Certainly better than the leftist billionaire George Soros, who hates America and funds liberal organizations to do his bidding.
scott
on November 2, 2015 at 10:43 pm
I’m sure that they, like everyone, think they’re fighting the good fight. I think they’re disastrously wrong. But I’m not sure it matters. No crime in being wrong. What bothers me is that they have outsized influence on American politics and policy–like all people and organizations with really deep pockets. I read this and it confirms what feels true:
Public financing of elections is on my short list of things I would do for America if I were king for a day.
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 3, 2015 at 12:54 pm
Scott said,
“Public financing of elections is on my short list of things I would do for America if I were king for a day.”
Paid for by whom?
Last thing I want to do is to subsidize Hillary to tell her lies.
scott
on November 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm
Paid for with taxes, obviously.
Right now it’s paid for by whoever has the deepest pockets. I’ve seen how that way works. It sucks. Read that Wash Times article.
Kevin Scheunenann
on November 3, 2015 at 6:21 pm
So you want to compel people to fund ideas and speech they do not like?
I can see it already, a certain candidate should not get funded because they said something insensitive to the perpetually aggrieved.
That will insure nothing other than trendy religious liberalism only gets expressed.
You would fund me, with public funds, to preach about Jesus the whole campaign and talk about wicked positions of liberalism?
Hardly. (Methinks the censor in you would explode.)
You will not even give a poor child a school voucher to do that!
scott
on November 3, 2015 at 7:07 pm
“I can see it already”
No you can’t. Because if you could you’d know that it’s a common practice all over the world.
The criteria could be simply get X number of signatures in Y number of states equalling P number of electoral votes… then you get federal funding for your campaign. And no other money may be spent by you. It has to be spent this way and not that way, but otherwise say what you want.
I’d like to throw in a certain percent of free air time. Hey, if you want to broadcast on OUR airwaves, these are the conditions.
All of this would suck the demand out of the money-for-policy thing we’ve perfected here in the USA. Or so I hope.
Systems like this work. Better than what we’re doing now. In spite of your hyperventilated fears of government and liberals and stuff.
Major Booris
on November 3, 2015 at 7:25 pm
It’s less a matter of ‘Ugh, some tiny percentage of My Tax Dollars™ is funding Kevin’s campaign’ than ‘It’s good that the success of Kevin’s campaign will depend on his positions and actions, not on how much money the WELS and Dairy Queen superPACs can dump into it’.
scott
on November 3, 2015 at 7:46 pm
That’s what I’m talking about, yes.
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 3, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Major, Scott,
So you will fund religious speech, as long as it’s done under the guise of “public campaign finance”.
I got a great solution. Think of school vouchers as public campaign finance for future politicians/great citizens.
You guys really make me laugh on this point.
You are willing to fund me to run a political campaign with open, overt, Christianity (gasp) at it’s core, but the poor kids have to be deprived of that as verboten in their education.
I hope you see the hilarity in your position.
scott
on November 3, 2015 at 8:08 pm
Kevin, if you get enough signatures to establish yourself as a viable candidate and you’re over 35 and a natural born citizen of the United States of America–yes. You’ll get the same money to run your campaign as anyone else. Even if you’re just trying to out-Jesus your opponents.
Interesting that you bring the education thing into it. I see your point. However, the government isn’t making any editorial decisions when it funds a candidate who meets certain criteria. It isn’t itself expressing a religious view by giving him/her money. Everyone has an equal opportunity to receive that money no matter what their views. The government is still remaining neutral in the matter. Not so with schools. For Bible studies to occupy 2nd period a public employee had to make a decision that this rather than that religious view is going to be taught. There’s also the matter of coercion. Teacher-led prayer in class is coercion when you’re in fifth grade–so saith the supreme court. It’s hard to see how that applies to candidate Ezekiel McEvangelical.
Anyway, it sounds like you’re all for public financing of elections as long as your a candidate with your particular religious views can still be funded. And I assure you he could. On board then?
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 3, 2015 at 8:22 pm
So giving me “public campaign” money for a campaign to “out Jesus” (prefer the term “evangelize”) my opponent is OK?
But giving a voucher to a child to learn about Jesus, as part of their schooling, is coercion? Even though that is the parent’s choice?
Wow.
