" This week, Prof. Clayson reviews a movie review. Specifically, he’s commenting on an adverse review of Ben Stein’s new documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The nameless reviewer didn’t think much of “Expelled” and Prof. Clayson doesn’t think much of that review.

There’s nothing wrong with saying that Ben got a bum movie review. However, Prof. Clayson’s logic in doing so is consistent with the logic in his usual criticisms of everything else. That is, if there is logic in his opinion, I don’t see it.

Prof. Clayson’s ostensible complaint is that the reviewer fails to tell his readers what the movie is about. I find that objection peculiar since Prof. Clayson goes on to state that the move is a “creationist” view of the origins of the universe. Further, Prof. Clayson then itemizes the reviewer’s criticisms of the movie. How Prof. Clayson can say that the reviewer both fails to tell us what the movie’s about and also say what the reviewer said it was about is pretty close to wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too.

It presently develops that what Prof. Clayson really objects to is “liberals.” (Has there ever been a column by Prof. Clayson that doesn’t eventually object to “liberals”?)

Prof. Clayson starts out in his regular mode of poisoning the well before he gets down to specifics. “Liberals,” it seems, don’t really believe it truth. Conservatives, however, are the soul of truthiness. And, just to be sure that his readers get his point, Prof. Clayson provides us with an example showing what lying philistines all lobbies really are. He says that Pres. Clinton lied under oath and because the Republicans tried to impeach Pres. Clinton and failed, the results for the Democrats was for, “eight years, anything President Bush said was a lie.”

For someone who starts out telling us what an honest guy he is, claiming that all the Democrats had on President Bush was a desire for revenge is, at best, historical revisionism at its worst. President Bush did lie us into a war and no amount of ignoring that obvious fact alters the fact that his lies are obvious and documented. (There is now a genre of books devoted to explaining how Pres. Bush lied us into war and otherwise fouled-up everything he touched as president.) And claiming that revenge is the Democratic Party’s motive also ignores the fact that President Bush has consistently rewarded his rich friends and piled burdens on the working poor. He has countenanced torture. He abandoned the people of New Orleans to suffer alone. He has headed an administration whose watch word is incompetence. He has made this country an international laughing stock.

Prof. Clayson says that there are two reasons why liberals see “liars” behind every tree.” He makes this remarkable assertion: “First ... the truth is a tool. Second, the leftists are so isolated within their culture that they no longer realize that others do not use the truth in the same fashion.”

That claim is remarkable because it is my consistent observation that it is those on the hard right who make up “facts” and not we lefties. As evidence, I’d cite most of my posts responding to Prof. Clayson and his defenders. Most of the time, their claim that something is “true” just ain’t so. Obviously, when the libbies say that those on the hard right have their own facts and those on the hard right say that the liberals view truth as a malleable commodity, someone has got to be wrong. I think that it’s self-evident who has a problem with truth – at least if you’re not on the hard right.

Prof. Clayson purports to quote Ben Stein as saying, “you cannot even talk about global warming or evolution or racial political correctness without be branded criminal.”

Poppycock!

I’m quite confident that libbies brand people on the hard right as woefully ignorant, but I cannot image that any, let alone someone as smart as Ben Stein, would have the temerity to brand them or their political positions as “criminal.” If he didn’t say it, then it’s yet another example of the hard right making up facts. If he did, then Stein alone has got his facts wrong.

I’d think that many people are weary of Prof. Clayson’s drum beat that liberals are behind everything that’s wrong with the world. "

" I have to agree with Cross on her point that people are weary of "Clayson's drum beat that liberals are behind everything that's wrong with the world." I would also agree had someone else made that statement about a far left commentator claiming the conservatives are the culprits for all of our current woes. The extremists on both ends of the political spectrum and the overwhelmingly devisive stances they both spew forth is doing irreperable harm to America. The chance for level-headed, common sense-based discourse has been undermined by both sides as they spout their "we're honest, they're lying, we're good, their evil" nonsense to anyone who will listen. Compromise is essential to our political system. The more polarizing the commentators get, the more damaging it is to the ability of our citizenry to unite over any issue. It has become an insane battle of "our way or nothing" from both sides and neither side will accept a decision that isn't completely in sync with their one-sided views. Well, from the middle I can tell you that both extreme sides are often wrong and many times both sides are wrong on the same issues. To be fair, those of us in the middle are often off-base as well. There are no absolutes in matters of opinion. Compromises must be reached, and it would be nice, if not impossible, to pary that we could be respectful of one another as we attempt to reach those compromises. The best thing that has come from all of this ridiculous partisan bickering is that we have two candidates who reflect how much this stupidity has turned off the majority of Americans. The Republicans have nominated their most centrist candidate in modern history and shunned the far right of their own party. While the Democrats have given the nod to a newcomer who won based on his stance that he will change the present way of doing business in Washington and beat the ultimate insider in the process. Maybe there is hope for sanity and decency to return to America. But I sadly doubt it. "

" Cross, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke at Al Gore's Live Earth event and when refering to global warming skeptics, he said, "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." Stein nailed it when he said “you cannot even talk about global warming or evolution or racial political correctness without being branded a criminal.” You should do a little fact checking before you write "yet another example of the hard right making up facts." It's quite obvious that your buddies on the left would love to make denial of global warming a crime. "

" Kudos Cross for making Clayons point for everyone to read. You continue to twist and turn President Bush's 8 years as president, just as the left does with everything else that gets in its way.

