Glen Beck, The climate of Fear
- Thread starter s243a
- Start date
Does that mean that you finally got the joke? I mean, it took you long enough. And here I thought that you might actually be beginning to think that Glen Beck raped and murdered that girl back in 1990.
pot.. kettle.. black... 'Dr.' Tonnington. :roll:
Scientists, particularly scientific bureacrats, which make up the bulwark of the University establishment, act like bureacrats everwhere. They tow the party line, and stay in line for their pensions.
.
What's that GB in a moron..
ohh.. sorry.. my mistake. ;-)
He was also a major alcoholic, like Limbaugh was a oxycontin junkie (which cost him his hearing). It's a hazard that goes along with the job. Subliminally these people know they are big phonies, and seek solace for a lack of self worth in drink and drugs.
All these neoconservative bombastic idiots have one thing in common. They are not interested and know almost nothing about politics or political ideologies. Most have almost no education. What they are is PROMOTERS.. who have tapped into a lucrative motherlode of amorphous public resentment .
They package it, not surprisingly, in political bubble gum rhetoric, that happens to coincide perfectly with the financial interests of a small group of very rich media orginizations and families who put them on the air. They almost never talk about real conservative values issues, its all about demonizing government, regulation and promoting economic liberalism.
Last edited:
That certainly never stops you from insulting everybody and anybody who disagrees with you, why does it bother you when the tables are turned?
Glenn Beck maybe a "complete twat", but your just showing how ignorant some people can be.
Hey, I never claimed to be an expert, but I have posted many threads on this forum on this particular science. You respond to threads with rhetoric. You've never gave any indication that you do understand the science, and you've given plenty of examples where you plainly don't.
What is the party line? They disagree on plenty. You can't comprehend that unless you hear lectures, presentations, and read comments to published articles.
Want a sample, go to this thread I wrote the other day:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/86799-climate-change-101-sensitivity.html
What's the difference? Same knob, different network.
The reason I don't subscribe to FOX is because I simply do not want it. It has nothing on it which interests me. Same reason I don't subscribe to many other cable stations. I do however subscribe to some stations that do interest me, such as GOLTV. Nothing to do with being cheap, just don't to pay for things that I don't want. Who does?
Same reason as why Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore are complete twats. Nothing but a bunch of pundits schlepping a schitck to tell a pile of masses of linear thinkers what they want to hear for the sake of high ratings and the resulting cash.
I don't think that any of them actually believe (fully) in what they peddle, unless they've completely lost it and become their character, like that guy from Seinfeld who played Kramer.
Mr Idiot Jack
Beck is a Mormon and they seem to be on the fringe to the rest of society but they are normal in the eyes of God.
BYU is always on the cutting edge of new information that the Mormons believe to be from God therefore Beck is the same he is a voice from God and apperently God is saying to America government healthcare is wrong
Last edited:
Show me a major scientific journal that has published anything refuting AGW in the last decade. There is lot's of evidence that not only the science is deeply flawed with political ideology, specifically radical environmentalism, but that the evidence keeps changing as the predictions of Warming have failed to materialize.
The whole language of what is at best a threadbare thesis has infected the popular media. We know longer hear of carbon emissions, which draws an immediate reference to the most fundamental energy producing resource of our age, but to 'Green House Gases'.
The last public forum i heard on this was by Larry King, who brought on AGW skeptics on one of his shows in a brave display of investigative journalism, that has all but disappeared from the rest of the media.
The 'Party Line' is clearly the human emissions of carbon are causing an enviromental catastrophe, looming within a few decades at most. That it is irreversably damaging our environment. It exists in theory as a solitude, without relationship, to the scant knowledge we have of climatological epoch in geophysical history and their causes.
It is propelled by fear mongering. Its supposed solutions, in cap and trade, hold huge consequences for economic dissolution, deindustrialization, depopulation. It is heavily invested now by trading interests who have cornered the market on 'carbon credits' and stand to make billions, irregardless of the vast populations that will be negatively effected by it.
My 'rhetoric' has consistently pointed to the tactics, and the lack of scientific integrity, and the motives of those who are pushing this fiasco. If it looks like a duck, and walks like and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And AGW is quacking like a gigantic fraud.
Responding to posts #89 and #90.
For a couple of twats Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilley garner more viewers in their respective time slots on TV than any and all of their opponents combined. On any and all the TV networks, broadcast or cable. Once again, combined.
For a couple of twats Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilley garner more viewers in their respective time slots on TV than any and all of their opponents combined. On any and all the TV networks, broadcast or cable. Once again, combined.
Yep. People can come here to read other's opinions and this is cheaper than paying for tv to hear other's opinions. lol
Some type drivel and some type wisdom, the same as on tv.
So because there are flaws in models, science has political ideology in it, and such red herrings, you and people like you automatically leap to the conclusion that AGW is balogna. Brilliant! lmao Wise people would wait to make a judgement until the issue becomes clearer. People who leap to conclusions before all the facts are in are simply being foolish. Discretion keeps wise people searching for the relevant and rational pieces of the puzzle. Emotional belligerence makes the foolish leap to conclusions in rebellion to the political ideologies and whatnot. Besides that, dismissing evidence just because one doesn't like it is just stupid.
This bogus 'science' has been labelled as LAW not theory by the political and media establishment. Its supposed solutions are catastrophically damaging to the world economy.
If there was an honest scientific inquiry i'd accept it as such, but that doesn't exist with AGW. There is no valid proof and no verifiable evidence for any of this. It is a political construct, not a scientific one.
It is driven by sociological events associated with rampant pessimism and occultism that has pervaded our culture, and speculators who are cashing in on it.
The trappings and motives of this makes AGW's true nature apparent. It is a fraud, one with massive negative consequences to the world community.
Yeah, well, fools listen to the science of the media and the science of politics.
I think you just have your POV and simply won't change it in spite of any evidence. Kind of like deists, when they refute evidence in order to support their dogma (Creationism, IE).
Personally I don't care why things are driven very much. I want to see the results. Just because someone has an agenda, doesn't mean they are full of steer manure.
What massive negative consequences? Businesses going under? Other businesses will start up? Businesses that continue having to clean up their act? It makes for a better planet to be cleaner. People becoming more ecologically conscious? I can't see harm in that either.
But anyway, this thread is about some Glen Beck person, not AGW and people's belligerence about AGW.
Well that might be true of Deists, but i don't think it applies to Theists, such as myself, who rely on revelation, scripture and prayer, rather than imputing imperfect, calamitous assumptions on incomplete natural evidence. The latter is more indicative of a Deistic prank or plot, than a Theistic one, and certainly contains all of the philosophical pessimism associated with it.
And fully implemented, the solutions to AGW mean anything but a cleaner environment. It means population reduced to subsistence, concerned only with survival, not a 'clean environment'. It means collapse of political structures that can iterate and moderate human needs with environmental protection.
Last edited:
The theory of evolution wasn't hatched in one day. It still has holes in it. But as time moves on we get a little closer to a more complete description. Same applies to climate science. As time moves on, we learn a little more. As I said, only fools attach themselves to an idea and don't swerve as new evidence pops into the light.
Judging by the way humans have treated their home so far, I wouldn't doubt that AGW is possible until I see conclusive evidence.