I would have expected a censorship review of campaign thoughts and ideas position, to weed out the any God cooties you could find…after all, it’s tax money…we can’t fund (Christian) religion with tax money.
You better check with the local bishop of liberalism on this one. I don’t think the liberal Cabal allows you to embrace such an open, free spech, position on campaign finance!
I guess I learned something new today!
scott
on November 3, 2015 at 9:05 pm
So shall I to count you as a “yes” on public financing of elections?
I have to admit this, Kevin. You’ve actually made me think. I feel certain there is a difference between me having to pay for your child’s religious indoctrination and me having to fund your religious candidate’s campaign. Parsing it out is a tough one.
Still, you’re in favor of both I guess. Right?
Seriously
on November 3, 2015 at 9:19 pm
“You’ve actually made me think.”
That’s probably a fucking first for you, asshole.
old baldy
on November 3, 2015 at 10:11 pm
kevin:
When praising the Kochs you forgot to mention that their daddy made his first bunch of millions working for the Stalinist Soviet Russia. A little hypocritical, no?
scott
on November 3, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Does anyone actually know who the coward is writing the anonymous Seriously comments? Like a real name?
Kevin Scheunenann
on November 4, 2015 at 2:56 am
Scott,
I’d support public campaign finance under following conditions:
1.). There was a mechanism to keep the corrupt, like Hillary, out of process.
2.) The way to fund it was voluntary. Like check box today.
3.) We determine any media given to a candidate by any CBS, NBC, ABc, Npr, or CNN affiliated station was illegal coordination and we treat liberal media the same way as Chisolm treats average conservatives in WI. After the pre dawn raid of the liberals house we put them on a game show titled “objective, or guilty.” We exile the guilty to North Korea.
4.) Bruce Jenner cannot get his pot of cash as a male. Then later claim another pot of cash as a female, Caitlyn Jenner, claiming it’s a different campaign in terms of personal identity.
5.). The first 20 percent of campaign cash has to be used to explain the ice sheet is expanding in Antartica.
Under those conditions, I could be pursuaded.
scott
on November 4, 2015 at 10:16 am
So you don’t support it at all. Why not? You seemed at first enamored by the idea that you’d get to spend taxpayer money on evangelizing your fellow Americans. Or something.
Your “concerns” about Hilary Clinton are silly. If anyone anywhere could prove that she’d done something wrong she’d be in handcuffs by noon today. But they can’t. Leave it alone. And besides, our current coin-operated political system isn’t preventing her from running–and probably winning. Why hold it against public financing if it would not also prevent her from running?
Voluntary, no. Paying for the war in Iraq isn’t voluntary. Jury duty isn’t voluntary.
old baldy
on November 4, 2015 at 1:48 pm
kevin:
I can make sure that first 20% gets in the system.
The Antarctic ice sheet, as a whole, isn’t expanding, it is shrinking. You have been listening to far too many Limbaugh shows. Maybe you could ask the penguins in Antarctica, or the polar bears at the other end of the globe about shrinking ice sheets. Or the citizens of any low lying island nation about rising sea levels for further enlightenment.
You just can’t keep throwing out all these far right sound bites and not expect to have someone call you on them.. Maybe that was the lie you were referring to when you mentioned the State Treasurer in a different thread.
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 4, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Scott,
I’m not excited about the idea of public finance, was just curious how far it could go. I was expecting the typical liberal censor response…certain speech is verboten, but you surprised me in a good way.
Especially since it exposes your double speech standard for innocent kids with vouchers.
The essence of freedom means the speech you choose to fund is voluntary, everything else is Stalinist.
Do keep up on your science memos, or you will be worshipping a false theory.
Sound science doctrine is essential or you risk heresy in liberal religion.
old baldy
on November 4, 2015 at 9:42 pm
kevin:
The Fox article cherry-picked the NASA report. NASA, NOAA, ESA and even Nat Geo (hardly a bastion of alarmist liberal thought), all agree that as a whole, the Antarctic ice sheet is getting smaller. Artic ice is disappearing at an amazing rate. 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. I’ll take their set of facts over Fox News anytime.
No religion, just science here.
“The way to see by faith is to close the eye of reason”. B. Franklin
scott
on November 4, 2015 at 11:05 pm
The author of the NASA report himself predicted how deniers would distort his work:
The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”
Cue Kevin to tell us how science is just another flavor of religion. Yawn.
