[Buckaroo]

This would be a lot cheaper than Al Gore's carbon credit scam. Al Gore is nothing but a snake oil salesman.

'GLOBAL WARMING' FIX? Hose up to stratosphere with balloons; Pump out sulfur particles...

Nathan Myhrvold's Anti Global Warming Scheme - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Nathan Myhrvold also thinks that he has found a cheap and reliable way to solve global warming, which does not involve upending and perhaps destroying the world's economy. The global warming solution proposed by Nathan Myhvold involves


Nathan Myhrvold's Anti Global Warming Scheme

running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun's heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming. The estimated cost would be about two hundred and fifty million dollars

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Soooo... now you're admitting that global warming is "real" and that perhaps human beings can do something to counteract it?

greg

[ebuddy]

I'm just wondering how they'll pull the friggin' thing out of the stratosphere in time to avoid runaway cooling. You know... in case they got it wrong in the first place, good government intentions gone bad... that sort of thing.

[besson3c]

Hehe... Journalism at its best:

Nathan Myhrvold also thinks that he has found a cheap and reliable way to solve global warming, which does not involve upending and perhaps destroying the world's economy

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Soooo... now you're admitting that global warming is "real" and that perhaps human beings can do something to counteract it?

greg

I don't believe I have ever said that the weather does not change. It changes all the time. I believe I have said that man kind has had little affect on global warming.

If I recall, the earth itself gives off many times more CO2 then man could ever produce. Besides, I personally suspect that in (I don't know, maybe) a 1000 years or so, we'll be fighting an ice age. Another excuse to tax us to the stone age.

BTW, I am all in favor for building wind mills, nuclear plants, and solar panels, but for a different reason then Al Gore's carbon credit scam.

Humans are putting the brakes on the next ice age, according to the most extensive study to date on Arctic climate change.

Next Ice Age Delayed by Global Warming, Study Says

The mini ice age starts here



The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.


Read more: DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

[Buckaroo]

Now the truth is starting to come out. The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is a railway engineer with no degrees in climate, but he does have conflicts on interest in partnerships with companies that deal with government grants on global warming.

Every single scientist that claims that global warming is real, is getting grants and kickbacks for backing this scam, including the kingpin himself Al Gore.


THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: The new climate change scandal

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.
It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.
Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development.

UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning - Times Online

The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

[stupendousman]

The worse thing about all this is that after all these years of "scientists" insisting they be taken seriously and had no agenda, people are going to mistrust science.

Since we've been told over and over by the media that all scientists agreed, then all of science is culpable for either getting it wrong, or being part of a well intentioned scam. Chicken Little has nothing on these folks. It will be a shame when and if the sky ever really is ready to fall.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The worse thing about all this is that after all these years of "scientists" insisting they be taken seriously and had no agenda, people are going to mistrust science.

Since we've been told over and over by the media that all scientists agreed, then all of science is culpable for either getting it wrong, or being part of a well intentioned scam. Chicken Little has nothing on these folks. It will be a shame when and if the sky ever really is ready to fall.

And who can blame them for their mistrust when science is politicized?
American Thinker: Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head

[Buckaroo]

Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Here is how it worked in one case.

A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?

What it comes down to is, these scientists and Al Gore get paid if they keep the scam going. As long as they can keep the truth from the people. If their lies get out, then they loose the funding.




Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists'

. . . state passes bill disputing science of climate change, claiming emissions are 'essentially harmless' arbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?

Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists' | Environment | guardian.co.uk



Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk




Hopefully one day Al Gore will be in jail for his crimes.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Pajamas Media � Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

WEATHER: HOTTEST JANUARY EVER SAY CLIMATE EXPERTS

CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen.
The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.

But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.
“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.
“It’s been the coldest for 30 years in Britain but we predicted that and climate change always tends t o throw up anomalies. It’s all in line with predictions and I won’t be sold on climate change at all. The data is either faulty or manufactured to make it look like it shouldn’t.”
The Met Office yesterday revealed it would re-examine 150 years of world temperature records to restore faith in its data in the wake of a number of high-profile blunders dubbed “climategate”.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Weather: Hottest January ever say climate experts

[Montezuma58]

I wonder what the carbon foot print of his latest property is? I guess he wants an up close view of the sea levels rising.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

I wonder what the carbon foot print of his latest property is? I guess he wants an up close view of the sea levels rising.

