This one is fucked up. In other words, an average encounter
with a Republican.
Richard, my good (ex)buddy, instinctively disagreed with my
post. When I re-explained my point, he understood - and agreed.
However, like a dutiful member of the GOP, he continued his
search for something that we must disagree over. Somehow, booing gay soldiers
and climate change are related topics.
It’s like when you first saw “From Dusk Till Dawn." You were happily enjoying your
bank-robbers-escaping-the-law flick, when half way through, it turned into a
vampire movie.
Yeah. This is just like that. Only four times as exciting.
Trust me. Maybe.
The climate change aspects covered in my last post are
largely different from the ones coming up next, so don’t worry about
repetition. This is a whole new gravy boat full of dunce-tastic blabber-speak.
I suppose I’m on a climate change kick because we just had a presidential election season and I’m a
little pissed that neither candidate mentioned the subject – even as one walked
through the aftermath of the most devastating storm to hit the Northeast in memory, which
was fuelled by climate change and the other pretended to care about its
victims. That’s right, fuck you, Shitt Smarmy, or whatever your name was.
Enjoy…
Bill Mancuso
¡Vete a la Chingada, los Republicanos! #26 in a series: All
Republican audiences at GOP debates, and all the Republican candidates, too,
except for Jon Huntsman, are scum.
(Full ¡Vete! list is chronicled in my Pages section to the right -->)
Stephen Hill, a US Soldier fighting in Iraq, asked Rick
Santorum, who is a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter, if he would
circumvent the progress that has been made for gay soldiers serving in the
military by repealing the repealing of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'
With the same enthusiasm the previous debate crowds
displayed cheering executions and letting sick people die, they booed this gay
soldier. Those assholes in the audience (granted it was not all, but an
ignorant, vocal handful) wish they were half the man Stephen Hill is.
Frothy Santorum's reply was just as fucking stupid as was
the booing. The very first fucking dumb thing out of his pie-hole was,
"Yeah, I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military, and the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people, uh, and give them a special privilege, uh, t, ah, t, t, uh in DOMA, in removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military and the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform and I believe this undermines that ability."
I'll get to the problem with that frothy Santorum ignorance
in a moment. I have a bigger problem with the entire dumb fuck Republican
audience's swelling crescendo to thunderous applause, which began at the moment
Mr. Frothy said "social policy" more than I do at the handful of
booing. These dumb fucks respond to any and every dog-whistle word and image.
Somehow, the word 'social' is now an evil word. And ignorant homophobia is to
be cheered. Fucking stupid assholes. America is a socialist/capitalist country.
Get that through your thick, intolerant, vanilla pudding-filled heads. There
would be no United States of America without that combination. And every civil
right will eventually march over you, so get your backward, inbred, redneck,
miserable, racist, homophobic, science-denying, ignorant ass out of the way.
Anyway, let's dissect the frothy mixture of lube and fecal
matter that came out of Santorum's mouth when he opened it. First, sexual
activity has nothing to do with the military. Santourm's a homophobe. Second,
recognizing sexual activity is not a 'provision' in the military. Santourm's a
homophobe. Third, no one is getting a special privilege in the military. Civil
rights are not a special privilege. Santourm's a homophobe. Removing DOMA is
not a 'social policy,' it is a civil right/basic human right. Blocking civil rights
seems to be a wholly Republican policy. Santourm's a homophobe. Gay soldiers
fighting in the military do not undermine the ability to protect non-gay
soldiers. This is a 100% proven fact. Just ask Albania, Argentina, Australia,
Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Republic of China, Colombia,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia,
Serbia, Slovania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United
Kingdom and Uruguay. Santourm's a homophobe.
(Can't resist...
I've been everywhere, man.
I've been everywhere, man.
Crossed the deserts bare, man.
I've breathed the mountain air, man.
Of travel I've had my share, man.
I've been everywhere.)
Megyn Kelly, the host of this little FOX "News"
shindig, asked Mr. Frothy what he would do, if he became President, about all
the soldiers like Stephen Hill who are already 'outed?'
"I think it's, it's, it's, look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation, ah, with, with our military right now, and ud, ud, ah, that's tragic. Ah, I would, I would just say that uh, going forward, we would, we would re-institute that policy if Rick Santorum was President. Period. That policy would be re-instituted, and as far as people who are in, in it, I would not 'throw them out' because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in, in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was "sex is not an issue." It, it is du, it should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it, keep it to yourself whether you're heterosexual or homosexual," Mr. Frothy nonsensically replied.
