[Chongo]

No one else saw this? 31,000 scientist renounce MMCC. Thye claim they have no funding from "energy related sources"

[url=http://www.petitionproject.org/]Global Warming Petition Project[/url
Global Warming Petition Project

Global Warming Petition Project

4. Who pays for the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is a total fraud. They're the Discovery Institute of the climate change issue. They released this exact same document 7 years ago, even with the same number of "signatories." Here are some responses to it from that time (from wikipedia):

The Petition Project itself used to state:
“ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ”
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]
”
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ”
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]

This "petition" is a complete joke, at least coming from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

[Chongo]

Ah, I see, then they are like the Center for Science in the Public Interest?

[Uncle Skeleton]

How? Is the CSPI dishonest? This being the first time I've heard of them, they seem similar in the respect that "science" in the title has little if anything to do with actual science, is that what you mean?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How? Is the CSPI dishonest? This being the first time I've heard of them, they seem similar in the respect that "science" in the title has little if anything to do with actual science, is that what you mean?

They're the "Food Police." They're the reason popcorn sucks at the movie theater now. If they get their way, we'll all be eating tofu and water cress.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Not Scientific and Not in the Public Interest
CSPI scam | Why the Center For Science in the Public Interest is NOT in the public interest
Center for Science in the Public Interest

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They're the "Food Police." They're the reason popcorn sucks at the movie theater now. If they get their way, we'll all be eating tofu and water cress.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Not Scientific and Not in the Public Interest
CSPI scam | Why the Center For Science in the Public Interest is NOT in the public interest
Center for Science in the Public Interest

I haven't been to a movie theater in almost 2 years. What did they do to popcorn?

[peeb]

They make it from tofu and watercress, apparently. The food police make them do it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I haven't been to a movie theater in almost 2 years. What did they do to popcorn?

They used to make the popcorn with coconut oil. The CSPI issued a report on the the eevils of coconut oil popped popcorn. Now the theaters are using canola. They ruined one of the things that made going to the movies special.
Popcorn: Oil in A Day's Work

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well I guess you're right, the CSPI is on the same level of the Oregon Institute then.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They used to make the popcorn with coconut oil. The CSPI issued a report on the the eevils of coconut oil popped popcorn. Now the theaters are using canola. They ruined one of the things that made going to the movies special.
Popcorn: Oil in A Day's Work

It doesn't seem like they did anything except publish a factually correct report about how much saturated fat was in it. Capitalism and consumer choice seems to have done the rest.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It doesn't seem like they did anything except publish a factually correct report about how much saturated fat was in it. Capitalism and consumer choice seems to have done the rest.

If you diet consisted of nothing but movie theater popcorn. Anything is bad if you eat too much of it, even tofu and water cress. "Supersize Me" proved that. One tub of theater popcorn once in awhile is not going to affect your triglycerides to the point it is in the unhealthy range.
The consumers had no choice. The theater owners bowed to the media campaign and pulled coconut oil, to my knowledge, without even asking their costumers. I would have offered both, and whatever sold more, stayed.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If you diet consisted of nothing but movie theater popcorn. Anything is bad if you eat too much of it, even tofu and water cress. "Supersize Me" proved that. One tub of theater popcorn once in awhile is not going to affect your triglycerides to the point it is in the unhealthy range.
The consumers had no choice. The theater owners bowed to the media campaign and pulled coconut oil, to my knowledge, without even asking their costumers. I would have offered both, and whatever sold more, stayed.

So you are saying that there is a vast, profitable market for popcorn made with coconut oil, and that theaters are refusing to serve this market based solely on a report published by a group of scientists? Come on.

[Chongo]

Yep.

[peeb]

Then I laugh derisively in your general direction. You underestimate capitalism - cigarette companies still produce cigarettes despite many, many reports by scientists, alcohol companies still brew and distill long after we know it is bad for people, and people still live sedentary lives with high fat diets even though scientists tell them it is killing them.