I don't know about his property, but his life is getting some chilling affects.


On top of that, his claims of islands sinking below the surface of the water is full of BS.

AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change.

For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.

Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

On top of that, his claims of islands sinking below the surface of the water is full of BS.

But not due to the fact that sea-level isn't rising. Anyone who has studied carbonate geology knows that atolls, composed of living coral, respond to both sea-level rising and falling.

Was this a bad example for Gore to highlight? Yes. Does it disprove global warming and it's effects? No.

[BadKosh]

I think Tipper has had enough of Al's hot air too.

[besson3c]

BadKosh: I see your accusations of people being obsessed with Sarah Palin and raise you with your obsession of Al Gore

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Was this a bad example for Gore to highlight? Yes. Does it disprove global warming and it's effects? No.

Actually, it DOES disprove one of it's claimed effects. Definitively.

If you say global warming will cause these islands to sink, and they remain stable, then that pretty much demolishes that claim. It doesn't demolish ALL claims, but that one's been pretty much proven to be bogus. The question then remains which of the other claims will end up being shown to be bogus as well? None? A few? All? We'll see.

Sorry.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BadKosh: I see your accusations of people being obsessed with Sarah Palin and raise you with your obsession of Al Gore

Except I can't stand Palin. So you lose yet again. Gore is still a dick.

[Uncle Skeleton]

There's a big leap from "can't stand" to "can't resist commenting about"

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, it DOES disprove one of it's claimed effects. Definitively.

A primary effect of global warming is sea-level rising. And it's happening. We can all agree to that.

A primary effect of sea-level rising is that, generally, low-lying areas will become submerged. That a few areas, specifically coral atolls, (but not including volcanic islands, coastal shorelines, etc*) can adapt to sea-level rising is due to their biological nature. (try inching your dog's food bowl farther from it's normal spot and see what happens—nearer or farther doesn't matter—your dog will adapt)

Gore chose a bad example—the wrong example even—for demonstrating the effects of sea-level rise, but it doesn't negate the fact that 1) sea-level is rising, nor that 2) this planet is warming.

*local conditions apply—glacial isostatic rebounding, sediment deposition subsidence, but that's why we take averages. etc

[hyteckit]

2010 on record to be the hottest year.

March 2010 - hottest March
April 2010 - hottest April

Global temperatures push March 2010 to hottest March on record

2010: Warmest year on record - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There's a big leap from "can't stand" to "can't resist commenting about"

I have no such compulsion. Obviously you are trolling again.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

2010 on record to be the hottest year.

March 2010 - hottest March
April 2010 - hottest April

Global temperatures push March 2010 to hottest March on record

2010: Warmest year on record - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Clearly they're lying. I saw snow.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Gore chose a bad example—the wrong example even...

Garbage in-Gospel out huh? Perhaps he's just not too good at 'science' ?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I have no such compulsion. Obviously you are trolling again.

what do you call what you are doing?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps he's just not too good at 'science' ?

Considering you're completely ignorant in pretty much everything science related, you're one of the last people to judge.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Considering you're completely ignorant in pretty much everything science related, you're one of the last people to judge.

And you would know because? I'll wait for you to pull your nose out of Gores behind.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Garbage in-Gospel out huh? Perhaps he's just not too good at 'science' ?

That's what I'm starting to think. Honestly, he does seem a bit sloppy at times—in the ballpark, but not quite accurate on the finer points. How much is due to his misunderstanding? How much due to 'pixelation' of adapting a grand idea into small, easier to consume bites for a documentary/speech?

I know this thread is about 'Al Gore' and as such doesn't contain any serious debunking of global warming. However, simply because global warming has a bad spokesperson, that doesn't automatically invalidate it.

[BadKosh]

I think the question of the validity of the data casts serious doubts on whatever conclusions are to be made. That some would have the same conclusions as before the data was known to be suspect is a problem.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And you would know because?