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 5, 2015 at 7:32 am
Baldy, Scott
Of course climate change disciples, like yourself, will deny the latest report on Antartic ice expanding.
It doesn’t fit the humpy dumpy religious view of “the ice is melting! The ice is melting! Give us money. The ice is melting!”
There is evidence the ice is expanding. Now the climate change bishops are confused were the half an inch sea level rise is occurring.
Did anyone have the idea that underground tectonics may be cause? Or evaporation rates from changes in sun fusion cycles?
That is not considered because no amount of money can control that and would blow apart the religious view we must pay tribute to climate change disciples, no matter how wrong they are.
old baldy
on November 5, 2015 at 7:45 am
kevin:
Did you learn this at church, or at a meeting of the Science Deniers Club?? “Did anyone have the idea that underground tectonics may be cause? Or evaporation rates from changes in sun fusion cycles?” Add some detail, factual please to these two theories. Or is they just more willfully ignorant gibberish from an incurious mind? And if you really want to debate them , better check out the evaporation nonsense, that will help my argument more than yours. And plate tectonics? Really? How 1950’s.
“The great thing about science is that even if you don’t believe it, it is still true”. N.D. Tyson
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 5, 2015 at 9:30 am
Baldy,
Just throwing some additional theories out there why sea levels are on the rise by a whole whopping 1/2 inch, now that scientists are baffled by the Antartic ice sheet increasing.
Sea floor earthquakes constantly change the elevation of sea floor.
Has enough science been done to rule that out for the less than 1/2 inch sea level rise?
Sun activity cycles abut every 11 years. That certainly effects the sun’s energy that the earth receives, effecting evaporation rates.
Has that been conclusively ruled out?
I’m just pointing to facts and issues that need to be investigated before we cow to your warming religion.
The funny thing about science, It’s true, until it’s not true. How many dire warnings did we hear about the melting Antartic ice sheet? Tons. It appears the be bad science now.
Or the 2008 ABC report from a major climate change disciple that New York City would be underwater in 2015! Why was his “science” assertions at the time any less valid than my assertions?
Just keep worshipping the false climate change gods. You have your religion. I have mine.
scott
on November 5, 2015 at 9:57 am
“Has that been conclusively ruled out?”
Maybe they just never thought of that! Heh. The scientific world awaits the publication of your blockbuster theories, Kevin. I’m thinking Nobel.
Seriously
on November 5, 2015 at 10:17 am
You’re a real fucking moron, Scott. Just shut your fucking trap, asswipe.
old baldy
on November 5, 2015 at 1:51 pm
kevin:
Now you have conclusively proven you know nothing about, and don’t care to learn about, anything that goes against your religious beliefs. It really kind of fun exposing your shallow view of the world. If the human mind only reached as far as yours we would still be in caves, and riding around on dinosaurs. And maybe eating an occasional dino dung Dilly Bar.
Keep up the good work. You are a great example of why we should not be paying for religious voucher schools, as we don’t get much for the money.
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 7, 2015 at 8:01 am
Baldy,
I’m not clear which of your warming religious beliefs you want me to adopt that violate Evangelical Christian beliefs. If we could define that, that would be great. (To serve as a warning to other evangelical Christians about the false warming religion.)
We pay for all religious schools. The difference is, you deny the cold, empty, secular humanist religion in public schools. I can admit my religion.
We will get somewhere when you are capable of admitting your religion.
old baldy
on November 7, 2015 at 9:31 am
kevin:
Take religion out of your sound bites. Climate change isn’t a religion, it is science. This is the USA and you can believe in whatever you want, but to keep making the ridiculous claim of “warming religion” is yet more proof of your incurious nature.
Why do I have to admit to a “religion” before we can have a discussion on scientific issues? That sure closes the door on much of the information you gather. Do you only go to evangelical christian doctors?
Are you aware that many of the founders of our country weren’t christian, and warned about theocracy taking control of the USA?
scott
on November 7, 2015 at 11:49 am
“Why do I have to admit to a “religion” before we can have a discussion on scientific issues? ”
Kevin’s declaration that X = religion is the lynchpin of much of his ridiculousness. He uses it to establish himself as a victim of discrimination and also uses it to basically believe whatever is convenient to his other beliefs–as in this case.
