Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

You think Dr. Ball is sexy? Give me a break! The CCC will attack anyone who dares question their warped vision of the future. As for the “misquotes” in the GGWS, I wonder how they balance against the scientists in IPCC who insist there is no consensus as is frequently represented?


He is sexy in the respect that he can go to a group of people and tell them what they want to believe. That there is some sort of mythical CCC cult out there that hides the truth. He will explain that all the countries, scientific societies, scientific organizations, scientific magazines are somehow fooled.

There are serious scientists who have proposed alternative methods. Problem is, the real scientists defect to the other side with great regularity. When an argument is debunked they will not continue to use it. Problem is they will not try to blame the lack of acceptance of their views on this mythical CCC cult. They will admit their views are out of the mainstream.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

You think Dr. Ball is sexy? Give me a break! The CCC will attack anyone who dares question their warped vision of the future. As for the “misquotes” in the GGWS, I wonder how they balance against the scientists in IPCC who insist there is no consensus as is frequently represented?


He is sexy in the respect that he can go to a group of people and tell them what they want to believe. That there is some sort of mythical CCC cult out there that hides the truth. He will explain that all the countries, scientific societies, scientific organizations, scientific magazines are somehow fooled.

There are serious scientists who have proposed alternative methods. Problem is, the real scientists defect to the other side with great regularity. When an argument is debunked they will not continue to use it. Problem is they will not try to blame the lack of acceptance of their views on this mythical CCC cult. They will admit their views are out of the mainstream.



Evey country in the world that has an opinion has endorsed global warming. Every major scientific society that has an opinion on global warming has endorsed it.
A large hunk of anti-AGW scientists from a decade ago have now defected. You have lost Bush (an oil executive !), you have lost Harper.
Now, I have heard the argument that Harper and Bush are somehow swayed by public opinion (gee, another area yer gettng yer ass kicked). But, two points. Bush does not give a rats ass about public opinion, he can't sink lower and is a lame/dead duck.
Secondly, perhaps it was public opinion and not science that swayed Harper, BUT it did not force Harper to invest all that money in the Artic to prepare for the artic opening up. It did not force Norway, and the USSR to do the same. You may not believe in the those climate models, but Harper, Bush, Putin, Norway and Demark are putting their money behind them.



.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
He is sexy in the respect that he can go to a group of people and tell them what they want to believe. That there is some sort of mythical CCC cult out there that hides the truth. He will explain that all the countries, scientific societies, scientific organizations, scientific magazines are somehow fooled.

To my consideration, Dr. Ball is a target because he does have a scientific background whether you care to admit it or not. I use the CCC to describe the assorted "true believers" who are blindly convinced of AGW to the point of resembling a religion. Do you deny such exist?

peter_puck wrote:
There are serious scientists who have proposed alternative methods. Problem is, the real scientists defect to the other side with great regularity. When an argument is debunked they will not continue to use it. Problem is they will not try to blame the lack of acceptance of their views on this mythical CCC cult. They will admit their views are out of the mainstream.

Sigh... I think I'll just start making up "real" scientists who are defecting to the skeptical side... My imaginary scientists against your imaginary scientists... Since you never bother to offer anything to substantiate your statements, I shouldn't have to either, right? ;)

peter_puck wrote:
Evey country in the world that has an opinion has endorsed global warming. Every major scientific society that has an opinion on global warming has endorsed it.

Most of the countries "endorsed" AGW in the hopes of scoring some loot from the Kyoto Accord, that wonderful wealth redistribution scheme which does nothing to address the environment.

Most of the major scientific societies know which side their bread is buttered on as well. Don't take this wrong but for a scientist, your grammar sucks. Who pays for your "research" again?

peter_puck wrote:
A large hunk of anti-AGW scientists from a decade ago have now defected. You have lost Bush (an oil executive !), you have lost Harper.

A large hunk of AGW scientists from a decade ago are now confirmed skeptics as well. Bush and Harper are politicians who know the political future of their parties depends on public opinion.

peter_puck wrote:
Now, I have heard the argument that Harper and Bush are somehow swayed by public opinion (gee, another area yer gettng yer ass kicked). But, two points. Bush does not give a rats ass about public opinion, he can't sink lower and is a lame/dead duck.