Nearly everything science related you've typed so far in any thread.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'll wait for you to pull your nose out of Gores behind.

I wasn't defending Al Gore.

[besson3c]

No, the question of validity allows for political smokescreens and a lot of partisan tactics.

Whether you believe in the theories of global warming or not, there are many, many reasons why we should be focusing on energy alternatives. This issue seems more often used as a wedge issue to buy time and allow us to stall with really moving forward on doing the very things that Al Gore would be advocating, if not for the reasons he would be citing.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, the question of validity allows for political smokescreens and a lot of partisan tactics.

Whether you believe in the theories of global warming or not, there are many, many reasons why we should be focusing on energy alternatives. This issue seems more often used as a wedge issue to buy time and allow us to stall with really moving forward on doing the very things that Al Gore would be advocating, if not for the reasons he would be citing.

Damn straight. Partisan shills would rather argue that a Politician is not a Scientist (der), instead of focusing on clean renewable energies to bring us into the future. I think Al Gore is an alarmist, but he's a goddamn politician, not a scientist. Real scientists all seem to agree that A. The world is warming and B. Sea levels are rising.

Call me crazy, but I'll take the word of thousands of scientists around the globe without hesitation. In science I trust, and I seem to remember it doing something for us in the past.

[BadKosh]

So by politicians hampering and de-funding R&D, they make it nearly impossible to develop new energy sources or build an infrastructure to distribute it. That's why electric cars are still way off from daily use by the masses. Wind farms get shot down by those who don't want them in their back yard, and the same for nuke plants, or coal plants.

It wouldn't be horribly expensive to put up cantinary cable over the nations railroads and power locomotives from electricity off the wires instead of burning diesel fuel. Heavy construction equipment and trucks may need more development to make them efficient. whatever methods we decide on, we need to get moving on the distribution side, not just simple prototyping.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Nearly everything science related you've typed so far in any thread.

And you would know because???????? Are you a practicing scientist? Is science a hobby? Did you take a science class in high school?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

2010 on record to be the hottest year.

March 2010 - hottest March
April 2010 - hottest April

Global temperatures push March 2010 to hottest March on record

2010: Warmest year on record - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Clearly they're lying. I saw snow.

They're still waiting for sumer in Idaho
More rain in Boise. When will it stop? When will the sun return? Where is summer? | Boise, Garden City, Mountain Home | Idaho Statesman

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And you would know because???????? Are you a practicing scientist? Is science a hobby? Did you take a science class in high school?

Seriously, on an internet discussion board, what kind of credentials would satisfy you? Does someone need at least a PhD in atmosphere sciences to discuss climate science? Would you suddenly start believing what I type if I told you I had such a degree? From Harvard no less?

How seriously others take a poster is based on what they write. My opinion is based on your words. And my opinion is your interest is in partisan sniping and oneupmanship, not science (please prove me wrong).

Originally Posted by BadKosh

CNN? Any credible news orgs?

Originally Posted by BadKosh

He's coming to Virginia to 'help' Cree Deeds campaign. Think Al will get environmental questions?

Originally Posted by BadKosh

It' just an Icicle.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

I think Tipper has had enough of Al's hot air too.

There are good arguments to be had against global warming. Try one on for a change, and people will start taking you seriously.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They're still waiting for sumer in Idaho
More rain in Boise. When will it stop? When will the sun return? Where is summer? | Boise, Garden City, Mountain Home | Idaho Statesman

I think we're all still waiting on summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Oh wait, is Idaho in one of those special time zones that's a month ahead of everybody else?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Damn straight. Partisan shills would rather argue that a Politician is not a Scientist (der), instead of focusing on clean renewable energies to bring us into the future. I think Al Gore is an alarmist, but he's a goddamn politician, not a scientist. Real scientists all seem to agree that A. The world is warming and B. Sea levels are rising.

Call me crazy, but I'll take the word of thousands of scientists around the globe without hesitation. In science I trust, and I seem to remember it doing something for us in the past.