I still find it weird. Looks like Ben Carson is that type as well. He just believes whatever suits him, doesn’t seem to have any criteria to discern the true from the false. Joseph built the pyramids to store grain because why not.
Dan
on November 7, 2015 at 1:56 pm
baldy, climate change, or global warming or is now going to be global cooling since things have been cooling down.
Climate change/global warming/global cooling is a fraud by those who have a financial stake in it, like scientists, professors, Al Gore, Obama and the rest of loonies/brain dead thinkers who actually don’t think about common sense.
And oh by the way, I’ve seen climate change. Two weeks ago, it was 90 degrees where I live and two nights ago, it was 25.
That’s climate change and if a professor said it was man made and your goose stepping buddies would believe them, even we just transitioned from Summer to fall.
old baldy
on November 7, 2015 at 4:01 pm
dan:
What you saw was weather, as in short term seasonal fluctuations in temperature. Climate change is long term, large scale changes in temperature. The earth, as a whole, is getting warmer. Ask any polar bear or Innuit for their opinion.
Since NOAA, NASA, ESA and Nat Geo all disagree with you, I feel safe in being a contrarian as well. Nothing you have said is really relevant to the climate change discussion, but rather just your opinion based on some pretty questionable reasoning.
scott
on November 7, 2015 at 10:52 pm
Yes, scientists all over the world have for decades been conspiring with one another to deceive everyone on the planet. Why? Grant money. Or something. Meanwhile, one of the most profitable industry on the planet–energy–just happens to be on your side of the argument. No worries about their financially motivated biases. Weird, though, how your opinions mirror theirs.
The degree of willful ignorance and self-deception that must be in play to have these opinions is nauseating–and fascinating. Like passing a bad car accident on the highway. I can’t look away.
Dan
on November 8, 2015 at 12:39 am
Yes, scott and baldy, money is on your side and on the side of my side.
But let’s get to the facts.
In reality, the Earth is not warming not\r is it cooling.
Facts are the determining factor.
And you cannot prove with facts, not opinions, that the earth is getting hotter or colder with a great degree of certainty.
So, look at the facts instead of opinions, Baldy and scott and it just might amaze you that weather really hasn’t changed much for decades and decades.
But since I doubt you will look at facts instead opinion, well, it just shows your ignorance.
Dan
on November 8, 2015 at 1:17 am
And I might add to scott and baldy, I actually thought about climate change and read about it.
You two are just lazy and take the opinion of some liberal scientists without any research on your own.
Sucks to be you that you would believe some fakes rather than actually researching the issue. sucks also that you are just a bunch of lazy brain individuals.
Kevin Scheunemann
on November 8, 2015 at 7:59 am
Baldy, Scott,
I laugh at how you hate it when I slap “religion” on ideas you believe fervently.
You don’t like it because the “religion” label is used to censor and oppress free speech and ideas. Just like the liberal term “insensitivity” or perpetual liberal position, “that offends me”.
I wanted to encourage both of you on the football coach prayer story to view it as a bunch of people mumbling in the middle of the field and ignore it, but it had to be “prayer” and “religion” worth of being stomped on, and the poor coach, who is a great leader, losing his job.
I feel the climate change religion is such a danger to a free society it needs to be stomped on wherever it rears it’s ugly head in the public sphere.
The climate change religion offends me and is insensitive to my energy bill affordability.
I just hit the trifecta of liberal speech suppression, so this should put the climate change religion back in the closet.
“I actually thought about climate change and read about it.
You two are just lazy and take the opinion of some liberal scientists without any research on your own.”
There’s a lesson in this. I think it’s that one can think about and read about something and still retain one’s wrong opinions about it. I guess your position, Dan, is that in spite of commonly accepted science, you’ve found dissenters whom you find convincing. You’re basically saying these few are right and the rest are wrong–and they’re wrong because of their “liberal” biases?
old baldy
on November 8, 2015 at 7:00 pm
kevin:
While you are certainly free to believe anything you want, and express any opinion you want, your continued denial of science doesn’t serve you, your children, or your community well. Such shortsightedness would never allowed for advances in medicine, travel to the moon, or to put it on a pretty simple level, us having this discussion on the internet.