Why do you forget that the democratic house voted to go to war, that Clinton sure the heck supported it, and that your saviour the good Barack Hussein Obama was just a freshman state senator at the time? While Americans were reeling from a hideous and cowardous attack out East, Obama was railing against any war even after it was clear there could be no alternative; the 'truth' at the time from our intelligence, from England intelligence, and most of Europe, was that Hussein(not the good one) had WMD. Also dont forget the country fully supported Bush when he promised to attack all who harboured terrorists.

Now since it is another presidential election year, and another election the democratic donkey machine is somehow putting another loss together, the bellows of change are loud and clear from the left. The country is in shambles, or so the left wants us to think. It was ironic the other day hearing that Obama was calling on oil price relief. His solution; tax and steal the oil companies profits. Why not drill in our own country? This will limit our dependance on the middle east, and create jobs in our country? This will also lower prices and quickly. But instead the good barack hussein wants to tax and tax some more. This is an absolutely idiotic solution to a problem that will not go away unless we as Americans rely on ourselves. The left hates this idea naturally, unless the government gets to run the business of drilling.

The left in this country are attempting to bring down the American way of life and wont be happy until they do. "

" Like the increasingly rapid melting of the world's glaciers, this column continues its inexorable slide away from reality.

This was perhaps the first time I have read a review of someone ELSE's review, where the second individual doesn't even bother to take the time to view the work in question. Then again, any other reviewer wouldn't be so blindly focused on advancing his particular ideological bent (a practice which Prof. Clayson feels so free to decry when he's on the receiving end.) More importantly, one could have easily replaced the material about Ben Stein's movie with, say, "Fox News," and you could easily have the Prof's column all ready to go for next week!

While Prof. Clayson ostensibly tries to deliver a column touching on current events, it's little more than the same liberal-trashing nonsense each week, seemingly devoid of anything other than a bunch of hyperbole and a healthy dose of longing for a world that doesn't exist except in his own mind.

Moreover, I was amused by Prof. Clayson's casual dismissal of any criticism of the Bush administration as mere "sour grapes" stemming from the Clinton impeachment, as if the mounting evidence of Bush, Cheney, et al's general incompetence and outright fabrications doesn't exist.

Hey, Prof.: if you're in the mood to do an actual review of an actual creative work, perhaps next week's column could feature "What Happened" by Scott McClellan. I'm eagerly awaiting your thoughts on the vast "Republican conspiracy" attempting to unfairly smear little Bush's reputation. "

" "The left in this country are attempting to bring down the American way of life and wont be happy until they do."

No one person has done more to bring down the American way of life than George W. Bush. Of course his oil buddies in both the USA and the House of Saud think he is the greatest.

The truth - as we now know from the report released last week by Congress - is that there were many doubts about Sadaam and his WMD capabilities. Bush, Cheney and others basically lied to make it appear that there was no choice but war. The "inexperienced" Barack Obama was correct - while the liar George W. Bush, and his cheerleader John McCain, have been exposed as idiots and fools.

The truth - in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld angrily denied rumors the US wanted any kind of permanent presence (i.e. bases) in Iraq. Today of course, Bush & Company are trying to arm twist the Iraqis into allowing even more permanent bases than are there now.

The truth - Dick Cheney says the Chinese are drilling 60 miles off our Florida shore in cooperation with the Cuban government. Of course that is not the case as the Chinese have no such agreement with Cuba, only an agreement to drill on the Cuban mainland, which they haven't even started doing.

Truth - such as the right claiming it is for "family values". I guess adultery is the most important family value as Gingrich, Vetter, and McCain can attest to.

Truth - such as the "free market" having the solution to our health care crisis. That's why 47 million Americans remained uninsured - cause of our great "free market".

Truth is just a convenience for those like Mr. Clayson on the right. When it gets in the way of what they want it gets tossed in the dumpster. "

" I'm a little confused by the jab at Bill and Hillary about not being validictorians. What does that have to do with anything? I have heard that Bill was one of the most intelligent presidents we ever had. Where was GW validictorian? Didn't he go to Yale as well? Where did he finish in his class?

I was paying attention to Clayson before that. Then I realized he was just rambling and jabbing. Quit reading as I could not see wasting anymore time on his "masterpiece" review of a review. Judging by the comments to follow, I can pretty much see I was right. "

" Gee, Cross, I'm glad you explained what Clayson's letter is about in your first paragraph. I'm pretty sure the left wingers on this board couldn't figure that out by themselves.

And then you say Clayson objects to liberals. Wow. Master of the obvious. I object to liberals. Liberals have selective amnesia about the Iraq war, and no accountability for the failures they, as do-gooders, force on the rest of us. Gun control, the destruction of marriage, punishing economic success, the human caused global warming scam. And the biggest one of all, high energy prices. Don't want to upset the polar bear, you know.

