Go away!
Thanks for reading through to the end…
We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.
We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.
Before you comment
The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.
Exactly Randy!
The Hall & Oates song that I used to think of for Palin was, “Sarah Smile” but now I want it to be, “She’s Gone.”
Oh, she ain’t goin’ anywhere…
veep 2012 is my bet.
veep 2012 is my bet.
What a singularly grim notion.
I like this one, too:
“*What a singularly grim notion. *”
And yet not unlikely or improbable.
*”I like this one, too: “*
The only funny thing about that cartoon, Rationalinfidel, is the “artist’s” obvious misunderstanding of science vs. pop media.
And yet not unlikely or improbable.
In light of the fact that Paul Blart: Mall Cop is the no. 1 film in the nation at the moment, I can’t think of a good argument against your assertion.
Ken,
Exactly my point.
“The only funny thing about that cartoon, Rationalinfidel, is the “artist’s” obvious misunderstanding of science vs. pop media.”
I think the artist got the essentials right, though perhaps he should have dressed Obama in warmer clothing. And had him shivering more.
What’s the “obvious misunderstanding”? Gore and his ilk claim the earth is getting too hot, that it’s due to man’s activities, and he makes millions in the process of perpetuating this fraud.
Obama agrees, despite the fact that the planet has been cooling for nearly 8 to 10 years. And he pledges to make this phony issue a top priority in his administration.
If there is a “misunderstanding,” it isn’t on the part of the cartoonist.
No, Obama does not agree. You are making as much of a joke of yourself as that cartoonist you posted is, by trying to attack credible science with simplistic half-truths dressed up in straw. Al Gore is not the spokesman for Climate Science any more than you are the spokesman for Ayn Rand.
If you wish to debate the merits of Climate Science, please feel free to start a thread in the MX forums. But if all you are going to do is base your argument around Al Gore’s commuting habits, please take your misinformation to another forum entirely.
“No, Obama does not agree.”
Not sure what you are talking about. When I say “Obama agrees,” I mean that he believes the earth is getting too hot and that it is getting too hot because of man’s activities. That is why he wants to further regulate business and control carbon dioxide emissions (you know, that stuff that trees like so much).
“You are making as much of a joke of yourself …”
Okay. I will endeavor to treat you with this same level of respect as I respond to the rest of your post.
“… by trying to attack credible science …”
No, joker, the “attack” is on junk science – not credible science.
“… with simplistic half-truths dressed up in straw.”
Well crafted there, joker, but which part was the half-truth? That the planet has been cooling of late? It has. That Gore is getting rich off the scam? He is.
“Al Gore is not the spokesman for Climate Science …”
I think that’s pretty clear, joker. He has, however, made himself a spokesman for junk science and often makes claims that are at odds with the facts.
“… any more than you are the spokesman for Ayn Rand.”
Yes, joker, I am not the spokesman for Ayn Rand.
“If you wish to debate the merits of Climate Science, please feel free to start a thread in the MX forums. But if all you are going to do is base your argument around Al Gore’s commuting habits, please take your misinformation to another forum entirely.”
I’m not debating the merits of “Climate Science” (why the proper noun, joker?), I didn’t mention Gore’s “commuting habits,” and I’ll post where I wish.
Anyway, this seemed an appropriate place to post a cartoon. If you believe it is not appropriate to debate this topic right here, then why are you doing it?
For the 9,035 time, “Global Warming” does not mean that we wont have cold weather. Anyone who thinks that is very, very uninformed. Nearly all climate scientists say that what we will *continue* to experience is shifting weather patterns, like warm spells in january, right after a record cold snap.
Anyone who thinks that cold weather in january somehow contradicts Climate Shift Science is obviously very out of the loop of educated debate.
If you dont understand that, I would suggest studying a bit more instead of only reading your “skeptic” blogs.
I observe that it now has been deemed acceptable to “debate” this issue here. Not sure what brought about the shift in policy.
“… Global Warming” does not mean that we wont have cold weather. Anyone who thinks that is very, very uninformed.”
You do have a gift with the straw man argument. You must find it comforting. Very, very comforting.
“Nearly all climate scientists say that what we will *continue* to experience is shifting weather patterns, like warm spells in january, right after a record cold snap.”
Right. If you say so.
What I have observed is that the “consensus” of opinion that claimed that global warming was a fact and that it was due to man’s production of carbon dioxide has now become a “consensus” on “climate change.”
In other words, it no longer matters whether there are cooling trends or warming trends – which there will always be. Any short term trend can be deemed “bad” and can be blamed on the activities of man.
“Anyone who thinks that cold weather in january somehow contradicts Climate Shift Science is obviously very out of the loop of educated debate.”
Slipped another straw man in there, didn’t you?
And now the proper noun has become “Climate Shift Science.” Is that trademarked?
“If you dont understand that, I would suggest studying a bit more instead of only reading your “skeptic” blogs.”
Appreciate the advice. And I’ll be sure to come here and read your words so that I, too, can enter “the loop of educated debate.” Your posts are always among the most informative and well-reasoned.
(Please think of the environment before printing these comments.)
My original point stands. That the notion that it was cold in DC in mid January somehow contradicts “Global Warming” is a simplistic inaccuracy, most likely perpetuated by someone with a particular political agenda, leaning towards willful ignorance and intentional dis-information.
It continues to remain a fact that “Global Warming” has never, ever meant that everywhere on the planet it will be warmer. If that’s what you think, then you have been severely mislead. What it means is, the *atmosphere* is heating up (and the oceans), which causes weather patterns to shift wildly, which, unless you’ve lived in a bubble for the past decade, has meant droughts in India and Africa, Record-breaking Heat Waves in Europe in the summer, and very, very warm snaps during North American winters.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed from your bunker high in the mountains? Or perhaps it’s a bio-dome?
Your insistence on arguing the semantics of the misnomer “Global Warming”, without understanding that it is a pop-word perpetuated by the media to describe a very complex system like global weather patterns, certainly implies that you have taken all of your information from a “skeptic” blog somewhere, without ever cross-referencing your info with something that might challenge it.
The irony being that this is the same thing that the “Al Gore types” do. Both “sides” turn the actual science into partisan farce, and are equal reflections of ignorance and close-minded pre-conceived opinion.
You can spin the science any way you want. And you can change the direction of the conversation by talking about “carbon credits”, or nit-pick about what Words I Capitalize, but those of us reading this know that what you are writing is cut-and-paste skeptic nonsense, laced with right-wing politics and dis-information.
Do yourself a favor, and collect info from all “sides” and come to your own unique conclusion about what shape the environment is in. Perhaps instead of focusing on half-truths perpetuated by the popular media that do know-one any real service, certainly not science.
Take a breath, dave, while I do some more of that “cutting and pasting” that is so evident in this thread.
Forgive me if I don’t hit on all the garbage in your post, because I want you to focus for a moment – if you can find the ability within you.
As you read everything that has been published, is it your considered opinion that the planet has not been experiencing a cooling trend over the last eight or so years?
(Remember now, … focus.)
*”Forgive me if I don’t hit on all the garbage in your post, because I want you to focus for a moment – if you can find the ability within you. “*
In other words, you cant really understand the point, or didnt actually read any of it.
“In other words, you cant really understand the point, or didnt actually read any of it.”
I read your post. Twice. It is full of straw man arguments, irrelevancies, and claims that you did not and cannot support.
If you wish, I can walk through it line by line. Just give me a nod.
Care to answer my question? You know, that pesky one I was hoping you could focus on?
Since no one seems to want to focus here, I’ll add a recent clip for future passersby:
“NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.”
“Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
So much for the “consensus.”