I actually feel sorry for you and yours for leading such a shallow, uninformed and incurious life. And to justify it all with your religious beliefs is just sad.
scott
on November 8, 2015 at 9:43 pm
Agree, OB. And this kind of thing matters to me. We’re now in a time where we could devastate the planet with nuclear weapons and pollution. It’s really important that we be able to talk about these problems in a reality-based way and leave the superstitions behind. Unfortunately, lots of us are still in the past, trying to wrestle with these issues using the “wisdom” of first century ignoramuses.
I’m for establishing an egalitarian society and exploring space. I fear that instead we’ll plunge ourselves into another thousand year darkness like the one that overtook Europe after the fall of Rome. Europeans lived in the ruins of a clearly better past. I wonder how they felt. I don’t want my great grandchildren to live in the ruins of our world, wondering where we went wrong.
Great company. Great family. Great Americans.
Certainly better than the leftist billionaire George Soros, who hates America and funds liberal organizations to do his bidding.
I’m sure that they, like everyone, think they’re fighting the good fight. I think they’re disastrously wrong. But I’m not sure it matters. No crime in being wrong. What bothers me is that they have outsized influence on American politics and policy–like all people and organizations with really deep pockets. I read this and it confirms what feels true:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
Public financing of elections is on my short list of things I would do for America if I were king for a day.
Scott said,
“Public financing of elections is on my short list of things I would do for America if I were king for a day.”
Paid for by whom?
Last thing I want to do is to subsidize Hillary to tell her lies.
Paid for with taxes, obviously.
Right now it’s paid for by whoever has the deepest pockets. I’ve seen how that way works. It sucks. Read that Wash Times article.
So you want to compel people to fund ideas and speech they do not like?
I can see it already, a certain candidate should not get funded because they said something insensitive to the perpetually aggrieved.
That will insure nothing other than trendy religious liberalism only gets expressed.
You would fund me, with public funds, to preach about Jesus the whole campaign and talk about wicked positions of liberalism?
Hardly. (Methinks the censor in you would explode.)
You will not even give a poor child a school voucher to do that!
“I can see it already”
No you can’t. Because if you could you’d know that it’s a common practice all over the world.
The criteria could be simply get X number of signatures in Y number of states equalling P number of electoral votes… then you get federal funding for your campaign. And no other money may be spent by you. It has to be spent this way and not that way, but otherwise say what you want.
I’d like to throw in a certain percent of free air time. Hey, if you want to broadcast on OUR airwaves, these are the conditions.
All of this would suck the demand out of the money-for-policy thing we’ve perfected here in the USA. Or so I hope.
Systems like this work. Better than what we’re doing now. In spite of your hyperventilated fears of government and liberals and stuff.
It’s less a matter of ‘Ugh, some tiny percentage of My Tax Dollars™ is funding Kevin’s campaign’ than ‘It’s good that the success of Kevin’s campaign will depend on his positions and actions, not on how much money the WELS and Dairy Queen superPACs can dump into it’.
That’s what I’m talking about, yes.
Major, Scott,
So you will fund religious speech, as long as it’s done under the guise of “public campaign finance”.
I got a great solution. Think of school vouchers as public campaign finance for future politicians/great citizens.
You guys really make me laugh on this point.
You are willing to fund me to run a political campaign with open, overt, Christianity (gasp) at it’s core, but the poor kids have to be deprived of that as verboten in their education.
I hope you see the hilarity in your position.
Kevin, if you get enough signatures to establish yourself as a viable candidate and you’re over 35 and a natural born citizen of the United States of America–yes. You’ll get the same money to run your campaign as anyone else. Even if you’re just trying to out-Jesus your opponents.
Interesting that you bring the education thing into it. I see your point. However, the government isn’t making any editorial decisions when it funds a candidate who meets certain criteria. It isn’t itself expressing a religious view by giving him/her money. Everyone has an equal opportunity to receive that money no matter what their views. The government is still remaining neutral in the matter. Not so with schools. For Bible studies to occupy 2nd period a public employee had to make a decision that this rather than that religious view is going to be taught. There’s also the matter of coercion. Teacher-led prayer in class is coercion when you’re in fifth grade–so saith the supreme court. It’s hard to see how that applies to candidate Ezekiel McEvangelical.
