a gun battle with Republcian Guard troops that had raped her. ***
"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?" (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)
And perhaps SJ could explain to us how the librool media never bothered to do background checks on their "independent analysts" over the last five years.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 2:16pm
I've had harsh words with the McCain website and blog, at which I am a registered user, for its slowness, clunkiness, and inability to correctly handle any browser but that inexpressibly vile Internet Explorer. I've recommended they fire their current web team and hire the same one used by Sen. Obama. At least the Obama site works.
In my capacity as a registered user at johnmccain.screwy, I've also recommended that Sen. McCain fire the staff member who keeps coming up with talking points that blow up in Sen. McCain's face, fire the staff member who recommended the Sen. keep that manic grin on his puss 24/7, fire the staff member who hired all the K Street doofuses sucking the life out of his finances, and fire the idiot who came up with his laughable, so-called "positions."
So far, Sen. McCain has not seen fit to reply to me personally with his thanks, however, I'm sure it won't be long.
Posted by S Thornton at 06/07/2008 @ 2:20pm
"alleged" Bush crimes:
Warrantless wiretaps. If they were legal, why do telecom companies need immunity.
Holding Hamdan and Padilla without access to lawyers, indefinitely, without bringing charges.
Kidnapping a Canadian citizen from US soil and sending him to Syria to be tortured.
bush losing court case after court case. If one loses ones case in court, it can be assumed in many cases that that one broke the law. The winner did not.
Go ahead and google "Bruce Fein articles of impeachment". You will find Reagans legal council to be a know leftist 'merica hater.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by S Thornton at 06/7/2008
gee, I would think after that many firings, McCain would have to start looking in the mirror to find the person responsible for hiring all of those people.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 3:35pm
-- If we were headed into an Ice Age in the 1970's (because of global cooling), what happened that now up it's global warming? Global cooling in the 70's, global warming now. What happened?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/7/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Have you actually researched WHO was claiming this coming Ice Age, SJ? There was NO scientific agreement on that SJ...ever.
Do some research...here, I'll post a couple of links to make it easy for you...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
See, this notion that in the 1970's, the scientists agreed that a global ice age was coming...that's pure BS...a myth...never true, but oft repeated.
The truth is that the scientific community KNEW that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to have a disasterous effect. Again, the science of this has been well known for a very long time. But they weren't AT ALL in agreement on what, exactly that effect would be. Theiir measurments and models simply weren't that sophisticated...yet. The media siezed on one or two scientific opinions, sensationalized them, then ran with them to sell their papers.
Now, as Crab pointed out, there IS agreement within the scientific community...because their measurements and models have become so much better. In other words, the science has progressed.
Posted by Lillian at 06/07/2008 @ 3:53pm
Why are we descending into a global warming debate when this article is about Grandpa?
Posted by yutsano at 06/07/2008 @ 6:33pm
"A liberal in conservative clothing.....But in so many other ways, he has been the most liberal Republican since Nixon."---Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/7/2008 |
George Walker Bush?...43rd President?...son of George Herbert Walker Bush?....guy with the ranch, who fights the "War on Terr'rur" and invaded Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11)...and cut taxes in wartime (something NEVER done before)...vetos stem cell research...flew out of his vaacation to 'save' Terri Schiavo?
THAT George Bush is "the most liberal Republican since Nixon"
Gosh, Larry....you're really going to be pissed the last decades of your life, because...
HE was the most conservative President you'll see this century, if ever.
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 7:28pm
Okay I'll give you this much: Grandpa is not as conservative as the shrub. That is of course meaningless, his policies in a continuation of occupation and invasion of Iran coupled with his absolute cluelessness on domestic issues makes him a bad choice regardless of your political leanings. Don't believe me, just ask the people of Arizona what they think of Grandpa.
Posted by yutsano at 06/07/2008 @ 7:46pm
What I have found (much more often than not) is that the scientists who make up this 'growing number' aren't climatic or oceanographic scientists at all.
Posted by Lillian at 06/7/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Then, right on cue, comes Lying Rev. Larry...
