Big Ol' Smitty

I've never smoked in my life, but I know marijuana is ubiquitous, and that everyone who does it certainly isn't a burnout. One of my best friends smokes and is a (conservative~!) econ student at Rolls-Hulman. He's one of the most intelligent and successful people I know.

And if you wish to ignore LEGITIMATE complaints and criticisms because you dislike who funds the research, then you're just blind and unable to face reality. Or, you're a cultist. -=Mike I love it when you call me names, big daddy. Do it again!

Okay, if you believe that right wing think tanks are more legitimate than actual science journals because Science wouldn't let a social anthropologist publish an article about global warming then the debate ends here. Peace and chicken grease.

Also, what think tanks have I cited or supported? The EPA and NASA are hardly think tanks.

Then STOP trying. Simply questioning the critics without actually refuting their criticisms is idiotic. I love that you criticize "oil-funded" think tanks --- but have no problems with think tanks pimping for gov't funding which global warming tends to draw. -=Mike A. Please don't tell me what to do. I haven't told you to stop playing scientist, have I? B. oil industry-->global warming research tobacco industry-->research on the effects of smoking C. Think tanks exercise no academic checks & balances. They can put out any crap they want to without even the slightest peer review. Plus, they start out with a premise and build their case around that. Using them as a source for research is not a good idea, obviously.

What the hell am I, a bookseller w/ a BA in history, going to refute? I don't know the first thing about climate science. Watching you guys try to debate the science of this on a message board is hilarious, though. All I can do is believe the arguments of the more credible source. And a social anthropologist and an oil-funded right wing think tanker don't fit this description when it comes to climate change research. And I can't take credit for the anti-semitism. Mad props to my girl Coulter on that one.

It's hilarious that they included Chris Landsea, the guy who left the IPCC, in the article. A global warming skeptic was on the IPCC! And the paper that he got all huffy and left over was co-authored by another skeptic! Landsea was the only one on the panel who had any problems with it. So the whole crux of the article is that Science doesn't publish global warming articles by social anthropologists.

Roy Spencer, another guy cited, is part of the right-wing-think-tank-o-sphere. Heartland Institute. Tech Central Station Foundation. He's oilier than an oily Jew.

The guy who analyzed the 1000 papers in Mike's article, Benny Peiser, is a social anthropologist--great source to determine whether research supports global warming.

Uh...Czech. You do know LibDem is short for Liberal Democrats, right? And that they are the furthest left of the three? And that they want to raise taxes?

So...that would be like 3 people, right?

The EPA & NASA don't have hidden agendas, for the most part. Al Franken does not try to pass his work off as legitimate science (Czech joke here--AL FRANKEN ISN'T FUNNY LIBERALS ARE DUMB!). His research is not used to create government policy. You're telling me that if I gave you a million dollars to do research and *suggested* that you should probably come out with a certain outcome, you would do objective, detached research? Give me a break. Giving credence to a global warming study funded by ExxonMobil is like giving credence to a study on belly fat by Crisco Lard.

Is saying shut up your new gimmick? Also, germs and gravity are also "just theories." Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. So, whoever said that evolution & creationism are both "just theories"--creationism is not scientific theory. Evolution theory is the foundation of modern life sciences.

For me, it's Mayer-lution or nothin'.

Didn't you guys just have a Congressman allegedly strangle a 26 year old girl after giving her a massage?

What the fuck is the matter with Kansas?

It looks like the Conservative candidate, Howard, is doing a Kerry on the war. His party voted overwhelmingly for it and now he is criticizing Blair for his conduct in leading the country to war.

I kinda like the hash browns with everything done to 'em. Covered, chunked, scattered, smothered, rotated, elongated, etc.

Sleepy Floyd, bitches.

I wish I didn't know who Cedric the Entertainer was.

Yeah. Only the stupidest of the stupid politicians have relationships with Robertson.

He's said a lot of dumb shit, but that doesn't mean he's not influential. His wealth is estimated at somewhere between $200 million-$1 billion, he hosts the biggest religious broadcast in the United States (& his broadcasts are seen all around the world), & he founded the single most important conservative Christian political organization in the US (and that group has a lot of influence with the majority party in the US). Hell, he's even become a player in foreign affairs with his support of Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. I wish he "didn't matter," Czech and 2Gold, but, sadly, he does.

Czech, Robertson is the founder of the Christian Coalition and a major figure in Christian conservative politics. He has a national TV show, too. If a liberal leader had something so ridiculous you'd be all over it like flies on a turd.

I'm trying to find serious scientists that believe global warming is a hoax or whatever. Ones not funded by Scaife or big oil.

Part IV: ExxonMobil In a magnanimous move, ExxonMobil has decided to provide funding to those interested in researching climate change. ExxonMobil Internal Memo: Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan http://www.environmentaldefense.org/docume...ncePlanMemo.pdf Funding The George C. Marshall Institute received $185,000 from ExxonMobil for "Climate Change Public Information and Policy Research" in 2002-2003. The Tech Central Station Science Foundation received $95,000 from ExxonMobil for "Climate Change Support" in 2003. The American Enterprise Institute has received $485,000 from ExxonMobil since 2002. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $870,000 from ExxonMobil since 2002. In 2003-2003, the Independent Institute received $20,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $870,000 from ExxonMobil since 2002. Techcentralstation.com received $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003. The Annapolis Center received $27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003. The Cato Institute received $25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003. The Fraser Institute received $60,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003. The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The Cato Institute got $25,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition got $30,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation since 2000. Consumer Alert (which runs the Cooler Heads Coalition) received $25,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The International Policy Network received $50,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003 for "North America Climate Change Outreach." The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $40,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003. In 2003, the Independent Institute received $10,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation. In 2003, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received $72,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation, of which $25,000 were labeled for "climate change issues." In 2003, the Heartland Institute received $85,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation, and $7,500 from the ExxonMobil Corporation. The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The American Council for Capital Formation received $444,523 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. Sources: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/...lic_policy1.pdf and http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/...ving_report.pdf.