Anyway, it sounds like you’re all for public financing of elections as long as your a candidate with your particular religious views can still be funded. And I assure you he could. On board then?
So giving me “public campaign” money for a campaign to “out Jesus” (prefer the term “evangelize”) my opponent is OK?
But giving a voucher to a child to learn about Jesus, as part of their schooling, is coercion? Even though that is the parent’s choice?
Wow.
I would have expected a censorship review of campaign thoughts and ideas position, to weed out the any God cooties you could find…after all, it’s tax money…we can’t fund (Christian) religion with tax money.
You better check with the local bishop of liberalism on this one. I don’t think the liberal Cabal allows you to embrace such an open, free spech, position on campaign finance!
I guess I learned something new today!
So shall I to count you as a “yes” on public financing of elections?
I have to admit this, Kevin. You’ve actually made me think. I feel certain there is a difference between me having to pay for your child’s religious indoctrination and me having to fund your religious candidate’s campaign. Parsing it out is a tough one.
Still, you’re in favor of both I guess. Right?
“You’ve actually made me think.”
That’s probably a fucking first for you, asshole.
kevin:
When praising the Kochs you forgot to mention that their daddy made his first bunch of millions working for the Stalinist Soviet Russia. A little hypocritical, no?
Does anyone actually know who the coward is writing the anonymous Seriously comments? Like a real name?
Scott,
I’d support public campaign finance under following conditions:
1.). There was a mechanism to keep the corrupt, like Hillary, out of process.
2.) The way to fund it was voluntary. Like check box today.
3.) We determine any media given to a candidate by any CBS, NBC, ABc, Npr, or CNN affiliated station was illegal coordination and we treat liberal media the same way as Chisolm treats average conservatives in WI. After the pre dawn raid of the liberals house we put them on a game show titled “objective, or guilty.” We exile the guilty to North Korea.
4.) Bruce Jenner cannot get his pot of cash as a male. Then later claim another pot of cash as a female, Caitlyn Jenner, claiming it’s a different campaign in terms of personal identity.
5.). The first 20 percent of campaign cash has to be used to explain the ice sheet is expanding in Antartica.
Under those conditions, I could be pursuaded.
So you don’t support it at all. Why not? You seemed at first enamored by the idea that you’d get to spend taxpayer money on evangelizing your fellow Americans. Or something.
Your “concerns” about Hilary Clinton are silly. If anyone anywhere could prove that she’d done something wrong she’d be in handcuffs by noon today. But they can’t. Leave it alone. And besides, our current coin-operated political system isn’t preventing her from running–and probably winning. Why hold it against public financing if it would not also prevent her from running?
Voluntary, no. Paying for the war in Iraq isn’t voluntary. Jury duty isn’t voluntary.
kevin:
I can make sure that first 20% gets in the system.
The Antarctic ice sheet, as a whole, isn’t expanding, it is shrinking. You have been listening to far too many Limbaugh shows. Maybe you could ask the penguins in Antarctica, or the polar bears at the other end of the globe about shrinking ice sheets. Or the citizens of any low lying island nation about rising sea levels for further enlightenment.
You just can’t keep throwing out all these far right sound bites and not expect to have someone call you on them.. Maybe that was the lie you were referring to when you mentioned the State Treasurer in a different thread.
Scott,
I’m not excited about the idea of public finance, was just curious how far it could go. I was expecting the typical liberal censor response…certain speech is verboten, but you surprised me in a good way.
Especially since it exposes your double speech standard for innocent kids with vouchers.
The essence of freedom means the speech you choose to fund is voluntary, everything else is Stalinist.
Baldy,
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/11/03/new-study-finds-antarctic-ice-growing-countering-earlier-studies.html
Do keep up on your science memos, or you will be worshipping a false theory.
Sound science doctrine is essential or you risk heresy in liberal religion.
kevin:
The Fox article cherry-picked the NASA report. NASA, NOAA, ESA and even Nat Geo (hardly a bastion of alarmist liberal thought), all agree that as a whole, the Antarctic ice sheet is getting smaller. Artic ice is disappearing at an amazing rate. 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. I’ll take their set of facts over Fox News anytime.
No religion, just science here.
“The way to see by faith is to close the eye of reason”. B. Franklin
The author of the NASA report himself predicted how deniers would distort his work:
The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”
http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486
Cue Kevin to tell us how science is just another flavor of religion. Yawn.