Another fine example of excellent spelling and grammar. While I don't normally bother with such, I'm becoming concerned about your credibility. I don't care about public opinion since I don't have to stand for election... and my funding doesn't depend on it either...

Bush is a "lame duck" as are all presidents in their second term... but he knows his party wanted to be re-elected. Somehow, I doubt Bush is willing to sewer whoever is chosen as the Republican candidate.

peter_puck wrote:
Secondly, perhaps it was public opinion and not science that swayed Harper, BUT it did not force Harper to invest all that money in the Artic to prepare for the artic opening up. It did not force Norway, and the USSR to do the same. You may not believe in the those climate models, but Harper, Bush, Putin, Norway and Demark are putting their money behind them.

Actually Harper was talking about Arctic sovereignty before his party moved to deal with climate change... but you don't let little things like "truth" or "facts" get in your way, do you?

-Mac
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:33 pm    Post subject: Re: McCain, speaker of truth. Reply with quote

Big Tuna wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=97788&tid=97788&eid=43&so=1&ps=0&sb=1

There is a guy who has no chance of ever being elected. Imagine, being an adult and trying to lead a nation of children. It is like telling your 2 year old to eat their broccoli. Accepting the consequences of actions taken, how last century of him.


I agree but we can't completely blame the nation of children. They were told by the previous adult in charge that there would be very few consequences for their action.
That's not fair.

Bush never said there wouldn't be consequences. He's also told the truth; better to fight them there than here. If it's us or them I choose us.
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My support for the nomination of the GOP is confirmed...I support John McCain.

I hope he gets the nomination and keeps the White House Red. :D
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riley W wrote:
My support for the nomination of the GOP is confirmed...I support John McCain.

Rush will be very disappointed in you! :shock:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rudy is gone too... No great loss, to my consideration..

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No great loss, to my consideration...


I think he would have been a capable administrator, with good credentials on defense and spending. He had issues with the 2nd ammendement and states rights that I agree were problems. All said, after the fall of Fred! he was my top choice.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a tough choice since there's no clearly superior candidate. I was pulling for Fred before he bailed. Incidentally, I think Fred should have waited until Super Tuesday before he made any decisions but I guess we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

-Mac
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
It's a tough choice since there's no clearly superior candidate. I was pulling for Fred before he bailed. Incidentally, I think Fred should have waited until Super Tuesday before he made any decisions but I guess we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

-Mac
Trouble with Super Tuesday is money. Given the number of states and the fact that many of them are expensive media venues, a Super Tuesday campaign is expensive.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
It's a tough choice since there's no clearly superior candidate. I was pulling for Fred before he bailed. Incidentally, I think Fred should have waited until Super Tuesday before he made any decisions but I guess we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

-Mac
Normally I vote Democratic, being an extreme liberal, but Obama and Clinton are real bottom of the barrel. I'm voting for the winner of McCain and Romney.

I will, however, make a "strategic vote" for Obama on Tuesday since he's the far weaker of the candidates.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McCain is prolife - at least that's something.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its my understanding that all 3 of the current GOP candidates are at least personally pro-life. Huckabee would institute a nation-wide ban. McCain has a solid voting record, but his position of Roe vs Wade isn't terribly clear. Romney seems to be staking out the position of keeping Roe vs Wade in place, but vetoing any pro-choice legislation. Romney and Huckabee have committed to nominating constructionist judges, whereas McCain seems to favour a more moderated approach. I would say that if Abortion is anything but your highest priority, there's not much difference between candidates.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Further to the above, I found this side by side comparison of the 4 'front runners' (McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Romney) amusing and fairly accurate: Candidate Comparison Chart
I'm sure many here would disagree, however.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know Ann Coulter doesn't have any use for McCain and Sean Hannity endorses Romney... not that these opinions sway me one way or the other...

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


McCain, speaker of truth.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB