Where's the money in that?

-spence

I mistyped a letter...the so-called "scientists" have competely f*%$*d with the "facts" :uhuh: I guess being a "scientist" doesn't necessarily or automatically make you right...

I have about as much regard for the "scientists" that continue to push the climate change/AGW/human induced whatever scam as I do for Jonh Murtha and his opionions on the military....

just as Obama is showing now...time exposes frauds...you should keep defending both though...the folks that continue support these myths are quickly dwindling and they really need your help.....

Pretty arrogant to think that you, a non-scientist, who doesn't even know what this stuff is called, can mockingly discredit several thousand experts.

But you could be right in the end. After all, Rush Limbaugh did observe it was colder than usual the other day.

-spence

when the "scientists" finally decide on a name for "this stuff" that they can settle on with their "settled science"...you'll please let me know, won't ya Spence?

did you think it was arrogant that, Obama, a "non-scientist" thought he could lower the sea levels?:rotf2:

How about them Nobel "Scientists"?
The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

Related Links
UN climate chief admits mistake on glaciers alert
World misled over glacier meltdown

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Are you suggesting that there is no money to be made in pulling the world together, but the profit is really in being "a big fat idiot" who "spews hatred and racism"?

And if Rush is a big fat porn merchant idiot who spews hatred and racism, how has he managed to stay on the air? Don Imus was fired for using a racial term as part of his schtick--a term that is freely used by members of "the community" that was most offended by his remark. Trent Lott was forced to step down for a salute to a colleague that was interpreted to be racial. Rush continues on.

I understand that the epithets used in this thread against Rush are not meant to be factually correct. He may be fat--I don't know--he's been on and off diets I hear and had, at least one time, slimmed down, but I doubt that anyone here is actually condemning him for his weight. He is certainly not an idiot. He is not a racist--he has had black hosts do his show when he's been on vacation. One of the Snurdleys he has had as a producer is black. He has praised various CONSERVATIVE blacks. Though he is acerbic, politically incorrect, full of ego, it has not been shown that he spews hatred, nor has he been brought up on any charges of hate speech. I understand that his humor can irritate. When I have listened to his show, I would often cringe at his jokes, just as I do often when watching Saturday Night Live. But I understand that it is schtick. But it is a mistake to think that for Rush it is only schtick. The abrasive humour is only a method to deliver his ideas. Be honest, Spence, don't you find it difficult to remain neutral, polite, when arguing against what you consider ignorant, even stupid? Don't you often resort to sarcasm, name calling? Doesn't it feel good to do it? Isn't it part of your repertoire?

What I have referred to as the "tactic" of discrediting Rush by cherrypicking occasional remarks out of context is not being used as a "tactic" by most of those who repeat the quotes. If a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed. Most people sincerely believe what they are repeating, and it is easy, then, to slip into the political verbiage and even that, as it is repeated, is believed.

What he has done, and why he is successful, is provide an alternative relief from what was perceived as a constant left slanting media, and has helped create a media environment that has grown into many syndicated talk radio shows and may have even contributed to the possibility of a Fox News Channel.

It is understandable that those who lean left would hate him for what he has done. And I understand that their epithets are not meant to be factual, but are just personal political verbiage. Politics has always been, and will probably always be, dirty. Just be aware, that when you engage in this type of name calling, you're no better than who you smear.