Baldy, Scott
Of course climate change disciples, like yourself, will deny the latest report on Antartic ice expanding.
It doesn’t fit the humpy dumpy religious view of “the ice is melting! The ice is melting! Give us money. The ice is melting!”
There is evidence the ice is expanding. Now the climate change bishops are confused were the half an inch sea level rise is occurring.
Did anyone have the idea that underground tectonics may be cause? Or evaporation rates from changes in sun fusion cycles?
That is not considered because no amount of money can control that and would blow apart the religious view we must pay tribute to climate change disciples, no matter how wrong they are.
kevin:
Did you learn this at church, or at a meeting of the Science Deniers Club?? “Did anyone have the idea that underground tectonics may be cause? Or evaporation rates from changes in sun fusion cycles?” Add some detail, factual please to these two theories. Or is they just more willfully ignorant gibberish from an incurious mind? And if you really want to debate them , better check out the evaporation nonsense, that will help my argument more than yours. And plate tectonics? Really? How 1950’s.
“The great thing about science is that even if you don’t believe it, it is still true”. N.D. Tyson
Baldy,
Just throwing some additional theories out there why sea levels are on the rise by a whole whopping 1/2 inch, now that scientists are baffled by the Antartic ice sheet increasing.
Sea floor earthquakes constantly change the elevation of sea floor.
Has enough science been done to rule that out for the less than 1/2 inch sea level rise?
Sun activity cycles abut every 11 years. That certainly effects the sun’s energy that the earth receives, effecting evaporation rates.
Has that been conclusively ruled out?
I’m just pointing to facts and issues that need to be investigated before we cow to your warming religion.
The funny thing about science, It’s true, until it’s not true. How many dire warnings did we hear about the melting Antartic ice sheet? Tons. It appears the be bad science now.
Or the 2008 ABC report from a major climate change disciple that New York City would be underwater in 2015! Why was his “science” assertions at the time any less valid than my assertions?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june
Just keep worshipping the false climate change gods. You have your religion. I have mine.
“Has that been conclusively ruled out?”
Maybe they just never thought of that! Heh. The scientific world awaits the publication of your blockbuster theories, Kevin. I’m thinking Nobel.
You’re a real fucking moron, Scott. Just shut your fucking trap, asswipe.
kevin:
Now you have conclusively proven you know nothing about, and don’t care to learn about, anything that goes against your religious beliefs. It really kind of fun exposing your shallow view of the world. If the human mind only reached as far as yours we would still be in caves, and riding around on dinosaurs. And maybe eating an occasional dino dung Dilly Bar.
Keep up the good work. You are a great example of why we should not be paying for religious voucher schools, as we don’t get much for the money.
Baldy,
I’m not clear which of your warming religious beliefs you want me to adopt that violate Evangelical Christian beliefs. If we could define that, that would be great. (To serve as a warning to other evangelical Christians about the false warming religion.)
We pay for all religious schools. The difference is, you deny the cold, empty, secular humanist religion in public schools. I can admit my religion.
We will get somewhere when you are capable of admitting your religion.
kevin:
Take religion out of your sound bites. Climate change isn’t a religion, it is science. This is the USA and you can believe in whatever you want, but to keep making the ridiculous claim of “warming religion” is yet more proof of your incurious nature.
Why do I have to admit to a “religion” before we can have a discussion on scientific issues? That sure closes the door on much of the information you gather. Do you only go to evangelical christian doctors?
Are you aware that many of the founders of our country weren’t christian, and warned about theocracy taking control of the USA?
“Why do I have to admit to a “religion” before we can have a discussion on scientific issues? ”
Kevin’s declaration that X = religion is the lynchpin of much of his ridiculousness. He uses it to establish himself as a victim of discrimination and also uses it to basically believe whatever is convenient to his other beliefs–as in this case.
I still find it weird. Looks like Ben Carson is that type as well. He just believes whatever suits him, doesn’t seem to have any criteria to discern the true from the false. Joseph built the pyramids to store grain because why not.
baldy, climate change, or global warming or is now going to be global cooling since things have been cooling down.
Climate change/global warming/global cooling is a fraud by those who have a financial stake in it, like scientists, professors, Al Gore, Obama and the rest of loonies/brain dead thinkers who actually don’t think about common sense.