You claim that the popcorn industry is the only one where science has had an impact? Come on - this is a new low, even for you. If these industries can prosper in the fact of withering critique by scientists, it's preposterous to claim that popcorn was killed by one report.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Then I laugh derisively in your general direction. You underestimate capitalism - cigarette companies still produce cigarettes despite many, many reports by scientists, alcohol companies still brew and distill long after we know it is bad for people, and people still live sedentary lives with high fat diets even though scientists tell them it is killing them.

You claim that the popcorn industry is the only one where science has had an impact? Come on - this is a new low, even for you. If these industries can prosper in the fact of withering critique by scientists, it's preposterous to claim that popcorn was killed by one report.

Movie theater popcorn. and coverage on every network news show. Just like one movie killed the super size meal at Micky D's.

Anyway, to get back on topic, all of CSPI reports are based on flawed science, on what might happen if you continue eat this or that. Sound familiar?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Movie theater popcorn. and coverage on every network news show.

I love that you totally sidestep the sucking chest wound in your argument. If one report killed this delicacy, why is popcorn the only victim? Why do the tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug industries thrive despite withering critique from scientists? You don't want to answer this because you can't. If there was a market for unhealthy popcorn theaters would sell it, just like tobacconists continue to sell unhealthy cigarettes.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Anyway, to get back on topic, all of CSPI reports are based on flawed science

Now there's a claim we can test. Show me the flaws in their science. Let's have specifics, not a link to a right wing rant.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sound familiar?

What sounds familiar is the low drone of constant nonsense we hear from you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If talking about popcorn won't get this thread finally locked, what would? Boobies?

[TheWOAT]

How about...

Hitler was an enviromentalist in his day. Coincidence?

That should help.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I love that you totally sidestep the sucking chest wound in your argument. If one report killed this delicacy, why is popcorn the only victim? Why do the tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug industries thrive despite withering critique from scientists? You don't want to answer this because you can't. If there was a market for unhealthy popcorn theaters would sell it, just like tobacconists continue to sell unhealthy cigarettes.

Now there's a claim we can test. Show me the flaws in their science. Let's have specifics, not a link to a right wing rant.

What sounds familiar is the low drone of constant nonsense we hear from you.

Tobacco and alcohol are huge revenue generators for the government, NY will be raising it's tax $1.25 a pack, to $2.75 Hillary planned to fund her '92 health care program by slapping another $1 per pack tax on cigarettes
New York's cigarette tax climbs past New Jersey's to become highest in the nation
The Tax Foundation - State Sales, Gasoline, Cigarette, and Alcohol Tax Rates by State, 2000-2008

[Buckaroo]

$45 trillion needed to combat warming

This Global Warming scam is going to bankrupt every nation. It's a complete waste of money.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/...climate_change

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Tobacco and alcohol are huge revenue generators for the government, NY will be raising it's tax $1.25 a pack, to $2.75 Hillary planned to fund her '92 health care program by slapping another $1 per pack tax on cigarettes

Like with states grabbing 6-7 times more per gallon of gasoline than the oil company profits, we have states taking more money per pack than the cigarette producers earn. What a sham. And the money isn't even being spent on what the states said it would be spent on.

Smokers are disproportionately lower class. As states keep hiking cigarette taxes, they are essentially stealing from poor folks. With less people smoking, states' revenue streams are shrinking. So they hike the tax up even more to compensate. (another kick in the nuts of the poor). At some point, there just won't be enough smokers to keep the confiscated dollars at desired levels. So...

Now the goal is to tax all things carbon. Carbon includes everyone, not just a small segment of the population. No niche target here. If you breathe, the leftists want to seize your money for that right. Un-friggin' believable.

[stupendousman]

I don't have specific knowledge of the group in question, but based on the argument given I can see huge flaws, the first of which is to quote Wikipedia, but I digress :

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is a total fraud. They're the Discovery Institute of the climate change issue.

Opinion. Supported? We will see.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]

They already explained that several of the duplicate names were rechecked and most where in fact real people with real degrees in their claimed fields. Out of 20,000 signers of a petition, for a small handful to come back as fraudulent isn't outside the norm anyways. That in no way entails fraud on the part of the group itself. It appears that they did make efforts to verify most of the signees. 17,800 had been verified. 2,000 not so much.

