Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Soros Paid Off NASA Scientist

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: shagdrum

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....75526219598836

The Soros Threat To Democracy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.

Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.

"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.

That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.

Posted by: fossten

Bingo!

Posted by: Marcus

Hell, Soros has nothing on Richard Mellon Scaife

Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

By Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page A1

First of two articles

One August day in 1994, while gossiping about politics over lunch on Nantucket, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire and patron of conservative causes, made a prediction. "We're going to get Clinton," Joan Bingham, a New York publisher present at the lunch, remembers him saying. "And you'll be much happier," he said to Bingham and another Democrat at the table, "because Al Gore will be president."

Bingham was startled at the time, but in the years since – as Clinton has struggled with an onslaught from political enemies – Scaife's assertion came to seem less and less far-fetched.

Scaife did get involved in numerous anti-Clinton activities. He gave $2.3 million to the American Spectator magazine to dig up dirt on Clinton and supported other conservative groups that harassed the president and his administration. The White House and its allies responded by fingering Scaife as the central figure in "a vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," as Hillary Rodham Clinton described it. James Carville, Clinton's former campaign aide and rabid defender, called Scaife "the archconservative godfather in [a] heavily funded war against the president."

But people who know him well say that although Scaife is fond of conspiracy theories of many kinds, he is incapable of managing any sort of grand conspiracy himself. And months of reporting produced no evidence of his orchestrating any effort to "get" Clinton beyond his financial support. Indeed, focusing on his role in the crusade against Clinton can obscure the 66-year-old philanthropist's real importance, which is not based on his opposition or support for any individual politicians (though he once gave Richard M. Nixon $1 million). His biggest contribution has been to help fund the creation of the modern conservative movement in America.

By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife's giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate.

In the world of big-time philanthropy, there are many bigger givers. The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone. But by concentrating his giving on a specific ideological objective for nearly 40 years, and making most of his grants with no strings attached, Scaife's philanthropy has had a disproportionate impact on the rise of the right, perhaps the biggest story in American politics in the last quarter of the 20th century.

His money has established or sustained activist think tanks that have created and marketed conservative ideas from welfare reform to enhanced missile defense; public interest law firms that have won important court cases on affirmative action, property rights and how to conduct the national census; organizations and publications that have nurtured conservatism on American campuses; academic institutions that have employed and promoted the work of conservative intellectuals; watchdog groups that have critiqued and harassed media organizations, and many more.

Together these groups constitute a conservative intellectual infrastructure that provided ideas and human talent that helped Ronald Reagan initiate a new Republican era in 1980, and helped Newt Gingrich initiate another one in 1994. Conservative ideas once dismissed as flaky or extreme moved into the mainstream, and as the liberal National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy concluded in a recent report, "The long-standing conservative crusade to discredit government as a vehicle for societal progress has come to fruition as never before."

The ideas behind this success did not come from Scaife. Even the conservative activists who know him best say he rarely offers his own ideas or opinions, and most of those who get money from him have no personal relations with him or don't know him at all.

"I don't see anything resembling a grand strategy about the man," said James Whelan, who was editor of the Sacramento Union when Scaife owned it and later became editor of the Washington Times. "In general he sees certain villains in American life and society and thinks he should do everything he can to attack them and bring them down."

Scaife declined to be interviewed for this story, but in written answers to questions about his motivation, he said: "Our funding is based on our support of ideas like limited government, individual rights and a strong defense."

As for himself, he added: "I am not a politician, although like most Americans I have some political views. Basically I am a private individual who has concerns about his country and who has resources that give me the privilege – and responsibility – to do something to help my country if I can."

If Scaife's explanations seem vague, his achievement is not. Besides acting on his own visceral reactions, Scaife has backed people he admired and institutions he favored with lots of money, without ever telling them what to do. He has done this consistently, patiently, over four decades.

Frank Shakespeare, director of the U.S. Information Agency in the first Nixon administration and Scaife's colleague for years on the board of the Heritage Foundation, summarized the accomplishment: "Dick Scaife has made a real difference in his country – and has had an impact on the larger world."

A Philanthropic Heir Embraces 'the War of Ideas'

To make his mark on history, Scaife had to overcome long odds. In his youth he seemed star-crossed, even to many of his friends. He grew up in a household dominated by his mother's alcoholism, in a family whose members specialized in "making each other totally miserable," in the rueful words of his sister, Cordelia Scaife May.