And oh by the way, I’ve seen climate change. Two weeks ago, it was 90 degrees where I live and two nights ago, it was 25.
That’s climate change and if a professor said it was man made and your goose stepping buddies would believe them, even we just transitioned from Summer to fall.
dan:
What you saw was weather, as in short term seasonal fluctuations in temperature. Climate change is long term, large scale changes in temperature. The earth, as a whole, is getting warmer. Ask any polar bear or Innuit for their opinion.
Since NOAA, NASA, ESA and Nat Geo all disagree with you, I feel safe in being a contrarian as well. Nothing you have said is really relevant to the climate change discussion, but rather just your opinion based on some pretty questionable reasoning.
Yes, scientists all over the world have for decades been conspiring with one another to deceive everyone on the planet. Why? Grant money. Or something. Meanwhile, one of the most profitable industry on the planet–energy–just happens to be on your side of the argument. No worries about their financially motivated biases. Weird, though, how your opinions mirror theirs.
The degree of willful ignorance and self-deception that must be in play to have these opinions is nauseating–and fascinating. Like passing a bad car accident on the highway. I can’t look away.
Yes, scott and baldy, money is on your side and on the side of my side.
But let’s get to the facts.
In reality, the Earth is not warming not\r is it cooling.
Facts are the determining factor.
And you cannot prove with facts, not opinions, that the earth is getting hotter or colder with a great degree of certainty.
So, look at the facts instead of opinions, Baldy and scott and it just might amaze you that weather really hasn’t changed much for decades and decades.
But since I doubt you will look at facts instead opinion, well, it just shows your ignorance.
And I might add to scott and baldy, I actually thought about climate change and read about it.
You two are just lazy and take the opinion of some liberal scientists without any research on your own.
Sucks to be you that you would believe some fakes rather than actually researching the issue. sucks also that you are just a bunch of lazy brain individuals.
Baldy, Scott,
I laugh at how you hate it when I slap “religion” on ideas you believe fervently.
You don’t like it because the “religion” label is used to censor and oppress free speech and ideas. Just like the liberal term “insensitivity” or perpetual liberal position, “that offends me”.
I wanted to encourage both of you on the football coach prayer story to view it as a bunch of people mumbling in the middle of the field and ignore it, but it had to be “prayer” and “religion” worth of being stomped on, and the poor coach, who is a great leader, losing his job.
I feel the climate change religion is such a danger to a free society it needs to be stomped on wherever it rears it’s ugly head in the public sphere.
The climate change religion offends me and is insensitive to my energy bill affordability.
I just hit the trifecta of liberal speech suppression, so this should put the climate change religion back in the closet.
Interesting find on the web the other day.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/christianity_forced_on_public_school_students_in_louisiana.html
“I actually thought about climate change and read about it.
You two are just lazy and take the opinion of some liberal scientists without any research on your own.”
There’s a lesson in this. I think it’s that one can think about and read about something and still retain one’s wrong opinions about it. I guess your position, Dan, is that in spite of commonly accepted science, you’ve found dissenters whom you find convincing. You’re basically saying these few are right and the rest are wrong–and they’re wrong because of their “liberal” biases?
kevin:
While you are certainly free to believe anything you want, and express any opinion you want, your continued denial of science doesn’t serve you, your children, or your community well. Such shortsightedness would never allowed for advances in medicine, travel to the moon, or to put it on a pretty simple level, us having this discussion on the internet.
I actually feel sorry for you and yours for leading such a shallow, uninformed and incurious life. And to justify it all with your religious beliefs is just sad.
Agree, OB. And this kind of thing matters to me. We’re now in a time where we could devastate the planet with nuclear weapons and pollution. It’s really important that we be able to talk about these problems in a reality-based way and leave the superstitions behind. Unfortunately, lots of us are still in the past, trying to wrestle with these issues using the “wisdom” of first century ignoramuses.
I’m for establishing an egalitarian society and exploring space. I fear that instead we’ll plunge ourselves into another thousand year darkness like the one that overtook Europe after the fall of Rome. Europeans lived in the ruins of a clearly better past. I wonder how they felt. I don’t want my great grandchildren to live in the ruins of our world, wondering where we went wrong.