By DENNIS AVERY and ALEX AVERY...Dennis Avery is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he edits Global Food Quarterly. Avery studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin.
Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
.
And what of the John Lyman, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and his organization and research? Actually, the research isn't "new", nor is Lyman's paper. It's from 2006, contained preliminary data, and fellow researchers have found considerable problems with Lyman's findings. (Which is how science usually works, you know?)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/
Now, if you actually spend some time at the website of the NOAA...
http://www.noaa.gov/
...or PMEL...
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/
...you discover that BOTH organizations understand the science, the research, the data, and the findings...and are ardent supporters of the man-made global warming model.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080502_arctic.html
Posted by Lillian at 06/07/2008 @ 7:50pm
New Release: Terrorism And The Bush Doctrine by John Maszka ISBN-13: 9781606100103 Pub. Date: May 2008
"Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine is a must read for anyone concerned with terrorism."
This title is both sensitive to the issue of terrorism and persuasive in its approach to solving it."
Terrorism is perhaps the greatest challenge facing mankind in the twenty-first century. It has been researched, debated, analyzed and contemplated by some of the greatest minds on the planet. And yet no known solution exists. When putting out a fire, while it is important to know what type of fire it is before attempting to put it out, firefighters understand that the key to putting out any fire is to remove its source of oxygen. Likewise, terrorism depends on popular support to sustain itself. Without popular support, the majority of funding, recruits and overall acceptance will disappear. Therefore, the primary goal for eliminating terrorism is to eliminate the sources of popular support. This book argues that this has to be the standard approach and strategy. These pages examine three primary components of contemporary American foreign policy: unilateralism, preemption and military hegemony, as well as how they impact terrorism.
Posted by johnmaszka at 06/07/2008 @ 8:20pm
Good smack LILLIAN.
I will leave GW debate to you from now on, you seem to have it handled.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2008 @ 9:24pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/7/2008
JFK negotiated the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty and ignored LeMay's calls to bomb Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crises.
All of which, I'm sure, in LVLIB's mind made him a "peacenik appeaser".
Posted by Mask at 06/07/2008 @ 9:53pm
Regarding global warming, here are links to information that do not fit the "Lillian - crabwalk" template, a template which is their opinion only, a template which is shared by a lot of people but which they proclaim is shared by everybody, but it of course is not shared by everybody after all:
University of Ottawa scientist:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=875fbe67-8c67-4d1 2-ab86-a9c5f5250d0f&k=82908&p=1
President of Czech Republic
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23358915-7583,00.html
Gore movie
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485336/Schools-warn-Gore-climate -film-bias.html
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 07:43am
SJ, why did the Dover school district want to teach creationism? Does that mean that evolution is not accepted by many biologists?
This, as I see it, is your argument.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2008 @ 09:07am
When you get to a McCain town hall meeting, ask your candidate why he fell for the Hippy Lie of global warming.
Some Hippy Lies of the past:
Iraq had no wmd's
Saddam was not working with AQ
Invading Iraq will lead to an urban guerilla war
Leaving vietnam will not lead to a communist world
PCB's are bad juju
Marijuana will not make you want to rape white women
Child Labor laws are good
a 40 hour work week will not lead to communism
Workplace safety can be regulated without killing business
Gay sex will not lead to hurricanes, floods, Gods wrath in it's multitude forms.
interracial marriage will not bring about God's wrath in it's multitude forms.
Finland is not Cuba
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2008 @ 09:21am
SJ, you and your ilk went to war based on shaky (at best, I am being generous) evidence. The evidence for GW is far stronger. You are willing to spend trillions of your kids dollars, send them to their deaths, commit the US to an endless campaign in the ME... based on evidence supplied by a drunk, an embezzler, forged documents, 10 year old outdated information...
But you are unwilling to listen to 700 climateologists, oceanographers ?
you are unwilling to use less Canadian/Venezuelan/Saudi/Russian oil to leave it to your kids?