At 9 he spent a year in bed after his skull was fractured by a horse. Yale University suspended him for drunken pranks, then kicked him out entirely before he could complete his freshman year. At 22 he caused a car accident that almost killed him and injured five members of one family, who won a large legal settlement. He had a drinking problem most of his adult life, finally getting on the wagon in the early 1990s. He has feuded bitterly with friends, employees and relatives. He has no relations with his daughter, and hasn't spoken to his sister for 25 years.

Scaife inherited his philanthropic role from his mother. She had established trusts and foundations whose earnings, under the tax law, had to be given away. She began encouraging her son to participate in family philanthropy after his father died suddenly in 1958.

Sarah Scaife's causes were family planning, the poor and the disabled, hospitals, environmental causes and various good works in and around Pittsburgh. Her most famous gifts, in the late 1940s, were to the University of Pittsburgh – $35,000 to equip a virus research lab. In that lab, Jonas Salk discovered his polio vaccine.

The available recorded history of Scaife's donations to conservative causes in the database assembled by The Post begins in 1962 with small grants of $25,000 or less to groups with educational missions on conservative themes – the American Bar Association's Fund for Public Education for "education against communism," for example.

Over the next two years he ventured a little further into the conservative world, making donations to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University and the brand-new Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 1963 he began supporting the American Enterprise Institute.

The events of 1964 were a turning point for Scaife, and for American conservatives. Scaife was an alternate to the Republican Convention that chose Arizona Sen. Barry M. Goldwater as the party's presidential nominee, and he became an active contributor and supporter. He escorted Goldwater on the Scaife family airplane to California in July 1964 to attend the Bohemian Grove retreat, a boozy and confidential gathering of conservative, mostly wealthy men.

Confounded by Goldwater's devastating defeat that November, many conservatives concluded that they could only win an election in the future by matching their enemy's firepower. It was time, as a Scaife associate of that era put it, to wage "the war of ideas." Scaife enthusiastically adopted this view.

"We saw what the Democrats were doing and decided to do the mirror image, but do it better," this Scaife associate said. "In those days [the early 1970s] you had the American Civil Liberties Union, the government-supported legal corporations [neighborhood legal services programs], a strong Democratic Party with strong labor support, the Brookings Institution, the New York Times and Washington Post and all these other people on the left – and nobody on the right." The idea was to correct that imbalance. "And the first idea was to copy what works."

This sort of thinking went far beyond Scaife's office in Pittsburgh. He was riding a wave at the same time he contributed to it. Former congressman Vin Weber, an early and active member of the "movement conservative" Republican faction on Capitol Hill, recalled that "people on the right were absolutely convinced that there was a vast, left-wing conspiracy" that had to be mimicked and countered with new conservative organizations that were "philosophically sound, technologically proficient and movement-oriented." This became a mantra for the new conservative activists.

Sarah Scaife died in 1965, and her son then had a freer hand to reorient the family giving. By 1976, the year Jimmy Carter was elected president, Scaife's conservative interests had come to dominate the foundations' giving. Just more than half of the $18 million in grants that year went to conservative recipients. By 1980, the year Ronald Reagan defeated Carter, conservative groups were awarded $13 million of about $18 million in Scaife grants. Conservative interests have continued to predominate in Scaife's philanthropy ever since.

While Scaife's money supported individual institutions, his office in Pittsburgh encouraged the evolution of a new community of activists on the right. One longtime recipient of Scaife's support recalled a meeting convened in California in 1973 by Richard M. Larry, Scaife's longtime chief aide, where his beneficiaries could meet one another. A person who attended the California meeting said he was delighted to find people there he'd never heard of – a new peer group on the right.

The Heritage Foundation became an important part of the right's community-building efforts. Scaife first contributed to Heritage in 1974. Soon afterward, using money from Scaife, Heritage established its resource bank, a compilation of conservative organizations, which from 1982 was published in the Directory of Public Policy Organizations, a guide to the new right-wing establishment. The current edition lists 300 groups; 111 have received grants from Scaife, 76 of them in 1998.

Heritage, organized by former staff assistants to Republican lawmakers whose goal was to influence both Congress and the news media with a stream of brief, meaty position papers on issues of the day, became Scaife's favorite beneficiary. When it began to make a mark in the mid-1970s, Joseph Coors, the beer magnate, was commonly credited as its chief financial patron. Coors did put up the first $250,000. But within two years, according to Heritage officials, Scaife had given more than twice as much, and he has kept on giving ever since – more than $23 million in all, or about $34 million in inflation-adjusted, current dollars. At Heritage the joke was, "Coors gives six-packs; Scaife gives cases."