First, "social experimentation." Gays serving in
the military is not an experiment. Shall I list the countries again? However,
the phrase "social experiment" IS a dog-whistle word to instigate
right-wing ire. And it always works. Second, I think he meant, "Going
BACKWARD, we would re-institute that policy." Third, Bill Mancuso thinks
referring to yourself in third-person narrative is the sign of a mentally
disturbed mind. Fourth, sex seems to be an issue only to Republicans. It
appears that they think gays are only concerned with raping dudes in the
shower, and being in the middle of a desert on a military base with an ass full
of sand is the most opportune place for it. At least, it seems they think about
that all the time. Santourm's a homophobe. And so is the whole Republican
Party. Fifth, what was happening in the past was NOT "sex is not an
issue." Sex was never the issue to anyone. Except it is always a Republican homophobic reaction to what their
fantasies of a gay's life is. They're apparently picturing all sorts of gay
scenarios all the time. They equate being gay with having gay sex as if that is
the only function they are capable of performing and want to convert everyone
to the same. Instead of looking at a gay person as a person. Why doesn't the opposite hold true for Republicans?
Why isn't being straight equated with having straight sex as if that is the
only function they are capable of performing and want to convert everyone to
the same? Fucking homophobes. Here is an actual issue Republicans don't seem to
mind since they never, ever bring it up: Women in the military are twice as
likely to be raped as civilian women. Women serving in the U.S. military are
more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.
29% of female veterans say they were raped during military service. In 2007,
there were 2,688 sexual assaults against female soldiers by male soldiers in
the military, including 1,259 reports of rape. And the Pentagon acknowledges
80% of military rapes are NEVER REPORTED. Fuck you, Republicans. Where's all
your outrage over this? Why hasn't hetero rape statistics undermined the
ability to efficiently protect our men and women in the military and defend our
country? Fuck you, Republicans. [I guess 'hetero rape sex is not an issue.'] Fucking homophobes.
Except Jon Huntsman. He is the only candidate that condemned
the audience's homophobic reaction. Oddly, I like Jon Huntsman. He seems to be
the only level-headed, rational, human Republican candidate. Unfortunately,
that immediately disqualifies him as a viable presidential candidate to
Republicans.
But my most funnest observation of all: How do you think FOX
"News" would handle an audience of Democrats booing a soldier?
And speaking of the Republican debate, other than all of
them all lying about everything, I thought this was also particularly funny:
Texas Governor James Perry and plutocrat Willard Romney (real names) fighting
over which one has the better plan to create the most jobs if they were elected
President. Since both of them have spewed the diarrhea that the government
doesn't create jobs, how would they then create jobs if they were the
government? Assholes.
Richard
So, one douchebag in the audience boo'd.... And his point
about sex not being part of the job, that it shouldn't be a factor, was wrong?
Bill Mancuso
One douchebag? Are
you deaf? You obviously didn't also hear the thunderous applause of the entire
audience when frothy-boy said he wanted DOMA back.
As to sex not being part of the job: Sex was never a part of
the job except to Republicans who think all gay people want is to make heteros
have gay sex with them and keep bringing up gay sex and try to make gay sex an
issue by saying gay sex is not an issue but it never was in the first place
except when homophobic Republicans try to make it an issue by continually fantasizing
about gay people having sex.
While simultaneously ignoring all the heterosexual female
raping.
Why do misogynistic, homophobic Republicans only bring up
sex when they're talking about gays, but never talk about the heterosexual
raping of female soldiers. Ooh, I think the way I phrased the question actually
answers the question.
Richard
Oh, that part. Frankly, sexuality shouldn't be a
pre-requisite or part of the job. It's a job at the end of the day.
Show up, do your job and then go home.
I do hate the Republican stance on anything sexual, we are
actually on the same side there, and to be honest, it is really only the Far
Right, the Bible Bangers that even give a crap about this stuff any more. [That was once true, but the Bible Bangers have hijacked the Republican Party.]
 |
| 1994 |
I just don't think it should even be an issue. Go into the
service, do your job and leave your sexual preference, gay or straight, at the
door. [Holy moly. Agreement. Fleeting.]