You are unwilling to turn down your thermostat in the winter so that your kids will have natural gas in 40 years?
you are unwilling to drop your SUV so that Florida will have similar landmass to what it has now, in 100 years?
why is that? What is the worst that can happen if we reduce our use of fossil fuels? Isn't that CONSERVation? Isn't that conservative? Or, do you prefer the liberal use of fuel till we run out, and then some magic "scientist" will discover water engines just in time?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2008 @ 09:30am
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=875fbe67-8c67-4d1 2-ab86-a9c5f5250d0f&k=82908&p=1--- SJCHERMAK
"Sorry, this url contains an invalid document id. Please check your url or click Back and try again"
Try making it into a tinyurl so that I can access this site.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2008 @ 09:34am
crabwalk,
Try searching the internet so you can find the information. Google on Ottawa Scientists and it should be the first link in the list.
I have commented on this before- you and Lillian are playing games. You think it is my job to spoon feed you information that is in the public domain, that you could obtain or perhaps already know about but discard because it does not fit your argument.
When you got all contorted with my statements that what I said was absolute, I pointed out how liberals on this site do the same thing with their statements, so here comes Lillian wanting me to post examples! Why? Does Lillian argue that libs on this site do NOT say that George W. Bush is guilty of crimes? That they do NOT state this without qualification that it is their opinion.
If Lillian and you demand links or examples to stuff like that it contains an implication that I have to prove to you libs say George W. Bush has committed crimes, without qualifying it is their opinion.
At that point it is getting ridiculous, because you and Lillian know full well statements like that are all over this website, you and Lillian have probably said so yourself! And no, crabwalk, I am NOT going to waste time going back over these blogs to search for things Lillian or you have said.
The same thing happened about the beating the drums for the war in Iraq comments. In the back and forth we had (me, you and Lillian) one of you was pointing to articles that "showed" skepticism about the war in Iraq at that time.
The implication was clear. Your belief was that the media should have been covering them. Thus, since the media did not, out comes your beating the drums for war comment. You overlook the fact that it is your opinion about how the media covered the war in Iraq that drove your comment. Your opinion, one that many disagree with. Beating the drums implies some rah-rah campaign by the media to rally the American people to be gung-ho in support of the war in Iraq.
I simply do not remember (because it didn't happen) any rah-rah campaign by the media to "drum" up support for the war in Iraq. They were simply covering the situation as it was unfolding.
You, not me, were the one that used the words about beating drums, and I called you on it, and it is obvious that the situation is exactly what I said it was well up above - You comment was driven by your perspective and not by what happened.
And crabwalk, or Lillian, I am NOT going to provide links to all the episodes of media coverage for the time up to the war in Iraq - links and complete transcripts of every single news program, national or local, and links to each and ever news article in each and every newspaper in the United States of America, and links to each and every magazine everywhere in the United States so I can "prove" to you with absolute certainty that will enable to concede a point on this. Why? Three reasons 1) There aren't enough hours in the day to do this 2) You or Lillian have no intention of ever conceding any points anyway, and 3) When you and/or Lillian demand links out the kazoo for everything you can obtain for yourself if you wanted, you are just playing lib mind games.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 10:36am
I have commented on this before- you and Lillian are playing games.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/8/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Apparently SJ, for you...
reading research = playing games
?????????
I posted links to the NOAA, the PMEL, and ohter organizations of scientists.
YOU countered with links to quotes by the President of the Czech and a chak who didn't like Gores movie.
I have crossed swords with others who brought up Jan Veizer and his research. I think if you actually dig further (beyond just some reporter-written rticle) what you will find directly is that Mr. Veizer is not a climate or oceanographic schientist. He is a geologist.
AND, you'll find 2 more things about what he is saying...1) he DOESN'T say that man-made glabal warnming isn't real. He actually acknowledges that man-made causes are causing global warming---just that he thinks man-made cause contribute to a lesser degree that many believe, and 2) he readily admits that his theory of cosmic rays contributing to 'some' to overall global warming we are witnessing...
...may be wrong.
So tell us again SJ...
...who's playing games?
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 1:39pm
When you got all contorted with my statements that what I said was absolute, I pointed out how liberals on this site do the same thing with their statements, so here comes Lillian wanting me to post examples! Why?
.
Maybe because you are obviously a shallow twit inca[able of backing your arguments with actual fact?