BUt even if you still don't believe all of that or that man is a cause of this, there are *still* many great reasons to support pushing us towards cleaner non-oil based fuel sources, particularly reasons along the lines of security and our economy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BUt even if you still don't believe all of that or that man is a cause of this, there are *still* many great reasons to support pushing us towards cleaner non-oil based fuel sources, particularly reasons along the lines of security and our economy.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And you would know because????????

You've yet to demonstrate any understanding of basic scientific principles.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Is science a hobby?

Yes.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Did you take a science class in high school?

Yes. College, too. I also try to keep myself up to date on recent scientific publications. I guess you could call me an armchair scientists.

You seemed to have fallen asleep during science class and never woke up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We agree on something!!

Really, it's been how many years since an Inconvenient Truth? People are not going to agree on this stuff, at least not anytime soon. They just aren't. So, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, let's focus on the other several reasons for the so-called Apollo project towards alternative energy sources. Perhaps the Al Gore approach is doing us more harm than good and we should focus more on the Thomas Friedman approach?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You've yet to demonstrate any understanding of basic scientific principles.



Yes.



Yes. College, too. I also try to keep myself up to date on recent scientific publications. I guess you could call me an armchair scientists.

You seemed to have fallen asleep during science class and never woke up.

Except I've actually built my own telescope (8" Newtonian reflector) in which I ground the objective and put together the pedestal mount, clock drive and such. I've also put together a "Comet" projector mod on the high schools Zeiss planetarium projector. I've been an astronomer as a hobby for over 40 years, and know enough to ask intelligent questions to folks at NASA, where I work. It's those folks who have doubts about the global warming data, and I have asked the same questions here but those who believe its man made don't have the answers about the flawed data or why the conclusions should not change with the data. One of the Planetary Atmospheres Scientists stated that they aren't even sure of the impact of clouds on climate, so the rest is more speculation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, the question of validity allows for political smokescreens and a lot of partisan tactics.

Whether you believe in the theories of global warming or not, there are many, many reasons why we should be focusing on energy alternatives. This issue seems more often used as a wedge issue to buy time and allow us to stall with really moving forward on doing the very things that Al Gore would be advocating, if not for the reasons he would be citing.

Indeed Besson. Good post.

I think we should start with nuclear. Its the cleanest, safest, and least environmentally hazardous form of energy there is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Indeed Besson. Good post.

I think we should start with nuclear. Its the cleanest, safest, and least environmentally hazardous form of energy there is.

I agree, especially with large scale electricity provision.

I just hope that this endless debate doesn't drag on and on and on and stall these sorts of pursuits. I have no misconception that both Democrats and Republicans would love to keep things the way they are in order to benefit the oil industries and their own interests, but the whole "drill baby, drill" seems a little louder in Sarah Palin's camp and among others on the right.

Whether we should permit drilling for the short term is less interesting to me, and maybe this is all that the right is advocating for in terms of drilling, but I'm far more interested in hearing some big picture solutions from either side.

Obviously replacing gas in our cars would be a big step forward, but clean energy sources (or however you want to label non-oil based sources) for everything else would also be a very big step forward. Haven't heard much about advancing the latter.

I'm also not sure what I feel about clean coal technology, I don't know much about it, but my gut feeling says that this is another stop gap measure at best. Just seems old school. I'm far more interested in nuclear, wind, and the like...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We agree on something!!

Really, it's been how many years since an Inconvenient Truth? People are not going to agree on this stuff, at least not anytime soon. They just aren't. So, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, let's focus on the other several reasons for the so-called Apollo project towards alternative energy sources. Perhaps the Al Gore approach is doing us more harm than good and we should focus more on the Thomas Friedman approach?

More like the Pickens approach IMO, but yeah. I'm not a fan of proposals that include "cap and invest" language and unfortunately those are in abundance.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just hope that this endless debate doesn't drag on and on and on and stall these sorts of pursuits. I have no misconception that both Democrats and Republicans would love to keep things the way they are in order to benefit the oil industries and their own interests, but the whole "drill baby, drill" seems a little louder in Sarah Palin's camp and among others on the right.