[If I hadn’t replied to this, you would have missed out
on all the fun that follows…]
Bill Mancuso
That's the problem- the Bible Bangers. And the problem with
almost all these candidates is that they're pandering specifically to them.
[Simple enough statement. Shouldn’t have made any
ripples. All I did was agree with him. And state a fact.
But I hope you haven’t forgotten Richard is a Conservative. Now it’s
time to enter the Titty Twister.]
Richard
Well, the right panders to the religious nuts, the left
panders to the enviro-whackos and both are religions in a way...
Bill Mancuso
Yeah, that crazy "don't pollute" crowd. They're
just as nutty as the "we need all the Jews ingathered so they can build
the second temple, then trigger the final battle of armageddon that paves the
way for the second-coming of the Christ, at which time, all non-Christians will
be cast into the lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth" crowd.
Richard
More like the global warming bullshit
Bill Mancuso
Yeah, that "science" crowd.
Richard
Junk science, not to mention there is just as much science
saying it is BS.
Global Warming is a political issue, not a scientific one.
Bill Mancuso
Science science, not
to mention 2% is not 'just as much' as 98%. Then again, I'm not using
Republican Math to figure it out.
Climate change is a political issue to the GOP, a scientific one to the rest of the world.
You either didn't read or ignored my reply to your factless,
nonsensical FOX "News" article on the Nobel-winning mechanical
engineer. Shall I repost it here? [See previous post. I really did enjoy getting
into it with Richard before he de-friended me on Facebook. The amount of
misinformation held within his head that I had to research taught me oh so much.]
And this post is about gays serving in the military. Which
we agreed upon. Why are you desperately searching for a topic for us to
disagree on? Well, Republicans do just instinctively take an opposing stance to
everything, even when they agree with it, so, bravo.
Richard
We agreed that the Reps pander to the religious nuts, and I
pointed out that the Left panders to the Enviro-whackos, whom are just as
fanatical and see environmental things as a religion.
Climate change is BS. It isn't scientific. It is fueled by
one of two things... Governments who want to use it to justify taxes,
regulations and charging for carbon credits, or by corporations that want to
make shitloads of money by selling you "green" products.
The science is shit. The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion
years. We know that the weather has fluctuated drastically for that entire
time. We know that is has gotten really hot, and we know that it has gotten
cold enough that much of the globe has been under a mile of ice for a thousand
years, several times.
And so, because we started accurately tracking temps about
150 years ago and the temp has gone up 0.74 degrees, we conclude that the Earth
is in peril and man is at fault and if we just pay for carbon credits and buy
all this new shit that somehow we will fix the weather? LOL
The weather is fine. The Earth warms up, cools down, repeat.
This is what it has done for billions of years before man came into the
picture.
But this is a religion to people, they will find whatever
"facts" they feel support their beliefs and try to push those beliefs
on others, and it has as much facts to support them as the people on the Right
who think that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Bill Mancuso
You're right. Except for the part where you claim science is
junk science because you don't agree with it and the part where scientists only
look for facts that support their claim and the part where it's a religion. The
difference between the 6,000-year-Earthers and scientists is one is based on
nothing but wishes and desires and the other is logical conjecture based on
overwhelming observable evidence tested and retested countless amounts of times
reproducing the same results which are agreed upon by 98% of the world's
climate scientists - otherwise known as a theory.
Explain how scientists benefit from taxes and regulations
and selling green products. Other than the fact that they don't.
Yeah, yeah, I know you think they get paid by making things
up. That's incorrect. Real scientists have to have reproducible conclusions to
continue receiving money for their research. And name all those wealthy
scientists out there for me. Go ahead, give it a shot.
However, scientists on Exxon's & BP's payrolls DO get paid to say pumping 9 billion metric tons of
carbon otherwise unnaturally occurring into the atmosphere per year is having
no effect on the ecosystem. And politicians who get money from the Oil &
Gas & Coal industry support those scientists. The whopping 2%.
Richard
The scientists go out and "prove" what they are paid
to "prove". They get grant money, and that is how they get paid to do
what they do. I happen to know some of them.
The bottom line, is all that we know is that since the earth
was formed, the temp has gone up and down. It did it before man, and it is still
doing it today.