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 1:40pm
Three reasons 1) There aren't enough hours in the day to do this 2) You or Lillian have no intention of ever conceding any points anyway, and 3) When you and/or Lillian demand links out the kazoo for everything you can obtain for yourself if you wanted, you are just playing lib mind games.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/8/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
1) You seem to have plenty enough time to type your unsubstaniacted baloney. Google takes just a couple of minutes. 2) I readily come to agreement with folks on the 'other side' all the time. Try reading back my exchanges with Thrawn. I'm willing to adjust my position all the time. The differnce between you and I apparently is that I'm not convinced soley by the rantings of some shallow twit. 3) Like I said, post what you like. But when you post obviously uninformed crap, just don't complain when others call BS and ask to see what you based your lame opinions on. That's called 'reality'...
...and it's not a 'lib' thing.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 1:49pm
Hi Lillian,
You ask who is playing games? I guess the answer would be you.
Here is some of what you said above:
"AND, you'll find 2 more things about what he is saying...1) he DOESN'T say that man-made glabal warnming isn't real. He actually acknowledges that man-made causes are causing global warming---just that he thinks man-made cause contribute to a lesser degree that many believe, and 2) he readily admits that his theory of cosmic rays contributing to 'some' to overall global warming we are witnessing... "
So, there is some doubt about this whole subject. Quite a bit. But there is no public scientific debate going on in the main media or in most people's newspapers.
Scientists do not agree on this. But we are told by people like you that all scientists are in agreement. Any scientist that is not in agreement - there is a pre-invalidation by you and other proponents that their views do not count because they are not the right kind of scientist, or maybe they get funding from a place you consider invalid, etc.
So we are told by people like you that the debate is over, and that this is absolute, and then the next step- we must take all these drastic measures now to stop our planet from frying in 10 years. (and I am being dramatic on purpose to make a point). There is no consideration about other effects of these measures, such as effect on jobs or on economies or on the amount of cost to developing nations who may not be able to afford it. And no consideration if all these drastic measures are taken and it turns out they were not necessary, then what?
And people like you who condemn the U.S. for not signing Kyoto overlook that Kyoto does not make demands on countries like China or India to the degree that it demanded of America - yet because their industry is not as modern there is more pollution from those places- yet lesser demands. Why is that? If these are legitimate attempts to stop climate effects, what is that all about?
I am supposed to send links to you to prove things, and you have sent links to me that "prove" things, but if I read article after article about this subject how does this get a public debate between scientists going to get to the heart of this issue? Which is what should be happening, but is not.
If people are supposed to bring their lives to a complete stop and do drastic things that are going to cost an immense amount of money and cost people their jobs, isn't it fair that a complete scientific debate and determination occur first?
The answer from you and others is NO, this is a done deal, no further debate is to be tolerated.
We can argue back and forth about this but it doesn't solve the issue unless public scientific debate is allowed, and reported on.
You want links but when I send them there is a response like yours above:
"YOU countered with links to quotes by the President of the Czech and a chak who didn't like Gores movie."
So, there it is. The "chak" is immediately invalidated by you, and the concern of the president of the Czech Republic is ignored by you. He raises a valid concern, that an attempt is being made to trample on people's freedom and liberties in the name of action to stop global warming.
That is the greater issue at the moment for me to be concerned with than digging into deep science from links by you to be convinced of opinion from the people in those links. But if that opinion is being forced and imposed, which it is, that is it not more appropriate that people be concerned by that and that people demand a scientific debate in public and that media and global warming proponents stop attempting to shut down public debate.
I said early on in this blog that the fact that this is happening in and of itself warrants concern about the legitimacy of this global warming scare.
If the global warming proponents arguments were really legitimate then why the stifling of public debate? You would think that they would welcome the examination of their science and be willing to do so in order to prove their science.
Lillian, you are quite exasperated with me. I am saying things you do not want to hear and have no argument for. So now you cast yourself as an enlightened expert, declare I am a twit, my postings are crap, and my opinions are lame.
But in doing so, you are making my point for me - because you are doing the exact thing I am calling attention to - the attempt (so far quite successful) to stifle debate among scientists.