In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ”

"Crudely extrapoled". Exactly. They found 6 out of 20 how NOW would not agree. That does not mean that they didn't agree at the time and it discounts the fact that they could have received pressure AFTER having their names published and they would not have signed because of that and not because they disagreed.

Even if you assume approximately 1/3 of the signees with climate PHD's disagreed NOW due to the "crude extrapolation" you are left with over 900 climate scientist, not 200. To assume that because someone did not answer, don't remember signing the petition but may still agree (they only stated that 6 they contacted would not have signed), or because someone had died that their scientific estimation no longer matters, is silly and UNscientific.

So, how many people are in the "climatological community"? How many get funding based on the notion that man-made climate change is real? How many of those jobs would cease to exist if it were found that climate changes and man can do little about it? This doesn't sound exactly "scientific" as far as an investigation goes. What kind of results did they get when they investigated petitions from pro-man made global warming groups? You'd really need such a "control" to see if the results gathered by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine where the norm for petitions of this nature, unless you where simply engaged in a partisan attempt to disparage one group over the other, which of course would have little to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

When I hear arguments like 'well...are they climate scientists" I think of research that might go something like this:

Claim: A survey experts in the field of religion find that most do not think that "creation" happened exactly as it appears in the Bible.

Rebutal: Oh yeah, well how many of them where creationists? They are the experts on creation and have studied it as their primary area of research a lot more than say someone interested in religious archeology.

The fact is, most people who go into "climate change" science already believe in man-made global warming. Their minds are made up and they earn a living based on the notion that man-made global warming exists. It's an industry now, and needs funds to perpetuate it. It's not credible to suggest that only an industry that makes money off of MMCC can be true arbiters of the facts regarding MMCC. I'd just as well let Exxon tell me the "truth".

So far...not much credible evidence to support the notion that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a "total fraud". Good try so far though! It does make the people attacking the group look a whole lot more silly and desperate than their target though.

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]

A handful out of almost 20,000. They conceded that about 2,000 COULD NOT be verified. Let's be generous and say that only about 15,000 of the scientists in question could be verified. That's still 15,000 scientists of which almost 900 climate scientists can be credibly counted.

This "petition" is a complete joke, at least coming from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Even if man made climate change is real, it doesn't have much bearing on the attempts to smear the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine using less than honest means and methods, and that's a joke that is TRULY funny!

Fail.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

...
Tobacco and alcohol are huge revenue generators for the government,... bla bla bla

Once again, you sidestep the question completely. Are you unable to read, or just unable to admit you are wrong?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Now the goal is to tax all things carbon. Carbon includes everyone, not just a small segment of the population. No niche target here. If you breathe, the leftists want to seize your money for that right. Un-friggin' believable.

What is 'Un-friggin' believable' is the idea from the right that things don't need to be paid for. That you can wage war without paying for it, and pollute without cleaning it up. Emitting carbon creates problems that need to be cleaned up. I'm sorry that you don't want to pay for the things that you do, but I don't want to subsidize you with any more welfare. Pay your own way. I'm sick of the welfare scrounging right, jeez.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What is 'Un-friggin' believable' is the idea from the right that things don't need to be paid for. That you can wage war without paying for it, and pollute without cleaning it up. Emitting carbon creates problems that need to be cleaned up. I'm sorry that you don't want to pay for the things that you do, but I don't want to subsidize you with any more welfare. Pay your own way. I'm sick of the welfare scrounging right, jeez.

First of all the whole claim that mankind is causing it is a bunch of BS. Second, it's going to happen anyway. The Earth's temperature has been fluctuating for millions of years.

SO WHAT. It's going to happen, let it. Don't waste one cent trying to stop something that is going to happen anyway. Use the money create more farms up north where the snow use to be.