How anyone can look at a constantly fluctuating pattern over
billions of years, and conclude that the 0.74 degree change in the past 150
years is our fault, is astounding. It's every bit as insane as the people that
think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Governments pay for these studies because they can use it to
justify regulations, taxes, laws and restrictions, etc... Corporations support
it because green is trendy and they can help lobby government to mandate that
we all go out and buy tons of new green products.
Follow the money Bill.
Bill Mancuso
A climatologist working as an independent researcher at a
major university does not get government grant money for lying. You are
describing the opposite of how grants work just to support your own “junk
science.”
You are not allowed to make things up and proclaim them to
be true just because you disagree with the actual truth.
However, Oil & Gas & Coal companies DO pay the climatologists on their payrolls to justify
their polluting. And they pay politicians (mostly Republicans, but also
Democrats) to lie about it as well. I did follow the money.
How many times do these facts need to be repeated before you
stop repeating corporate profit-protecting lies?
And if you believe climate change is only about the
temperature rising (you seem to since that's the only thing you ever cite every
single time), then you don't understand what climate change is. And if you
don't understand what climate change is, and you don't understand how grants
work, then how could you possibly explain anything about either?
Are you going to proclaim "Fuck Al Gore" next
winter when it snows? As if you think A.) Al Gore controls the weather and B.)
the winter season has anything to do with climate change. And then, when it's
hot in the summer, will you proclaim "Praise Al Gore" because the
summer season has returned again?
And really, 98% of the world's climate scientists are all
involved in some global conspiracy that all the governments agree upon? Do you
realize how silly [I wanted to say 'fucking stupid,' but I also wanted this debate to continue. As well as other, future debates.] that sounds? All the governments in the world agreeing on the
same "American Liberal political lie?" And 98% of world-wide climate
scientists all agreeing on lying about the same things in their research? Yeah,
totally possible. Let me check the odds in Vegas on that.
Richard
The irony is that you are repeating a corporate line. Just a
different corporation than an oil company. [No, I’m not. I’m repeating
simple, unbiased facts, justifying nothing but the truth. That’s not the
definition of irony.] Green is in, it is
powerful marketing and it makes billions in profits even if it isn't doing
anything pertaining to the weather. ["Billions in profits?" I thought the Republican line on Green Energy was that it was an abject failure that Obama keeps pumping government money into for his cronies? Well, Republicans do often argue in circles to prove their lies.]
So imagine you have a planet that has been here for billions
of years. [I can do that.] During that
time, the temperature has gone through literally countless shifts, many of them
drastic. [Yes. Go on.] The planet
has done everything from being very hot, much hotter than it is now, to being
cold enough that most of the land masses were under a mile of ice for
centuries. Back and forth, up and down, temperatures shifting by double
digits... [I’m still with you.]
And then we see man, only keeping accurate records for 150
years, [No, that -] and in that time
noticing at best, a 0.74 degree shift during a time when the planet was shifting
anyway, as it always has... [You’re not -]
And seeing that shift that has always been there and would
continue to go up and down if man were to disappear today, doesn't it strike
you as... odd to assume that we caused something that has been going on for
billions of years? [But we are -] It is
not like the Earth was static, [No, but -] and then the industrial revolution happened and now the temp is
changing. [Th -] It has always
changed, and by increments far greater than what we have seen. [Yes, bu -]
And when this "conclusion" is the driving force
behind legislation, taxes and regulations, hundreds of millions worth of
research grant $$ and billions in marketing and new "green" products
from a variety of corporations, you don't get suspicious? [No, bec -]
It's stupid to think that we caused something that was going
on long before we got here and it is dishonest to use it to sell us everything
from new soap, to toilet paper, to cars, etc... Green is a multi-multi billion
dollar business. [So is oi -]
So which of us is really spouting the corporate line, Bill? [-]
Green is big. Lots of money to be made, including your Evil
Empire GE, the one you keep claiming paid no taxes... They see a chance to make
$20 billion a year from "Green"...
Bill Mancuso
You're going in circles repeating your "temperature
fluctuations have always been there" line - ignoring that it's not just
about temperature fluctuations - proving my point that you don't know what
you're talking about. So stop saying it. I heard you the first 47 times. Learn
something new. Move on. [Republicans have a VERY hard time accepting new
information that may change their baseless, cemented notions. I’m sure you can
recall me telling Richard on several other occasions to stop repeating the same
thing and deal with the new information he was given. Which he never did.]