You are not happy unless you receive links, so here's one to work done by James M. Inhofe on this subject. He is a Republican, so I know that what he says is invalid, etc., I know this because you will post back and tell me so, but here it is anyway:
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pd f
And here is a link to an open letter scientists wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the subject of Kyoto and that more debate needs to happen on this whole subject - which is the point that I (unsuccessfully) am trying to make. I know (because you will post back and tell me so) that these scientists are invalid, etc. but here is the article anyway.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87 559d605
I wanted to post the article also but the website would not allow it - I will make a second post - and I will be awaiting whatever venom you the enlightened expert have to provide back to me the ignorant twit:
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 3:15pm
Lillian,
Here is the article I mentioned above for you to discredit and/or ignore:
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
- - -
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2008 @ 3:16pm
SJ, if there was no "rah-rah" for war, how the hell did a whole country get put into a war over non-existent threats and platitudes about nation building?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2008 @ 3:17pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientif ic_assessment_of_global_warming
This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.
Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities.[1] The scientific consensus was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[2] "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[3] If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[4] Individuals listed here have, since the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, opposed at least one of these principal conclusions. Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys. For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during his lifetime in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate. For general listing that also includes persons who have not published a peer-reviewed article, see global warming skeptics.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 4:59pm
It should **not** be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 5:00pm
Individuals listed here have, since the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, opposed at least one of these principal conclusions. Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 5:01pm
For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during his lifetime in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 5:02pm
It seeems the 'cons' on the right have been the taget of the 'catapulted propaganda' for so long now that they no longer even HAVE the capacity to keep and open mind, read the research, THEN form an opinion.
As SJ shows us, they just forman opinion first, then grab at anything and everything that seems to support that opinion, whetherit is based in fact or not.
Read the IPCC reports...nope.
Actually research the peer-reviewed papers on the subject written by experts on the subject matter and vetted for accuracy...nope.
Check the credentials of those who make claims, one way or the other...nope.
Just flop about spouting uninformed opinions, then, when pressed, grab at anything that seems to be supportive of your already-formed opinion...and hope nobody else will actually check it for accuracy.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 5:08pm
Haven't you learned by now that with Lillian and Crab and other leftists, only scientists on the government payroll can be trusted.
The fact that the majority of climatologists and the science itself does not support their "manmade causation" theory does not dissuade them in the slightest.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/8/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Ah yes...straight from the mouth of Lying Larry himself.
The majority of climatologists and the science itself certainly DOES support man-made GW.
I can point to 3 IPCC reports by the 'majority of climatologists' to prove your lie is a lie. What do you have? More of your 'scientists on the payroll of oil companies'?...'opinion pieces from right wing think tanks'?...'rantings from Bill O'Riley or wingnut politicians'?
Sorry, maybe it's OK for cons like yourself to discount the science and experts and place all of your faith ONLY in your fellow wingnuts...but those of us in the 'reality-based' world do things much differently.
Posted by Lillian at 06/08/2008 @ 5:16pm
The fact that the majority of climatologists and the science itself does not support their "manmade causation" theory does not dissuade them in the slightest. This is an ideology as many have pointed out that is not about our global climate, but about control of the world's governments.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/8/2008
LVLIB....what's John McCain's position on man-made global warming?
(Or is that another of those "As long as he keeps us in Iraq until 'victory', I don't care" things?)
Posted by Mask at 06/08/2008 @ 5:55pm
Pretty funny that those that followed Chalibi and Curveball into Iraq, those that believed Chimpies EPA when they said the air was safe at Ground Zero, those that believed MClellan when he said Rove and Lbby were not involved with outing a covert CIA operative, those that believed the "independent military analysts"...
are now saying "the left" only believes guvment scientists.
Buwahahahaha
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 07:16am
Right on time:
[Scientific information largely ignored when forming opinions about stem cell research When forming attitudes about embryonic stem cell research, people are influenced by a number of things. But understanding science plays a negligible role for many people.
http://www.physorg.com/news131970855.html
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 07:21am
are now saying "the left" only believes guvment scientists.
