or ANYTHING that is vitally important to the lives and future of humanity or even a portion of humanity, right?

Our entire future depends on them getting the facts of global warming correct, right?

Well, let's see what their track record is on, oh let's say AIDS. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic
Population With Virus Overstated by Millions

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; A01

The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade. . .

*************
So, they've been lying to us for over a decade, but wait, no. . . it was just BAD DATA, right.


-- Modified on 11/20/2007 10:57:04 PM

Ever hear of estimating on the side of caution?

No, everything has to have an ulterior motive, right?  As a therapist friend of mine once said, you spot it, you got it.

And gosh, righties have never been wrong on anything, either.

Having said that...

"If there is a hell,
I'll see you there..."

invention from the UN, to make work for weathermen!  Did you ever think of that!  Hmm?

As long as the corrupt politicians continue to milk the sheep the egg heads will be lining up for their "free" milk. All they have to do in return is kiss the asses of the sheep herder politicians. The UN has less credibility than does Slick Willard when he talks about sex (or just about anything else). To these bastards life is all about manipulating the peasants in order to gain power and money. "Treat them like mushrooms, keep 'em in the dark and feed them bullshit."

in developing alternative energy sources and technologies that are replenishable instead of finite, while possibly being benign rather than toxic?

 If I close the garage door and leave my car running on the current ubiquitously popular energy source I'll quickly fall to sleep and NEVER wake up. If I did the same with the ill fated Saturn EV1 I'd have dead batteries several hours later; but I'd still be very much ALIVE.

I know that many of you 'Righties' are heavily invested in petroleum; but think about the aforementioned microcosm I gave.

"Developing alternative energy sources and technologies" is just fine. Being a chronic liar, however, is inherently "unnatural, wrong (and) evil."  The ends do not justify the means.

Such as crying poverty and lobbying for continued as well as further tax breaks and corporate welfare when big oil is already enjoying profits so extraordinary as to make the commonly used adjective "record" a gross understatement?

Each side does its own share of lying. One side is possibly stretching the truth to wean us off an energy source that has long proven deleterious to the environment as well as the world’s stability. The other side stretches truth merely to feed and keep feeding their insatiable avarice.
Given the two individual "ends"; I'll give it up to the environmentalists for a more justifiable use of the "means".    

That's what appears to be the real fraud.

If it was a deliberate fraud, why stop the "charade" now? If they're that dishonest anyway, why not continue it? That proves they were certainly motivated to correct errors, though this was a bit slow coming.

Now that I've made that point, ask yourself this: does over-estimating the AIDS epidemic have any logical connection to studies of global warming?

I'd suggest that any connection is very weak, and requires "overestimating" by conservatives who want to keep their funding.

Some connections I could think of: maybe because both were done by scientists? I'd say that's based mostly on conservative distrust of science. Maybe because they are both funded by sources that might be mendacious and "liberal?" I'd say that's weak and based on conservative conspiracy theories, too.

If not those, point out to me any stronger connection, here.

Nobody gains if the science is fraudulent. There have been cases of fraud recently, and the scientists involved were immediately disgraced. Really, as hard as competition is in academia, especially about AIDS, competitors would love to disgrace an opponent.

Apparently it is to you RR. I know many pseudo-liberals would quickly agree with you but I find it considerably less than admirable. In fact, I find it sufficiently unpalitable that I would favor a reasonable bounty on the lying bastards.

It's not often when I find myself nodding in agreement with harryj.
I don't necessarily agree with harrys perspectives on either global warming or Bill Clinton, but he's sure got it right about corrupt politicians, and the free rides given their cronies, regardless of the merits, or lack of same, of the issues in question.

BTW harry, are you aware the phrase you used, "Treat them like mushrooms, keep 'em in the dark and feed them bullshit." is almost word for word what Lee Atwater once instructed his young proteges, Karl Rove and Roger Ailes. (Recognize those names?)

Oh PaaLEASE. Give me a HUGE FUCKING BREAK.

-- Modified on 11/21/2007 12:34:28 PM

Absolutely ZERO connection in the science.

Is there a conection between the two issues reagrding the NGO's performing the politics of the issues?

Can I have another?

PaaLEASE give be a huge fucking break.

-- Modified on 11/21/2007 12:39:00 PM

-- Modified on 11/21/2007 12:40:27 PM

Absolutely.

Roughly one half of all the "known" oil reserves are gone. We clearly have to start weening ourselves from oil as a fuel sooner or later. Or find more of it, which is clearly likely to happen as well. 1.3 trillion barrels of known reserves. That does NOT include all the shale oil that is costly to recover. Just in North America the reserves roughly double if they are included.

Alternative energy? Great. Just don't subsidise unfairly with MY money. Case in point. Ethanol. All it's doing is raising the cost of my food.

Government funding of basic R&D, OK to a point. Certain technologies are too far away to spark captialism interests.

I'm mostly in favor of less oil purely for geo-political reasons. Plus we can't use up all the oil in my gas tank. How are gonna keep making all the neat plastic shit without oil and natural gas?

Petroleum equities aren't the bad guys here.

Go Nuclear.

Justifying electric cars because suicide becomes harder to perform? WHAT?

How about this?
Bury your 67 Chevy (with an empty fuel tank) in your backyard and your ground water is just fine, forever (OK OK, there's a little bit of lead from the starter battery).
Bury your electric car in your back yard and soon your drinking water is full of Lead, Cadmium, and Nickel. I know, I know. Who buries their old cars? But then again, who commits suicide to make a political point? You?


-- Modified on 11/21/2007 1:00:52 PM

Strike an open nerve did I?

Not everything has an ulterior motive, but then it's good to always be looking for it. It's clear you disagree when the ulterior motive goes against your beliefs or goals.

catch Osame bin Laden, or Saddamn HOssein, or some other serious towelhead?!

Are you claiming that Bush didn't have to lie to invade Iraq?  What if his heart was in the right place, like to get lots of oil?

I think it all depends on who ends and who means, don't you?

Like, everybody knows that Democrats are honest about them cheating, and Republicans aren't.  So as long as everybody knows, it seems alreight to me.

Whatever is ok with you is ok with me. Every person has to have their own concept of honor or the lack thereof. Probably most pseudo-libs can't define he word.

You defend the King of Liars no matter what, so you obviously have no problem with it.

Definitely they are going to notice that something is wrong. If they're "in on it" and try to cover for it then they're more exposed than the first team. You might argue that many scientists are mendacious (I mean even Isaac Newton was that way) but they don't want to want to crash their careers when the "fraud" of global warming unravels, as it has to if it's a fraud. Many careers are going to the guillotine if it is.

You've often noted that I'm pretty cynical about governments, corporations, and such, but I the information has to be pretty good if I am to believe that global warming is a scientific conspiracy. There's too many people who read the work.



-- Modified on 11/21/2007 8:26:48 PM

Any falsified data would occur mostly connected with social sciences, if anything, which have fewer objective standards, where duplication isn't motivated, and therefore where mendacity can rise to the top.

I don't see it happening much in the hard sciences. As I wrote, other teams are going to be using that data. Including ones that aren't in on it.

It's also a cliche and was old the first time you used it.

I was tempted to ask where do you want it? The nose, jaw, arm or leg.

When we have junkyards of them, we'd then have to declare them superfund sites.

real-o cons?  What about middle-os?  What is this honor?  Who has it?  The guys who died Wednesday?

Do you REALLY believe that scientists can't won't or don't participate in "group think"? History is full of it.