I read this thred and instantly went and traded in my old gas guzzling Hemi Ram
...for a new more efficent Hemi Ram
just doing my part
That is just flat out funny.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Climate Change NOT Debunked
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
That is just flat out funny.
Global warming is quite possibly the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. And Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...ry-largely-clears-scientists/?test=latestnews
However, lawmakers stressed that their report -- which was written after only a single day of oral testimony -- did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending. Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.
"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," he said, before adding jokingly: "We had to get something out before we were sent packing."
The investigation is far from over, don't think that it isn't.
However, lawmakers stressed that their report -- which was written after only a single day of oral testimony -- did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending. Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.
"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," he said, before adding jokingly: "We had to get something out before we were sent packing."
The investigation is far from over, don't think that it isn't.
Interesting that Fox News would have a more questioning take on the story, isn't it?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that such a thing would occur.
But, fair enough - let's see how the other reports come out.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that such a thing would occur.
But, fair enough - let's see how the other reports come out.
More food for thought:
Invalid Link Removed
If you scroll to page 54, you will find the formal minutes, which indicate that there was 1 meeting on 24 March, 2010. Now, I've only been in a few high school and college clubs, so maybe the House of Commons works differently, but when minutes were taken, they were taken for every meeting. Following that logic, the committee met formally one time.
If you scroll also to page 57; you'll find the list of witnesses for the day of 1 March, 2010. Again, it would seem to me that with something of this magnitude, you'd want to have more than 1 day worth of witness testimony would you not?
So yea, this whole thing is FAR from settled.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that the US senate spent more than 1 day interviewing people when it was having it's Steroid hearings back in 04 or 05 or whatever for the love of Pete. 1 day worth of testimony is such a laughably short amount of time for something this huge of an issue it's nauseating.
Invalid Link Removed
If you scroll to page 54, you will find the formal minutes, which indicate that there was 1 meeting on 24 March, 2010. Now, I've only been in a few high school and college clubs, so maybe the House of Commons works differently, but when minutes were taken, they were taken for every meeting. Following that logic, the committee met formally one time.
If you scroll also to page 57; you'll find the list of witnesses for the day of 1 March, 2010. Again, it would seem to me that with something of this magnitude, you'd want to have more than 1 day worth of witness testimony would you not?
So yea, this whole thing is FAR from settled.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that the US senate spent more than 1 day interviewing people when it was having it's Steroid hearings back in 04 or 05 or whatever for the love of Pete. 1 day worth of testimony is such a laughably short amount of time for something this huge of an issue it's nauseating.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the job of journalists and news organizations to question what is released by governments? Is it also not their job to mention important facts, like the fact that there was 1 day of expert testimony, and that the people who made the report themselves said it wasn't really conclusive and didn't cover everything?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the understanding that entities that were supposed to keep an eye on important issues were supposed to report things like that.
Or maybe theyre just not rushing to conclusions and actually performing investigative journalism...
Just a thought
Dude, we're talking about corporate news networks. None of them do that, regardless of bias.
If there is global warming and it's not caused by humans, then there's nothing we can do about it anyway. I think it's a little presumptious, perhaps arrogant, for people to think they can steer nature without fouling it up.
If there are scientists destroying, manipulating, and refusing to share data, as has been reported due to the East Anglia scandal, something is amiss. We shouldn't handicap ourselves based on information provided by those who stand to reap financial gain by exploiting the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Handicap?
And if you're taking the position that we shouldn't ever listen to anyone who is in a position to financially benefit from an issue... well, no politics on TB, but my guess is you'd be singing a different tune if the subject was, say, healthcare.
CharlieS, you have unintentionally hit the nail on the head right there:
who stands to benefit MORE from their theory: scientists from pro-CC? Or multi billion-dollar business enterprises from anti-CC?
i'm saying the latter.
If there is global warming and it's not caused by humans, then there's nothing we can do about it anyway. I think it's a little presumptious, perhaps arrogant, for people to think they can steer nature without fouling it up.
+1 that has been my mantra for the last 5 years.
Arctic sea ice back up to 2001 levels. Don't worry though. Politicians will go ahead and screw up the economy even without being able to use global warming as a boogie man.
Link Removed
Link Removed