Buwahahahaha
Posted by crabwalk at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Like I said, they've been the target of the 'catapulted propaganda' for so long now, I think they've completely lost the ability to employ a ration thought process, let alone distinguish 'facts' or 'reality' amidst the crap being flung at them from those they follow.
Funny yes...but sad too.
Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 11:52am
Signatory Bails on Anti-Climate Science Petition 18 Apr 06 At least one of the 60 "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines" who signed an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying the reality of climate change has recanted, saying that he was misled as to the content of that letter when he offered his name.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Alberta says that he was told he was signing a petition asking that the federal government devote more energy to research on climate change. Instead, the letter - given prominent play last week in the National Post - suggested that climate change is unproved and that any effort to create policy to address the problem would be "irrational."
"I regret signing that damn petition," Dr. Swaters said Tuesday (April 18, 2006). the accomplished mathematician said he believes that "There are still a lot of mechanics and dynamics about climate change that we don't know about and a lot of subtleties that we need to unravel." But "signing this petition should not be seen as an attempt to indicate that climate change is not occurring."
The letter was presented as a consensus of Canadian "experts," but included only 20 Canadian names out of the total of 60. The remainder were largely well-known climate change "skeptics" from around the world, including high-profile energy industry apologists such as Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels.
The petition also included the name of Dr. Art Robinson, of Cave Junction, Oregon.The founder of the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine," and a former colleage of Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, Robinson is now a self-styled expert in civil defence and the purveyor of conservative Christian home-schooling packages for kids. Robinson last made the news in 1998, when he organized a widely discredited anti-climate science petition of 2,100 "scientists" in the United States. That petition contained such names as John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls.
Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by Lillian at 06/9/2008
Hey, hey, hey, LILLIAN....
if Hawkeye and Red Wine say there's no such thing as man-made global warming...that's good enough for me!
(Too bad these guys don't have a President they can vote for in November, though....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by Lillian at 06/9/2008
Hey, hey, hey, LILLIAN....
if Hawkeye and Red Wine say there's no such thing as man-made global warming...that's good enough for me!
Posted by Mask at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 1:05pm
Don't forget Ginger Spice. Man, if ever there was a scientific expert who's opinion we can trust on the subject of global warming...she's GOT to be it.
Of course, come to think of it, her opinion might actually BE more trustworthy than James M. Inhofe, th ereal estate developer from Oklahoma who was the subject of a 2-year SEC investigation, who declared 'ozone depletion' in the Arctic was also a hoax, who compared the EPA to the Gestapo, and who has taken, literally, almost $300,000 in campaign donations from oil and gas interests and nearly $180,000 from electric utilities.
Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Lillian at 06/9/2008
Don't fret it...the GW deniers are already "dead" politically.
McCAIN for crap sakes is onboard for man-made global warming being real and a REAL need to do something about it, and his proposals (meritorious or not) are about what DEMOCRATS proposed in the 1990s...and guys like LVLIB probably called "socialism" back then.
Regardless, the goalpost has been moved and left LVLIB and Limbaugh setting about 20 yards past the gates of the stadium!
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 3:32pm
good smack, LIL.
Watching you is like attending a fish in a barrel contest.
I overheard one attendant say "those fish are a threat to my values! grrr, kill".
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 4:29pm
It's just amazing how comfortable a lot of these people are doing something silly out of pique at not getting their way.
Posted by Zero at 06/6/2008
Yes. They are acting just as silly as those who in 2000 refused to vote for Gore because he was "exactly" like Bush.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:33pm
The cons will fight clean air regulation, just like they fought seat belts, tobacco regulation, PCB regulation, Child Labor laws, equal pay laws, the founding of the EPA, inter-racial marriage, etc etc etc
Then, 25 years from now, the fundies will come around and call it good family values.