Of course green technology is big. That's what new,
developing industries are. The new, big thing. You think creating new jobs and
developing useful, energy-reducing, Earth-friendly technology that can also be
applied to other industries is a bad
idea?
What is your point?
That an industry shouldn't be profitable? That we should
keep using 150-year old oil technology with a finite source that is also (in
case you don't know) “a multi-multi billion dollar business?” That we should not try to substitute the old, Earth-destroying, carbon
emissions technology that also is not creating or attempting to create new jobs with a new, developing
industry that is aimed at reducing harmful emissions to the planet and is creating jobs?
Wouldn't it be an incentive to show that creating
Earth-friendly green technology is also a profitable venture? What, suddenly
you don't approve of capitalism? Or only when it pertains to an industry that
competes with your oil gods? You think the Green industry IS but the Fossil Fuel industry is NOT a driving force behind legislation, taxes and
regulations, hundreds of millions worth of research grant $$ and billions in
marketing and products from a variety of corporations? The fossil fuel industry
has OWNED the government for over a century. There's a bit of biased,
Republican hypocrisy peaking out in your argument. But that's not so odd now,
is it?
And if you think green technology isn't doing anything
pertaining to the weather (climate, actually - try to think a little more
long-term, bigger picture), then you know even less than I thought you do about this. And
you're just blindly bashing it because Rush Limbaugh or whatever Oil industry
profit-protecting source told you to.
Was I specific enough just there in pointing out that the
old corporate titan is trying to protect its profits against the new, upstart
industry so that you don't confuse my "spouting the corporate line?"
You keep trying all different angles to attack green
technology because you were told to, but you ignore that they all also pertain
to the oil industry. So you come off looking like a hypocritical partisan fool.
You're muddying the topic in search of something to support your bias. It's
very simple. Burning fossil fuels = dirty. Wind & Sun = clean. Which one is
the past? Which one is the future?
And I did not "claim" GE paid no taxes. GE paid
no taxes. AND got a refund. But the tax
issue is another debate that we already did and I'm not going to switch topics again here.
And thank you for the article. It was very informative. It
showed how investing in the future pays off.
Anne
Holy smokes! I wish I had time to read all of this.
Richard
Its bullshit Bill, history will show that.
But keep drinking the kool aid.
Bill Mancuso
Yeah, that "science" Kool Aid.
Anne
Don't drink Kool Aid, either of you. It's full of chemicals
that were created in a lab. Not a “green” beverage at all. [That was funny.
And topical!]
[I kind of thought he wouldn’t post anymore, but he’s a
glutton for ignoring factual information.]
Richard
Bill, there are as many scientists and just as much data on
the side against global warming as there is on the side for it. You know that. [Do
I?]
It has never been established as fact. It is still just a
theory based on computer models that only about half of the scientific
community even believes is probable. And for the global warming [Yes, keep saying 'global warming,' please.] side, has
billions of dollars from various corporations and governments pouring into it.
Yes, the other side has corporations pumping money into it,
and they have an agenda as well. Which is why I call it junk science. You get
what you pay for. If I had 10 million dollars and gave a grant to someone to
prove there is global warming, you can bet that that is exactly what they would
"prove". That's what I am paying for. [Ack. The ignorance is
giving me agita!]
There is so much conflicting data on this issue, that
"Global Warming" had to be cast aside, and a new name, "Climate
Change" had to be adopted. Why? Because the Earth cooled slightly at a
time of record CO2 output. So in an effort to cover all bases, they changed the
name, so that no matter what the weather does, they can still blame it on that.
It's a political issue, always has been. Look at who is
pumping billions into trying to prove it?
1) Governments trying to add controls and taxes to
businesses and individuals, some countries even trying to control others by
limiting manufacturing and energy production.
2) Corporations trying to sell you stuff.
When the only people trying to convince you of it are trying
to sell you something, call me a skeptic. [Like... the... oil... industry...?]
[He does give a compelling story. I could understand if
you thought I might have given up at this point. But I am as tenacious as a
honey badger. A honey badger armed with facts that DOES give a shit, motherfucker!]
Bill Mancuso
Yes, I understand that when using Republican Math, 2% is
equal to or greater than 98%.
But to the rest of the world, that's just fucking dumb. You
know that.