It's a shame you've tied that sentiment to Sarah Palin. In fact, I often wonder how much weight her name would carry if it weren't invoked ad nauseam by the left. Anyway, you're familiar with the catch-phrase as popularized of late, but the ideals behind the chant are quite sound and logical. Tapping local resources of oil reduces our dependence on foreign sources and can be brought online relatively quickly. It is one component of any well-rounded energy policy. Make no mistake, we will be using oil for the foreseeable future and while this usage will drastically decline over time, it will remain an integral part of our transition to alternatives. Creating those jobs and spending that money locally are both great ways to get started. To deny this is... well its very leftistish.

Whether we should permit drilling for the short term is less interesting to me, and maybe this is all that the right is advocating for in terms of drilling, but I'm far more interested in hearing some big picture solutions from either side.

There are a lot of ideas out there, but too often they are packaged with items that have little or nothing to do with the goal and much to do with some special interest.

Obviously replacing gas in our cars would be a big step forward, but clean energy sources (or however you want to label non-oil based sources) for everything else would also be a very big step forward. Haven't heard much about advancing the latter.

I'm also not sure what I feel about clean coal technology, I don't know much about it, but my gut feeling says that this is another stop gap measure at best. Just seems old school. I'm far more interested in nuclear, wind, and the like...

In the midwest naturally I'm intrigued by wind and the prospect of "farming" that resource throughout the US, but shale, a number of plants that produce oil, nuclear, natural gas for our vehicles as we transition, and clean coal etc..., let's get 'em all online as soon as possible as some regions work more effectively for one resource than another. All of these are ways of weaning us off of oil and foreign sources of it and all of these US sources will generate US jobs and boost our economy affording us the ability to transition more comfortably.

[BadKosh]

So NOW he's cheating with Larry David's ex-wife.

Star Magazine | News | Exclusive: Al Gore Cheats with Larry David's Ex

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So NOW he's cheating with Larry David's ex-wife.

Star Magazine | News | Exclusive: Al Gore Cheats with Larry David's Ex

And sexually assaulting women. Pathetic. And they teach his creed in schools? Pure scum, top to bottom.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

She said she repeatedly told him to stop, while he giggled, as she feared being raped. Gore twice gave her an "open mouth" kiss, offered her chocolates and Grand Marnier, grabbed her bra strap then pushed her on the bed and lay next to her as he played the Pink song "Dear Mr President."

This deserves an lol in spite of the terrible circumstances.


Also, what does "teaching his creed in schools" have to do with it? That's the dumbest argument ever made. It's the exact same thing as saying:

1. Shouldn't show Picasso/Van Gogh/etc. because of their many personal failings.

2. Shouldn't listen to Jimi Hendrix/Rolling Stones/Britney Spears/etc. because of their many personal failings.

3. Shouldn't teach Newtonian physics because Isaac held controversial views on religion and believed in totally oddball things like alchemy.

4. Shouldn't teach chess theory advocated by Bobby Fischer because he was a racist/anti-Semite.


...and yadda yadda yadda, to infinity and beyond.


Sometimes the idiocy of these statements hurts my head.

greg

[besson3c]

There is no idiocy in the PWL, you take that back you bag of beans!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no idiocy in the PWL, you take that back you bag of beans!

Do NOT use my ad homs in vain.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This deserves an lol in spite of the terrible circumstances.


Also, what does "teaching his creed in schools" have to do with it? That's the dumbest argument ever made. It's the exact same thing as saying:

1. Shouldn't show Picasso/Van Gogh/etc. because of their many personal failings.

2. Shouldn't listen to Jimi Hendrix/Rolling Stones/Britney Spears/etc. because of their many personal failings.

3. Shouldn't teach Newtonian physics because Isaac held controversial views on religion and believed in totally oddball things like alchemy.

4. Shouldn't teach chess theory advocated by Bobby Fischer because he was a racist/anti-Semite.


...and yadda yadda yadda, to infinity and beyond.


Sometimes the idiocy of these statements hurts my head.

greg

I have a different theory on why your head hurts.

I don't want my children being forced to watch an inconvenient truth, when the person responsible for the video is ethically bankrupt. Its a bad message to send to our children.