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
http://www.goarch.org/images/nav_our_faith.jpg
" For some Christians, the way forward lies in a rediscovery of distinctive teachings, lifestyles and insights contained within their tradition. For others, it requires a radical rethinking of what it means to be Christian. For yet others, there is still a struggles to reconcile centuries of human-centered Christian teaching with the truths which the environmentalists are telling us about the state of the world we are responsible for creating. For all of them, the core remains the belief in the Creator God who so loved the world that he sent His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should have eternal life (John 3:16). In the past, as we can now see, this promise of life eternal has often been interpreted by the churches as meaning only human life. The challenges to all Christians is to rediscover anew the truth that God's love and liberation is for all creation, not just humanity; to realize that we should have been stewards, priests, co-creators with God for the rest of creation but have actually often been the ones responsible for its destruction; and to seek new ways of living and being Christians which will restore that balance and gives the hope of life to so much of the endangered planet."
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by Hman23 at 06/9/2008
I'm silly, because I didn't vote for Gore/Leiberman? Because I voted for the one real progressive on my ballot?
Well, I think o'l Joementum has shown us HIS true stripes.
Sad, tired argument.
*****
BTW, HMAN, doesn't Jomama owe you a pint also?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/9/2008
No offense meant to you CRABBIE. Just a slight poke at our frined ZERO. I think it is ironic after years of posts from him complaining that the Democratic party offers nothing to distinguish themselves from the GOP, threatening to sit out unless a "perfect" progressive runs, etc., he is now sounding quite pragmatic.
Maasch owes me about a case at this point.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:48pm
our "friend" ZERO that is.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2008 @ 5:02pm
If you collect that case, you could be "Our brined friend, HMAN23beers
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 7:02pm
"If he is elected, conservatives will fight loud and hard against any idiotic global warming mandates.
For an atheist, you sure have a near fanatical faith in the ideology of "manmade global warming"."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/9/2008
Two points...
1. If McCain is elected....HE becomes head of the Republican Party AND proves that HIS political views are "winners" and not yours. Ergo, he not only gets to control the agenda...he has the clout to pass it (especially if it coincides with a Dem Congress).
McCain or Obama...you GW deniers are out in the cold...er...warm.
2. The science is pretty solid and the opposing science has this strange quality of either..
(A) being funded, via several channels, by the Petroleum Institute, etc.
(B) petitions signed by PhDs who are more often economist or political scientists or "Hawkeye Pierce".
BTW, the reason YOU don't believe in it is fully "faith-based". Based on two things
1. The idea that it is some "socialist plot", when in fact it could prove a BOON to our economy by pushing an alternative ADVANCED technology.
2. The idea that it is "unlikely or impossible for Man to hurt God's creation."
Oh and BTW, BTW....I was dubious too originally. But I kept an open mind.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 8:37pm
"2. Indeed it is pure arrogance and the pride sin that goes back to the beginnings, even the tower of Babel. Man thinking they are as great as G-d. This creation is far more complex and resilient than anything mankind has supposedly done to it."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008
Then you've proved my point.
What "healthy skepticism" would you bring to the idea that Man CAN effect "God's creation"?....none.
Therefore, since there is NOTHING that can shake your religious faith, no amount of scientific evidence presented to you for man-made global warming would convince you otherwise.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 08:48am
Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008
Lillian! I'm shocked.
Are you suggesting that Dr. Red Wine of the University of Yoknapatawpha County is not a great scientific mind!?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 10:26am
Are you suggesting that Dr. Red Wine of the University of Yoknapatawpha County is not a great scientific mind!?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Maybe Larry has a completely different definition for 'great scientific mind' than the rest of us.
Seems a very distinct possibiliy given that Larry was so eager earlier to piss on a couple of thousand experts in climate and oceanographic science...
...because they are apparently integral to a "Marxist" plot to "enrich" themselves through "control" of the governments of the world by perpetuating this global warming "fraud"
(Whew...might have to change "Lying Larry" to "Loony Larry" after that 'Reesian' bit of whackyness.)
Posted by Lillian at 06/10/2008 @ 10:51am
I have posted on many occasions my support for the development of alternative technologies. ...
The socialist plot is about government controls or they indeed would be more supportive of letting market innovation succeed without government control.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008
Liberty, if you support development of alternative technologies, you should not be so hostile to government involvement.
If it had not been for government investment, we would have no Internet.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:11pm