With Scaife's early contributions, Heritage could thrive. In 1976, Heritage's third year of operation, Scaife gave $420,000, or 42 percent of the foundation's total income of $1,008,557. This early support was "absolutely critical," said the president of the foundation, Edwin J. Feulner Jr.

Scaife continues to give generously to Heritage – $1.3 million in 1998. But Heritage took in $43 million last year, so his gift represented just 3 percent of its income.

PART TWO HERE

Seriously, are you guys actually shocked by any of this? Do I have to list out the hundreds of right-wing think tanks and organizations, who try to shape public policy, and are funded almost entirely by wealthy donors? None of this is news to anybody who pays attention.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Seriously, are you guys actually shocked by any of this? Do I have to list out the hundreds of right-wing think tanks and organizations, who try to shape public policy, and are funded almost entirely by wealthy donors? None of this is news to anybody who pays attention.

Are you purposely trying to miss the point?

Your articles don't really "counter" anything...

Conservatives and Liberals both fund think tanks, doesn't make them any less credible in and of itself. The problem here is, anyone who isn't funded by the government when it comes to GW is branded as bias and "having no credibility" by the left (even though the government effectively promotes only research to promote a certian bias). The issue here is that Soros is acting somewhat "under the table" here, and blatantly hypocricial. He calls for transparency for everyone except himself and his organizations. His organizations are somewhat dubious in nature to as compared to the Heritage Foundation...

Posted by: fossten

I see nowhere in the article where Scaife gave three quarters of a million dollars to a NASA employee or any government employee for that matter. All I see is a guy contributing to conservative causes. There's nothing shady about that. What Soros did was shady, especially, as Shagdrum said, because it was hidden until now and because Hansen's data has now been discredited.

Hansen will go down in infamy as the latest version of Joe Wilson.

So what Tommy's doing here is using his tired, old canard of "Oh yeah? Well - uh - you guys did it too! Yeah, that's the ticket!" Except his "evidence" DOESN'T support his wild claim.

Posted by: Calabrio

Scaife has long been a demon of the left. Why? Because he supported the free exchange of ideas. Liberals and leftists were confident that they had shut conservatism out of the public realm after controling Hollywood, congress, and the education system (college and universities). Scaife was among those who worked to change this.

ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what Soros is doing. Scaife didn't opperate in the shadows. Scaife didn't seek to destroy disagreement. Scaife didn't seek to LIMIT the debate or the free flow of ideas.

To equate Sorros to Scaife demonstrates how little you understand Tommy.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

To equate Sorros to Scaife demonstrates how little you understand Tommy.

Definition of the village idiot: A guy who doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

Hell, Soros has nothing on Richard Mellon Scaife.

Typical Dim response: Oh YA! Well my daddy is bigger than your daddy.

Posted by: shagdrum

basically, Scaife trys to add to the debate, while Soros trys to remove from the debate...

Posted by: Marcus

Hansen has been talking about global warming since the 80's, so the article's assertion that Soros' money somehow influenced his conclusions has no weight. Furthermore, it offers no documentation to show that Hansen ever pocketed a penny of the money, only that the OSI spent it on offering him "legal and media advice" (which they also enclose in quotes to imply something fishy).

So the article offers no evidence whatsoever that Hansen was "bought off". It only implies it, which you sheep swallow hook, line and sinker.

The fact that the Bush administration and some of its political appointees have indeed re-written scientific reports to downplay or cast doubts on GW is well documented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Scaife has long been a demon of the left. Why? Because he supported the free exchange of ideas. Liberals and leftists were confident that they had shut conservatism out of the public realm after controling Hollywood, congress, and the education system (college and universities). Scaife was among those who worked to change this.

ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what Soros is doing. Scaife didn't opperate in the shadows. Scaife didn't seek to destroy disagreement. Scaife didn't seek to LIMIT the debate or the free flow of ideas.

To equate Sorros to Scaife demonstrates how little you understand Tommy.

Care to explain a little better how they are different, other than simply making the accusation based on a straw man? The law requires the records to be made available. I found a long list of projects the OSI funds right on their web site, along with dollar amounts. So how is Soros "operating in the shadows"? And how is he seeking to "LIMIT the debate or the free flow of ideas"?