As for your obvious desire to learn and understand the
truth, let me help you out.
"Global Warming" was not cast aside for the new
name, "Climate Change." That's what ignorant climate science deniers
such as yourself like to believe so you can keep claiming blatant nonsense
like: 'there are as many scientists and just as much data on the side against
global warming as there is on the side for it." There is not. You're
blindly repeating a lie.
In the 60's, when referring to man's influence on climate
change, the term used was the rather clunky, "Inadvertent Climate
Modification."
A report in 1975 titled, "Climate Change: Are We on the
Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming" was the first time both terms were
used.
A study in 1979, the Charney Report stated, "If
carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate
changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be
negligible."
In that same report, when referring to surface temperature
change, the term "global warming" was used. And when referring to the
many other changes in the ecosystem caused by human-influenced increases in
carbon dioxide levels, the term "climate change" was used.
To this day, in the scientific community, "global warming" refers ONLY to surface
temperature increases. The term "climate change" includes how global
warming and all other factors in increasing amounts of greenhouse gas will
affect the ecosystem. Only biased, right-wing word-dispensing (I feel silly
calling it "news") programs use 'global warming' and try to make it
sound stupid. And their ignorant followers think that's the truth.
Surface temperature change, or 'global warming' is, as I've
previously said, not the most severe
effect of 'climate change.' It's the changes in wind patterns, precipitation
patterns and sea level. Notice any bigger, more frequently occurring tropical
storms and hurricanes that arrive earlier and continue later in the season or
huge fires from hot, lengthy droughts lately? That's just a few cases in
America, though. Do you want me to point out all the climate changes around the
world, or would that be too much for you to handle (not that you can't handle
ignoring any amount of facts that contradict your ill-informed, right-wing,
politically biased, non-science-based opinion)?
"Global warming" became the dominant term to use
by the public in 1988. A NASA scientist said the term during a testimony to
Congress, which became widely reported in popular and business media. The media
picked the simplest, boldest phrase to use in their 'bumper-sticker slogan'
style of reporting. And it stuck.
But you'll just keep ignoring real science facts or
incorrectly proclaiming them to be lies and continue to proffer your
unintelligible political horse-shit that contains no factual information.
As to your ill-informed comments on receiving grants:
previously answered; obviously ignored.
As to your comments on corporations pumping money into green
tech: previously answered; obviously ignored.
Haha. Carlin was bashing liberals. And he was rhyming while
doing it! He must be right. The climate scientist that he was. I'm not sure,
was this stand-up comedy routine posted as proof and as evidence to back up your misinformed statements?
Almost forgot: You're not skeptical of oil companies trying
to sell you something to protect their profits? But you are skeptical of the
burgeoning green industry? Explain this hypocrisy.
Richard
Again, we have accurate weather patterns for how long now?
150 years, at the most?
I do concede that the earth has gotten 0.74 degrees warmer
over a century and a half. [Immediately back to singling out temperature. Vaffanculo!] Are you really saying that it would not have done
that if not for our cars and hair spray? Ignoring all the times that it has?
The problem with your real science facts is that there are
thousands of scientists armed with their own data that refutes the other side.
So who is right?
The one that attacks capitalism and supports Liberals I
guess. That must be the truth.
[He forgot to explain his hypocrisy. I won’t forget to
address this intentionally misleading article. You fucking better believe I
won’t.]
Bill Mancuso
1. Again. I've explained the difference between 'global
warming' and 'climate change.' Stop talking about temperature. And don't try to
conflate weather patterns with temperature.
2. You say the problem with "real science facts"
is that 2% of scientists on the fossil fuel industry payroll are armed with
their own data (that they made up?) that refutes the other 98% of scientists
that have to prove their work in order to continue receiving funding. Yet, you
wonder who is right?
3. Capitalism supports the fossil fuel industry's side AND
the green industry's side. That's not the issue. Stop the bullshit artistry in
trying to make it seem as if Liberals hate capitalism. That's ignorant. It's
not that hard to figure out. I've said this before: Burning fossil fuels =
dirty. Wind & Sun = clean.
4. There are no facts
or information whatsoever presented in the article you posted. It is complete innuendo. Apparently, that is the gaping hole.
5. The author padded the article with the dog-whistle word,
"alarmist" 14 times including the title. That's a sure sign of
someone trying to brainwash - I mean - convince the readers of something
without any facts, credibility or merit.