[besson3c]

Move everything further North is supposed to be a better solution than reducing our emissions and burning less fossil fuels, both of which have numerous other advantages and perks?

Gotcha.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Move everything further North is supposed to be a better solution than reducing our emissions and burning less fossil fuels, both of which have numerous other advantages and perks?

Gotcha.

Because our burning fossil fuels have NOTHING to do with GW. It's the sun that is causing GW.

Damn.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Because our burning fossil fuels have NOTHING to do with GW. It's the sun that is causing GW.

Damn.

I sorta have to agree at least in part. It ain't simple.

Partly natural climate change...yes.

Partly man-made...yes, but hardly enuf to effect climate as has been happening the last 50 years.

Sun?...could be. Someone mentioned Mars is warming too. This I dunno enuf about.

The earth is committing hari-kari? It happened before. Anyone see any dinos wondering about. Everytime a major volcano erupts I heard that it effects the atmosphere more than all the cars now rolling on highways would do in one hundred years.

But who am I? I'm the guy who hasn't bought into 'Green Fascism'.

We are unable to stop what is happening. It is beyond us.

I don't even recycle.

When things go pfft! the planet will begin anew. Hopefully without man.

That's all I have to say. Continue on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I sorta have to agree at least in part. It ain't simple.

Partly natural climate change...yes.

Partly man-made...yes, but hardly enuf to effect climate as has been happening the last 50 years.

This is the tough part. I have no problem accepting that man is contributing to polluting the atmosphere and he needs to be a better steward of his environment through disciplined energy usage, recycling, regular care and maintenance on their vehicles including little things like ensuring your tires are fully inflated. What I take issue with is the notion that a gigantic government bureaucracy will provide the solutions through laws and taxation. I can picture an environmental lock-box that gets raided for things like fisheries in San Diego. It'd be nothing more than additional fodder for political debates for the next century not unlike the Social Security lock-box.

Sun?...could be. Someone mentioned Mars is warming too. This I dunno enuf about.

Solar activity has been found a major contributor to historical climate change and there's a wealth of evidence to suggest it remains a large contributor. Again though, the degrees of contribution be it manmade or otherwise are not quantified or clearly defined.

The earth is committing hari-kari? It happened before. Anyone see any dinos wondering about. Everytime a major volcano erupts I heard that it effects the atmosphere more than all the cars now rolling on highways would do in one hundred years.

This has to do with ozone depletion, greenhouse effect, and CFCs. However, zealots will tell you that the emissions of volcanoes are tropospheric and hence get washed out with rain whereas manmade emissions reach the stratosphere and remain. When given evidence such as satellite data after the 1991 eruptions of Mt.Pinatubo that show a substantial loss of ozone, they will tell you that all these aerosols did was provide a "floor" upon which manmade CFCs produce a chemical reaction that destroys even more ozone than the volcano. Anything can and will be connected to mankind.

But who am I? I'm the guy who hasn't bought into 'Green Fascism'.

This is an excellent point. There are many who are quick to fear-monger this issue. Many of the same who accuse those of us more concerned about global-tensions warming of fear-mongering. I've found too many on this issue are more concerned about political climate than global climate and many of their poster-children provide excellent exhibits of hypocrisy.

While I find I'm often involved in heated discussions on this issue and am told I'm irresponsible, and part of the problem, I ride my bike 14 miles to work every day, keep my vehicle tires inflated, turn off lights when not in use, analyzed and reported on fuel usage at work to encourage better driving habits (when I didn't have to); somehow I still need to do more. More than they apparently.

We are unable to stop what is happening. It is beyond us.

It's only a matter of time before someone rails on you for this.

I don't even recycle.

Admittedly, I'm not as good about this as I could be either. Ironically, the implications of failing to recycle are more immediate than the illusory impact of warming. At some point, there are simply too many of us generating too much waste not to.

When things go pfft! the planet will begin anew. Hopefully without man.

That's all I have to say. Continue on.

I'm more concerned about global-tensions warming. There are so many more important things for humanity to address with our resources. It's like stopping to examine and address a spot of oil in the street while a bus is headed directly for you.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Once again, you sidestep the question completely. Are you unable to read, or just unable to admit you are wrong?

