[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Landru]

"Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible."

Indeed.
Don't we know. LOL

[lowbridge]

Aliens Cause Global Warming.

I always thought that alein spacecraft was carbon neutral.

[CanaGuy]

Here's a little exercise for you folks who still believe the Arctic is melting out of control.

--Open this chart in another window

--On the "x-axis" find "MAY"

--Follow "May" up to the color for the year "2009"

Now, did you notice? Good for you, that's right! May 2009 had the most square kilometers of ice of any year for the past 8 years.

Now go tell your friends, and show them how to read a cartesian chart for themselves, rather than relying on what other people tell you.

[samtheman]

The fact that this was written in 2003, and that the Global Warming Clique is now stronger than ever, is extremely depressing.

This perhaps is the greatest failure of the Bush administration, to ignore this warning and ignore this advice.

Before you jump all over me about “blaming everything on Bush”, read the entire paper — the entire paper, not just part of it, the whole thing — and remember it was written in 2003.

[RatsDawg]

I heard that Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy cause Global Warming.

[Rummyfan]

Marking.....

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

That's not vindication of the rights of the publisher. That, IMHO, is abuse of a privilege.

And it is no different from dominating the public discourse, as the Associated Press and its membership assiduously seeks to do, by preventing full discussion and critique of their arrogant claims by us "commoners."

The right of a publisher to publish is absolute. The privilege of a publisher to restrict other people from republishing the publisher's original work is not a right, it is privilege that Congress is allowed by the Constitution to grant, rather than a right stipulated by the Constitution.

I would argue that journalism in particular merits no more than a day's embargo on repetition. And a magazine, perhaps no more than a month. Always provided that the original publisher is credited for the work, and not blamed for any changes which a republisher might make in the original.