6. The author, James M. Taylor is a senior fellow for
environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of
Environment and Climate News.
The Heartland Institute is a conservative climate change
denier think-tank. They host an annual conference called the International
Conference on Climate Change where ONLY climate change deniers gather to claim
greenhouse gases will never pose a problem to the ecosystem - contrary to what 98%
of climate scientists agree upon. At this conference, they discuss strategies
on how to oppose the climate change theories and take action against them. The
Heartland Institute has heavily repeated the completely debunked lies of the
"Climategate" incident.
[I copied much of the next bit of this description from a few sources, but I
don’t remember which since it was a while ago. I don’t want to take credit. Though I did reorganize and
add flair.]
Under the banner of “free market” solutions to education,
healthcare, taxes, the environment, telecommunication regulation and budgetary
issues, the Heartland Institute is a highly funded propaganda publishing house
that advances the false arguments of the most reactionary elements of corporate
America. They are connected to the Teabagger movement and see themselves as a
“…clearinghouse for the work of 350 other think tanks and advocacy groups.”
They reported spending over $28,132,000 since 1998 - receiving funding from
right-wing foundations including the Heritage Foundation , Cato Institute,
Reason Foundation, Manhattan Institute along with corporations and individuals.
The Koch brothers are supporters and they have received grants from them in the
past.
This bullshit-creating “think tank” represents an
ideological movement whose goal is for corporate America to have a free hand to
do anything they wish for profit and without regulation. They are working for
complete privatization of the public sector and either elimination or
privatization of the public’s safety net at the federal, state and local level.
They are key propagandists to the present right-wing movement, supporting any
demand that increases corporate profits and weakens the peoples’ democratic
rights.
Their healthcare goal is to cut and privatize Medicare and
Medicaid, giving the insurance industry free reign over the market. They fuel
the movements at the state government level with manipulated data and arguments
against unions, for cutting education and any safety net spending, including
healthcare for the poor and elderly, while supporting enormous tax breaks to
businesses.
Some of the propaganda they published in their April 2011
issue of Environment and Climate News: Japan’s “nuclear crisis” is more a
media-contrived crisis than a real one. Explosions at a nuclear power facility
damaged by the mid-March earthquake and tsunami did not expose civilians to
dangerous levels of radiation. The "science director" for the
Heartland Institute said of nuclear meltdown in Japan, “It is likely that at
least one of the Fukishima reactors will totally melt down, but the danger to
human health will remain slight.”.... They encourage the U.S. House to keep the
U.S. economy free of EPA-mandated carbon dioxide restrictions..... Ridicule San
Francisco’s rebate program to induce installation of low-flow toilets.
They completely oppose renewable energy sources because it
interferes with oil, gas & coal profits. They publish fabricated studies,
which claim that the Green industry somehow kills jobs - contrary to facts.
Aside from denying climate change, they hilariously claim
that the rising carbon dioxide levels actually benefit plant life because
that's what plants breathe. Wait - so, there's NO increase in CO2 levels, but
the increasing CO2 levels help plants? Kinda burning that candle from both
ends, aren't they?
One of their goals is to eliminate the EPA and base
environmental controls at the state level. This would allow Governors to
decimate environmental protections. An example is Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker's proposal to cut state funding for recycling.
Most of the articles these assholes publish are so far out
fucking ludicrously opposite of reality crazy, you could mistake them for
something written by The Onion if you didn't catch the publisher's name.
Try not to post an article from such a blatant piece of shit
source next time.
But I guess you can only support nonsense with more
nonsense.
***** ** ****** ** *****
The End.
It’s not like I didn’t warn him about proffering
unintelligible political horse-shit that contains no factual information.
I will now proffer a bam that would make Emeril proud:
BAM!
That’s right. The next time you find yourself “discussing”
climate change with a moron and that moron hits you with the line, “More and
more scientists are coming out against global warming all the time,” or, “There
are just as many scientists who say there is no global warming as the ones who
say there is,” or, “The science behind global warming just isn’t settled yet,”
I want you to first inform them that calling it ‘global warming’ demonstrates
that they are, indeed, a moron and second to show them this pie chart and
article.
They will, of course, deem it to be “libtard lies,” but at
least you’ve done your part in trying to inform the moron.
No comments:
Post a Comment