To suggest that Scaife and the hundreds of right-wing organizations and think tanks are not trying to limit debate by confusing the debate demonstrates how little you understand Calabrio.

Posted by: shagdrum

Confusing the issue?? That whole last post shows your blatant double standard. Confusing the issue is what you are trying to do here, right-wing think tanks try to get the facts out, not confuse the issue, but instead paint an accurate picture. You seem to refuse to believe anything that comes from the mouth of anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, facts be damned.

Everyone on this board, including you knows that if this article were attacking someone on the right who spouts a position you disagree with, and not Hansen, you threshold for credibility would be a heluva lot lower. As it is, you make yourself look petty by just trying to spin this so you don't have to accept it.

Posted by: fossten

Have you guys noticed that it takes Tommy a day or two to respond? I guess his buddies at Mediamatters and DailyKos have to feed him his talking points first.

Posted by: shagdrum

makes you wonder...

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Have you guys noticed that it takes Tommy a day or two to respond? I guess his buddies at Mediamatters and DailyKos have to feed him his talking points first.

I should work out a link with those sites so we could take on all those tinfoilhatters.

Not a good idea on second thought. I would have to wrap my head with duct tape so it wouldn't explode.

Posted by: shagdrum

Remember, you can't reason with the unreasonable...

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I should work out a link with those sites so we could take on all those tinfoilhatters.

Not a good idea on second thought. I would have to wrap my head with duct tape so it wouldn't explode.

NO, Bryan. Think Ghostbusters when the power to the vault was shut off.

Posted by: MonsterMark

.

Posted by: MonsterMark

TommyB just logged off from MediaMatters a couple of seconds ago so he should be posting shortly.

Watch the time and date.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Waiting...waiting... patience everyone.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Confusing the issue?? That whole last post shows your blatant double standard. Confusing the issue is what you are trying to do here, right-wing think tanks try to get the facts out, not confuse the issue, but instead paint an accurate picture. You seem to refuse to believe anything that comes from the mouth of anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, facts be damned.

To the right of Bill Clinton?

LOL

Actually, that's your problem. You look at every issue in terms of Left or Right, and see nothing but a conspiracy to destroy civilization, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada. If that was the case, how does Soros fit into the conspiracy? He made his billions under the capitalist system. If the goal of scientists like Hansen is to tear down capitalism and hinder economic growth, what's in it for Soros? I guess I really don't get it.

In the case of GW, I trust the people who know a little something about what they speak of (climatologists) rather than economists, pundits, and politicians who, in a world of logic and reason, would have NO say until the science itself is settled to reasonable degree (there are no scientific PROOFS except in math and there never will be - get it through your thick skulls). Let me make this clear: The economic concerns should absolutely be considered, but those concerns are irrelevant to the science.

The way policy should be decided works like this:
1. Is global warming happening? (scientists)
2. Are humans contributing to it? (scientists)
3. If so, what can be done to address it? (scientists)
4. What are the economic ramifications of the different solutions? (economists)
5. Which solution(s) will have the best long-term effects for the country and the human race as a whole, both economically and practically? (politicians)

This is how it actually works today:

1. Is global warming happening? (scientists)
2. Are humans contributing to it? (scientists)
3. If so, how will enacting legislation to curb it affect the bottom line? (economists, big business)
4. What can be done to sustain the status quo, and to hinder the progress of alternative forms of energy? (big business, economists, pundits, politicians)
5. Is global warming really happening or is it just a bunch of hooey? (big business, pundits, politicians)
6. Are humans really contributing to it or is it just a bunch of hooey? (big business, pundits, politicians)
8. Since no one can agree, isn't it better to do nothing? (politicians)

Let me put it another way: If you lived downstream from a dam, and engineers warned that it was about to burst, but the dam's owners claimed that everything was just fine and that the engineers were just a bunch of "alarmists", who would you be more inclined to believe?

Again, the article you posted offers zero evidence that Soros had any effect whatsoever on Hansen's opinions, nor even that Hansen personally pocketed one red cent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Everyone on this board, including you knows that if this article were attacking someone on the right who spouts a position you disagree with, and not Hansen, you threshold for credibility would be a heluva lot lower. As it is, you make yourself look petty by just trying to spin this so you don't have to accept it.

You know what? You're right. There, I admit it. That's because I've come to my own conclusions as to the agenda, goals and tactics of the right-wing loons, based on evidence I see every single day.