Nope. it was cheaper for them to bow to the food police scare tactics than to deal with the inevitable class action lawsuit that someone was going to file.

Caesar Barber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The CSPI advocates taxing food based on their fat content, etc.
Nutrition Action Healthletter - News From CSPI
Taxing Snacks to Reduce Obesity
Fat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


and just in case you missed it
The Tax Foundation - State Sales, Gasoline, Cigarette, and Alcohol Tax Rates by State, 2000-2008


In over 20 states, if you want liquor, you have to buy it from the state run store.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Nope. it was cheaper for them to bow to the food police scare tactics than to deal with the inevitable class action lawsuit that someone was going to file.
Caesar Barber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The CSPI advocates taxing food based on their fat content, etc.
Nutrition Action Healthletter - News From CSPI
Taxing Snacks to Reduce Obesity
Fat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, once again you did the same thing. Posted more irrelevant crap instead of answered the simple question: If companies are so afraid of scientists that one paper shut down the coconut oil popcorn thing, why do we still have tobacco and alcohol?

On the one hand you want to make out that corporations live in fear of these scientist who occasionally put out factual reports tell people that frying stuff in coconut oil is really bad for you, while on the other you have no explanation for how corporations continue to make **** that kills people. Perhaps no scientist has ever criticized tobacco? Oh, wait...

It's far more likely that coconut oil is more expensive than whatever they are using now, and they jumped at the chance to switch - believe me, if it were profitable, they would still be using the coconut.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Because our burning fossil fuels have NOTHING to do with GW. It's the sun that is causing GW.

This is a troll, right?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is a troll, right?

Hell No. You can look at Al Gore's chart if you don't believe me. Of course I don't believe him so you figure it out.

[peeb]

So this is more nonsense from the faith based approach to problems. Great. Good luck with that alternative world view - do you use homeopathic medicine, by chance? Subscribe to Scientology?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So this is more nonsense from the faith based approach to problems. Great. Good luck with that alternative world view - do you use homeopathic medicine, by chance? Subscribe to Scientology?

Not me. I figured the GW believers were from the Cult group. Always jumping from one cult to the next. The GW cult is one of the worst.

[BadKosh]

Why so much money for research?
They have claimed they KNOW ALL ABOUT Mans pollution and capitalist ways and it needs to stop..., and it's time to start doing something.

So, IF they are SURE that GW is man made why research it anymore? Done deal. We just need to pay more than a few TRILLION bucks to scam artists.

NONE of the science bodies need money for more of the same.
Perhaps our institutes of higher learning will develop classes in GW that teach facts, not the continuation of the pop science.
So far all those pop scientists with all their BS haven't been able to show that the models work. These same models are the ones used to predict the future trends, and then rubbed in our noses by the science frauds. These predictions are horribly incorrect, and never got close to known data used to populate the simulation.


Kinds sounds like Hillarys old Health Care scam....

[art_director]

Christ people, Al Gore has been irrelevant since the Supreme Court took his presidential win away. Liberals cling to his climate change message because he's right. Conservatives bash him because they can't find other faults with the Dems in a year where they know Obama will pummel McCan't at the polls in November.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Christ people, Al Gore has been irrelevant since the Supreme Court took his presidential win away. Liberals cling to his climate change message because he's right. Conservatives bash him because they can't find other faults with the Dems in a year where they know Obama will pummel McCan't at the polls in November.

Remember Cook County '60! should have been the rallying cry
Algore lost the Electoral College vote. What USSC did was stop the incessant recounting. Had the counting gone on, and it would have, FL would missed the hard US Constitution deadline and the votes would go to GWB because the FL legislature voted to award them to him.

