On 11/4/2015 12:06 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


I guess the rise of man and agriculture stopped the ice age 10,000 years
ago.



Yabut, it was a bitch trying to get crops to grow in the permafrost.

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:20:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.

There is plenty of science that demonstrates that CO2 levels have
risen because of man but it seems to be the rise of agriculture as
much as anything else they have proven. This is an 8000 year trend and
tracks population as closely as any other metric.

Nuclear war will fix it but that may not be the way we want to go. ;-)



What's the libertarian approach? Do nothing?

It would be better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. I cite
O'Bamacare as an example.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:58:49 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:20:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.

There is plenty of science that demonstrates that CO2 levels have
risen because of man but it seems to be the rise of agriculture as
much as anything else they have proven. This is an 8000 year trend and
tracks population as closely as any other metric.

Nuclear war will fix it but that may not be the way we want to go. ;-)



What's the libertarian approach? Do nothing?

Only do things that help. Snake oil like carbon credits and ethanol
don't help anything but the bottom line of the people who sell it.

We should be figuring what we are going to do in a warmer world, not
deluding ourselves that we can change it.
That is still far from the biggest danger we face. We have people like
you wringing their hands about global warming that may affect our
great grandchildren and ignoring the debt bubble that could crush the
world economy in a matter of weeks.
It certainly appears that the resulting nuclear war seems to be the
democratic plan for global warming.

On 11/4/15 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:58:49 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:20:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.

There is plenty of science that demonstrates that CO2 levels have
risen because of man but it seems to be the rise of agriculture as
much as anything else they have proven. This is an 8000 year trend and
tracks population as closely as any other metric.

Nuclear war will fix it but that may not be the way we want to go. ;-)



What's the libertarian approach? Do nothing?

Only do things that help. Snake oil like carbon credits and ethanol
don't help anything but the bottom line of the people who sell it.

We should be figuring what we are going to do in a warmer world, not
deluding ourselves that we can change it.
That is still far from the biggest danger we face. We have people like
you wringing their hands about global warming that may affect our
great grandchildren and ignoring the debt bubble that could crush the
world economy in a matter of weeks.
It certainly appears that the resulting nuclear war seems to be the
democratic plan for global warming.


Ahh, life in the libertarian bubble...don't do anything.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:06:07 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


I guess the rise of man and agriculture stopped the ice age 10,000 years
ago.

Cutting down the forests and plowing up the prairie to plant crops did
increase the CO2 levels. The contemporary example is Brazil, the
lefty's sweetheart, who are burning the rain forest and draining
wetlands to grow sugar for ethanol. Oil has far less effect on the
environment.

On 11/4/2015 12:19 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:06 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


I guess the rise of man and agriculture stopped the ice age 10,000 years
ago.


How could that be possible when Dr. Ben believes "creation" didn't
happen that far in the past?


Let's keep it honest and accurate, shall we?

Carson has never made a claim as to *when" mankind was created.
In fact, here's a direct quote by him:

" -- and I’m not a hard and fast person who says the Earth is only 6,000
years old -- "

and, referencing the Bible:

“It says, in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth,� “It
doesn’t say when He created them except for "in the beginning."

BTW, Carson *does* believe in evolution, but not on the grand scale as
proposed by Darwin. He claims that according to the Bible each thing
brought forth was after its own kind. Evolutionary changes *within*
each species has occurred to adapt to changing climates and/or
environments. He has also stated, "But in no way has a species evolved
into another species".

This certainly isn't the view of someone who thinks life on earth is
only 6 or 10 thousand years old.

Gotta keep the liberal smear machine honest once in a while.....

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:27:15 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias — at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.


I doubt there are many scientists who would deny that a rise in
volcanism would "fix" global warming pretty quickly.
If that happens, we would be back to the 70s when the same people were
wringing their hands over global cooling.
When (not if) Yellowstone goes up, there might be a thriving ice
breaking business in the Chesapeake bay.

On 11/4/15 12:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 12:19 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 12:06 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change,
for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


I guess the rise of man and agriculture stopped the ice age 10,000 years
ago.


How could that be possible when Dr. Ben believes "creation" didn't
happen that far in the past?


Let's keep it honest and accurate, shall we?

Carson has never made a claim as to *when" mankind was created.
In fact, here's a direct quote by him:

" -- and I’m not a hard and fast person who says the Earth is only 6,000
years old -- "

and, referencing the Bible:

“It says, in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth,� “It
doesn’t say when He created them except for "in the beginning."

BTW, Carson *does* believe in evolution, but not on the grand scale as
proposed by Darwin. He claims that according to the Bible each thing
brought forth was after its own kind. Evolutionary changes *within*
each species has occurred to adapt to changing climates and/or
environments. He has also stated, "But in no way has a species evolved
into another species".

This certainly isn't the view of someone who thinks life on earth is
only 6 or 10 thousand years old.

Gotta keep the liberal smear machine honest once in a while.....


Gosh...you've evolved into the defender of Obnoxious Trump and Know
Nothing Carson. Congrats.

Oh, and the Carson quote on evolutionary change demonstrates his belief
in the bible over his belief in evolution and evolutionary theory.
Carson is a "creationist," ergo, a believer in superstitious bull****.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyHDJgTYi1k

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.