I don't even have to ask you to admit the same if the roles were reversed, because you've already done so in the past when I've pointed out the ties many of the skeptics have with Big Oil. On the one occasion I remember one of you even addressing the matter, you defended the oil companies for simply defending their own interests, and blew off any criticism as some form of "BDS". So the double standard works both ways.

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Waiting...waiting... patience everyone.

You obviously saw me logged on here dipsh!t.

And for the record, I DO have a life outside of this site. I'd love to spend every minute of the day debating you numskulls but I don't have the time or energy. That's not a cop-out and it's not an excuse. It's just the facts. There are about a dozen threads I'd love to get back and reply to but I have to pick and choose. About the time I'm ready to reply to one thread, you've posted a whole new thread on the latest atrocity you think the Democrats have committed and I feel compelled to reply to that. My own fault I guess, I must have ADD.

Posted by: shagdrum

...get some ritalin

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

To the right of Bill Clinton?

LOL

Actually, that's your problem. You look at every issue in terms of Left or Right, and see nothing but a conspiracy to destroy civilization, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada. If that was the case, how does Soros fit into the conspiracy? He made his billions under the capitalist system. If the goal of scientists like Hansen is to tear down capitalism and hinder economic growth, what's in it for Soros? I guess I really don't get it. [This is the only true statement in this entire post.]

In the case of GW, I trust the people who know a little something about what they speak of (climatologists) rather than economists, pundits, and politicians who, in a world of logic and reason, would have NO say until the science itself is settled to reasonable degree (there are no scientific PROOFS except in math and there never will be - get it through your thick skulls). Let me make this clear: The economic concerns should absolutely be considered, but those concerns are irrelevant to the science.

The way policy should be decided works like this:
1. Is global warming happening? (scientists)
2. Are humans contributing to it? (scientists)
3. If so, what can be done to address it? (scientists)
4. What are the economic ramifications of the different solutions? (economists)
5. Which solution(s) will have the best long-term effects for the country and the human race as a whole, both economically and practically? (politicians)

This is how it actually works today:

1. Is global warming happening? (scientists)
2. Are humans contributing to it? (scientists)
3. If so, how will enacting legislation to curb it affect the bottom line? (economists, big business)
4. What can be done to sustain the status quo, and to hinder the progress of alternative forms of energy? (big business, economists, pundits, politicians)
5. Is global warming really happening or is it just a bunch of hooey? (big business, pundits, politicians)
6. Are humans really contributing to it or is it just a bunch of hooey? (big business, pundits, politicians)
8. Since no one can agree, isn't it better to do nothing? (politicians)

Let me put it another way: If you lived downstream from a dam, and engineers warned that it was about to burst, but the dam's owners claimed that everything was just fine and that the engineers were just a bunch of "alarmists", who would you be more inclined to believe?

Again, the article you posted offers zero evidence that Soros had any effect whatsoever on Hansen's opinions, nor even that Hansen personally pocketed one red cent.

What a huge steaming pile. I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, your assertion that only economists et al are skeptics is an absurd bunch of baloney. Scientists such as Richard Lindzen of MIT, Bjorn Lomborg, Timothy Ball, William Gray, George Kukla, and hundreds of others have plenty of geological and atmospheric credentials. But I'm casting pearls before swine; I know this because this has been told to you before and you cling brutishly and pugnaciously to your denial.

"The economic concerns should absolutely be considered, but those concerns are irrelevant to the science." This is a complete contradiction in itself. Why should economic concerns even be considered if they are irrelevant?

The bottom line as to why your "lists" are incorrect lies in the falseness of your premise. You make everything the fault of big business rather than examine the role of big government. The economic impact IS completely relevant AS LONG AS THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED, which you virtually admitted. So you are advocating drastic economic sanctions on this country PREMATURELY. That's by definition an alarmist.

You wrongly compare scientists to owners in your "dam" example, when the real situation is actually scientists vs. scientists. So in the correct example, if a bunch of engineers who were paid by people who wanted to take over the city were trying to convince me that the dam was about to burst, and scientists within the city who were well known NOT to be paid off by these people were saying the opposite, I'd rather believe the latter. Furthermore, WTF is Al Gore? A scientist? What about Leonardo DiCaprio? Laurie David? Don't make me laugh.