Eight media organizations (The ballot project was organized in December 2000 by The New York Times and joined by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Tribune Company, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times and The Associated Press, which shared the $900,000 cost.) went down to Fl to "finish the recount" Guess what, GWB still came out ahead, and thus won FL electoral votes. The bigger point is that if Algore had carried hi home state of TN, FL would not have made a difference, and Algore would have won the Electoral College. If you want someone to blame, try Ralph Nader. Nader votes would have definitely gone to Algore.

from
(not a "right wing rag")
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
How the Consortium of News Organizations Conducted the Ballot Review

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Not me. I figured the GW believers were from the Cult group. Always jumping from one cult to the next. The GW cult is one of the worst.

I love that you call science a 'cult'. That's enough of you though, there's really not much point discussing this with someone who thinks of the best science we have as cult - you've earned a place on my ignore list for that one.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I love that you call science a 'cult'.

I don't necessarily agree with him but that's NOT what he said.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Remember Cook County '60! should have been the rallying cry
Algore lost the Electoral College vote. What USSC did was stop the incessant recounting. Had the counting gone on, and it would have, FL would missed the hard US Constitution deadline and the votes would go to GWB because the FL legislature voted to award them to him.

Eight media organizations (The ballot project was organized in December 2000 by The New York Times and joined by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Tribune Company, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times and The Associated Press, which shared the $900,000 cost.) went down to Fl to "finish the recount" Guess what, GWB still came out ahead, and thus won FL electoral votes. The bigger point is that if Algore had carried hi home state of TN, FL would not have made a difference, and Algore would have won the Electoral College. If you want someone to blame, try Ralph Nader. Nader votes would have definitely gone to Algore.

from
(not a "right wing rag")
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
How the Consortium of News Organizations Conducted the Ballot Review

Let's pay attention to the official numbers, shall we? Gore won the popular vote.

This has been rehashed time and again. No point in giving it another swing. Regardless of what the numbers may say, we'll never know the true intention of Americans in that election because so many were illegally prevented from voting in Florida -- another road that's well-worn.

In the end our democracy lost and Americans looked like fools to the world.

[BadKosh]

Ya gotta wonder WHO those folks running the Florida Elections were. Democrats I'm told. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps they were actually tring to protect us? LOL

[art_director]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Ya gotta wonder WHO those folks running the Florida Elections were. Democrats I'm told. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps they were actually tring to protect us? LOL

Sorry, that statement needs to be corrected.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is a troll, right?

Buckaroo is on the same train as Smacintush and Stupendousman. I'm afraid they're quite serious.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Let's pay attention to the official numbers, shall we? Gore won the popular vote.

This has been rehashed time and again. No point in giving it another swing. Regardless of what the numbers may say, we'll never know the true intention of Americans in that election because so many were illegally prevented from voting in Florida -- another road that's well-worn.

In the end our democracy lost and Americans looked like fools to the world.

It doesn't matter who wins the popular vote. (but you know that) We do not vote for the candidate, we vote for electors, who then vote vote for the President.
Four times the candidate with the plurality of the vote did not win, and it will happen again. A candidate could win CA, NY, TX, NJ, FL etc, by thirty percentage points, lose the other states by 5 percentage points, have the most votes, but lose the Electoral College. One could also take the 11 big states by mere percentage points, lose the other 40.....

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Sorry, that statement needs to be corrected.

Katherine Harris was Sec of state, the local election boards chose the ballots, etc. Palm Beach county and the others chosen for recounts were controlled by Democrats.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Katherine Harris was Sec of state, the local election boards chose the ballots, etc. Palm Beach county and the others chosen for recounts were controlled by Democrats...

Conveniently, only the counties with majority support for Gore. Let's not even address the number of military ballots disenfranchised. After all, it may count for a few extra Republican votes.

Also, where's the outrage about Hillary winning the popular vote, states not counting, Obama stealing the election, etc...???

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Sorry, that statement needs to be corrected.

I seem to remember those districts that had all the trouble with counting ballets were Democratic controlled, NOT republican controlled.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Buckaroo is on the same train as Smacintush and Stupendousman. I'm afraid they're quite serious.

I may be on the same train, but don't put me in the same berth with them.

[smacintush]

Are we really going into the 2000 election again?