Peggy chimed in and said, "It isn't much of a lie. Only a teensy-weensy lie."
These so called 'scientists' accept the lie easier than eating their morning oatmeal. To a true scientist a lie is unacceptable. To make a mistake, that is human. To err is human. But to deliberately deceive and be deceived is being mentally unstable.
I caught Trevor in three deliberate lies on one question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
His ability to tell the truth quotient is practically zero.
These people who accept the lie so easily are disciples of Goebbels.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
So in answer to your question it is a definite 'yes'. A lie is their way of life and they pretty much have confirmed that by their answers to your question.
Yah Baccy Baby, if we can believe what you say, since you have been caught in a bald faced lie, the only ones in the US that can say they have saved $10,000 in ObamaCare are GW elitists and government workers. Which one are you?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Jim your beating a dead horse. Once the agenda is fabricated and implemented, those that fall into the prevalent philosophy will follow blindly. Nothing you say, do, or prove, will offset that mindset. Only those that strive for the truth will be punished.
Most..(ALL) alarmist don't have a connection with the real world: http://www.conservativeintel.com/2013/12...
The deception is hurting the scientific community as well as the democrat left.
Yes, global warming alarmists tend to believe that socialism can solve everything, so why wouldn't they.
When confronted with the argument that the more socialist a person is the more seriously someone takes global warming, a warmist will angrily respond that their politics have nothing to do with the science of global warming. Obviously it's no coincidence that someones political ideas pretty much dictate how serious they think global warming is, so warmists have decided that anyone with different political views to their own, must be morally deficient and delusional.
Well - I don't think that conclusion is justified.
Those who accept an ideology regardless of evidence contradicting that ideology do appear to be loyal to a particular party.
Yes, and they also believe that global warming policies are beneficial producing millions of green jobs.
No, the only way I would see you being able to keep your doctor from year to year is with completely socialized or completely non-socialized medicine. We have something in between: even before Obamacare, if you worked for a private company that provided health care, you were at their whim. Even without changing companies I found myself with different plans (and different doctors) from one year to the next. It isn't surprising that the same thing exists under Obamacare, especially in the first year. Clearly Obama led people astray about this, I don't know whether he was lying or did not really think things through, but it is unfortunate people were led to believe this. I would assume that what he meant to say was that if you had employer provided health care you could keep that health care--but there was no guarantee that companies wouldn't change what they provided--as they have always done.
As for "shovel-ready" jobs, that was a phrase that was always misleading--the government doesn't do ANYTHING quickly. However, it is clear that the government support kept the U.S. in much better shape than it would have been otherwise. One needs only to look at Europe to see an example of what might have happened if the federal government had not stepped in. Of course I still believe the country would have been better off if multi-trillions of dollars had not been poured into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anyone REALLY believe we're more secure because of the war in Iraq?
But here is the real problem I see with a question like yours: you can't separate the science of global warming (which is all about things like physics, chemistry, biology) from politics. Greenhouse gases are neither republican nor democrat. The physical laws that govern atmospheric science are at a more fundamental level than the laws of man that govern the society that we live in. You're supposed to be a scientist, you should realize that.
EDIT for Sagebrush: keep talking, if you say enough things you might accidentally say something that's true at some point (but only because you don't realize it).
Is it Obama's fault that the insurance companies were being a**holes?
There is nothing *inherent* to the ACA that makes anyone change doctors. But there also aren't enough protections in the law to keep the insurance companies from playing cute games.
Under the system that existed before the ACA, people could *also* have to change doctors because their insurance company did something... but they could also lose their insurance entirely for things that were no fault of their own, and so on.
I tend to take all propaganda with a grain of salt. I also tend to trust actual scientists over politicians and media presences, and the vast majority of actual scientists that I'm aware of accept AGW and consider it to be a threat to humanity, to at least some degree.
I see the earth as being like a room it can hold only so many people and a Packed room = Higher Co2 less Oxygen increased demand for limited natural resources ?
I have not changed my doctor or my dentist nor my dermatologist nor my wife's gnyo nor my kids doctors nor my hospital nor any medical supplier. I'm happy to be saving about $10,000 this year on insurance so I guess that makes me a Marxist. (I'm one of those guys who have been paying insurance and getting gauged by the freeloaders that the libbies like Jimz want to continue to give away free healthcare to. I'm the rare fiscal conservative who does not hate science.)
The point is that climate change deniers are uneducated angry old men who are mad because they never paid attention to the science until a democrat brought it their attention -- 20 years after other of us were aware. (Ok, I was in college in the 70s, so more proof that I'm a gullible Marxists.)
They claim that it is not their elderly anger, but continue to prove if with political rants.
It is sad that unless you are willing to pay the doctor directly, insurance companies can dictate to you the doctors you can and can not see. Do you think the government should pass laws to prohibit this practice?
Your real objection to believing in AGW is painfully obvious... you're afraid of your political opponents gaining power... But just for a moment consider that we may need to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions for legitimate reasons. Can you think of a way that we could do that without the commie pinkos taking over? Let's get creative....
Since my answer to Questor's previous question got deleted, I thought it should be repeated here. It goes to the gullibility of alarmists who seem to believe whatever they are spoon fed by the media.
Are those people who believe in global warming the same people that believed in shovel ready jobs and the promise that we would be able to keep our own doctor?
The US system is one I do not wish to live under, and I don't devote a great deal of time to undrstanding it's intricacies. I live in a country with socialized health care I also can have private health insurance if I choose or not and get to choose my own doctor if I wish
How does this relate to the issue of global warming and climate change? Sounds more like a political statement than a scientific one.
I was given the option to keep my doctor when we moved 60 miles away. My dentist is 250 miles from where I live. I had my eyes tested 5,000 miles from home and been given prescriptions 10,000 miles from home, none of which has any bearing on climate change.
My daughter has a cat called Tiddles and the other day my train was delayed, do these things make a difference?
They have as much bearing on the science of climate change as someone getting to keep their doctor or not.
rants that way--->
if you have valid scienific evidence AGW is false, lets see it.
for the most pasrt it's the deniers who rely on FOX and blogs like WUWT. 'Alarmist' as you call them tend to know more science education and got there despite the media.
I fail to see what shovel ready jobs have anything to do with climate.
They believe in anything that will control you
A reasonable person might think that a "geologist" would not allow his personal ideological beliefs to contaminate his professional judgement --- but, that person would be wrong.
Now you are blaming the realization of global warming on Obama? The knowledge that adding CO2 into the atmosphere will have a warming effect on our climate greatly predates the birth of Obama. .... Where have you been?
'Bout sums it up, yeah...