You really have no basis in fact when you pound out these silly, angry rants. If I had the time I could pick you apart line by line, but I've learned you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

You look at every issue in terms of Left or Right, and see nothing but a conspiracy to destroy civilization, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

I assume you aren't stupid enough to think that "there are more political views then left and right", its called a political spectrum. However, I don't see every issue as inherently political and there is no way you could accurately draw that conclusion about me because the only interaction you have had with me is in the politics and current events forum where most everything is going to be looked at in terms of politics. The left is where you get the conspiracy theories from and where everything is viewed as political. I am just responding to those absurdities...

Quote:

In the case of GW, I trust the people who know a little something about what they speak of (climatologists) rather than economists, pundits, and politicians who, in a world of logic and reason, would have NO say until the science itself is settled to reasonable degree (there are no scientific PROOFS except in math and there never will be - get it through your thick skulls).

Again you double standard is evident here. You look at who controls the purse strings of skeptics, but don't consider who controls the purse strings of those who support GW. Also, how (or is) that dynamic always corrupting. The whole alarmism of environmentalism can easily be corrupting in reguard to congressional funding (congressmen are more apt to fund alarmist driven science to look like they are doing something).

A really good book you should read called Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels of the CATO institute. Specifically the stuff on scientific paradigms and how they change over time; basically chapter 11...

In addition, many (maybe a plurality) of climatologists don't by into the idea of man made global warming.

Quote:

Again, the article you posted offers zero evidence that Soros had any effect whatsoever on Hansen's opinions, nor even that Hansen personally pocketed one red cent.

Never said Soros tried to influence Hansen's opinion (he didn't need to). Soros does claim to "provide media and legal help" and basically magnify Hansen's message to put undue influence on NASA, which resulted in them changing policies. How is that not underhanded?

Quote:

You know what? You're right. There, I admit it. That's because I've come to my own conclusions as to the agenda, goals and tactics of the right-wing loons, based on evidence I see every single day.

Finally! Some degree of intellectual honesty!

Quote:

I don't even have to ask you to admit the same if the roles were reversed, because you've already done so in the past when I've pointed out the ties many of the skeptics have with Big Oil

No, unlike you I don't automatically discount something that doesn't come from a right-wing (in your case left wing) source. There are a few specific exceptions to that (Michael Moore, MoveOn, DailyKos, a few others) that have proven to me to be lacking in credibility, but by and large I don't discount them out of hand. You seem to do so, and I make sure to point out that double standard of yours every time I see it.

Posted by: fossten

TommyB,

Your international GW spokesman Algore said at the Academy Awards last year that global warming is NOT a political issue, but a MORAL issue. You can no longer deny that GW is a religion based on his public words.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Evidently livestock adds more to Global Warming than man made emissions.
The belching and farting puts a lot of methane into the atmosphere and the EPA is working on regulating farm animals now.
It takes 15 lbs of grain to produce a pound of beef and at some point we may have to choose between cars and steaks.
Nessessity being the mother of invention, science may come up with a beef sustitute similar to soy burgers.
Speaking of red meat, you guys really love to chew it up when it's thrown in front of you.
It would be kind of boring if someone didn't occasionally dare to post a contrary opinion.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyB

You obviously saw me logged on here dipsh!t.

You have to admit you said to yourself 'sh!t' when you saw your post come up shortly after mine.

I was laughing so hard I had trouble calculating your bloviation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How come no one on the left has come out with a reason the United States hurricane season was basically Nil? Huh.

If there had been 3 or 4 hurricanes making landfall, you know all we would have heard adnaseum was mankind global warming as the cause.

Just listen to one from your party, Rep Dingelberry (Dingell D-MI) who has come up with the $.50 gas tax among other taxes as a way to solve 'global warming'.(snicker)
His proposal is nothing but a money grab for social programs. How can the left be taken seriously on this issue.

It is the hysteria from the left that makes this GW argument a joke.

And why is it that the 'voting' population again looks to be split along political lines? That should give you pause right from the start. Once again the media has hyped their agenda, disregarding the truth or even attempting to discover the truth in favor of the dems.

Only when the media stops intimidating the discussion with their ideology will there ever be any 'real' discussion. Right now all I can do is hold my ears when I hear the shrill.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

TommyB,

Your international GW spokesman Algore said at the Academy Awards last year that global warming is NOT a political issue, but a MORAL issue. You can no longer deny that GW is a religion based on his public words.

But I thught GW was a scientific issue...

basically, Gore knows he can't win the debate in the relm of science or politics so he characterizes it as a moral issue and then wants to impose his morals throough politics