Gee, Phil, are you going after the Clinton's and Kerry, mong other Democrats, for pushing for the war, too?
What health care crisis? The truth eludes you again. Oh, I get it. So is there a BMW crisis, since millions of Americans don't drive one? And, you sly dog, you said health care crisis. What a scammer. Proof Clayson is right. There is a huge, huge difference between not having health care, and not having health insurance. Huge. How can you tell a liberal's lying? His lips, or his fingers, are moving. "

" For Phil's myopia problem"
"SO ... IS CHINA REALLY DRILLING OFF CUBA?
Yesterday Florida Senator Mel Martinez said that China drilling off the coast of Cuba was merely an urban legend. So because we here at the Neal Boortz Show are so incredibly fair and balanced ... we have tried to get to the bottom of this mystery. Here's what we found.
All the way back in 2004, China's Petrochemical Corporation known as Sinopec signed a memorandum of understanding with Cuba's national oil company, known as Cupet to explore four oil blocks in Cuba. Keep in mind that both of these companies are owned by their communist governments. China's Sinopec conducted six months of geological studies of the four Cuban blocks. This was the first attempt by Sinopec, China's second largest oil and gas company, to enter oil and gas exploration and production in Cuba.
Then in 2005, China's Sinopec signed an agreement with the Cuban government to jointly produce oil in Cuba off the coast of Pinar del Río. Ok so let's get this straight. The governments of China and Cuba enter into a production sharing agreement ... what exactly does that mean? This is when the Cuban government awards the execution of exploration and production activities to an international oil company like Sinopec. The contractor bears the mineral and financial risk of the initiative and, when successful, recovers capital expenditure and costs incurred in the year (cost oil) by means of a share of production.
So now, for your reading pleasure (and Mel Martinez's) is a timeline of China's oil exploration efforts in Cuba. This is from the World Security Institute ...
2005
January 31: Cuba and China signed a contract in Havana providing for the Asian giant's participation in extracting oil from a deposit off the island's north shore, the press reported. The deal is between Cubapetroleos and the Chinese oil company Sinopec, said the official daily newspapaer Granma. In December, Fidel Castro announced discovery of oil at a site offshore from Santa Cruz del Norte, some 55 kilometers (33 miles) east of Havana. The deposit is believed to hold some 100 million barrels of "light" crude, or the equivalent of 14 million tons. (EFE, Prensa Latina, 31/1/05)
February 8: China's oil giants began cultivating their virgin soil in Cuba. China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), as the first comer, has inked a contract with Cuba Oil Company (Cubapetroleo) to jointly exploit oil in the Caribbean country. Under the terms of their contract, the two sides will join forces to prospect and exploit a potential oil-producing region. Chinese experts believe it is a significant beginning of the cooperation between China and Cuba in the petroleum industry. (SinoCast, 8/2/05)
March 22: Chinese oil drilling equipment has begun arriving in Cuba as state-run Cubapetroleo (Cupet) and its foreign partners prepare to significantly increase drilling along the northwest coast, industry sources said. "Four service units and a small rig have arrived and we are waiting for more," said a Cuban oil service manager, asking his name not be used. There are currently five rigs operating along the northwest heavy oil belt, an 80-mile (128-km) stretch of coast in Havana and Matanzas provinces from whence come all of Cuba's 70,000 to 80,000 barrels per day of heavy crude at 8 API to 18 API and with a high sulfur content. The poor-quality oil is burned in modified power plants and factories. (Reuters, 22/3/05)
April 6: The operator of China's second-largest Shengli oilfield is stepping up overseas exploration, spending more on such ventures this year as the world's No. 2 oil user grapples with falling reserves, officials said. Shengli Oilfield Administration Bureau, a unit of state-run Sinopec Group, will spend about $40 million drilling for oil and gas in Cuba, Iran and central Asia in 2005, company officials said. "This will be the heaviest spending in a year and we expect the pace to continue in the next few years," a Shengli executive told the press. Shengli, which is among the first Chinese companies to venture abroad, will sink a total of eight wildcat and appraisal wells this year, four in Kazakhstan, two in Iran, and one each in Cuba and Kyrgyzstan. (Reuters, 6/4/05)
November 24: PetroChina Great Wall Drilling Co., Ltd. and Petroleum Company of Cuba held a ceremony for signing two drilling service contracts on November 3, 2005. It is the second-time cooperation between Great Wall Drilling Co., Ltd. and Petroleum Company of Cuba after the signing of a one-year petroleum service agreement on one 1500HP drilling rig and one 2000HP rig on April 8 this year. The contract signed this time includes three 2000HP drilling rigs. The contract has a period of one year and a value of over US$24 million. The project will be launched in January 2006. (China Chemical Reporter, 24/11/05)
December 22: Sinopec of China signed an agreement earlier this year to jointly produce heavy oil with Cupet in westernmost Pinar del Río province, with drilling expected to begin in 2006. (The Oil Daily, 27/12/05)
Still not convinced Senator Martinez? Here are some more reports from 2005 from the Energy Intelligence Group and National Post's Financial Post & FP Investing in Canada.
... China is seeking oil everywhere and Cuba is no exception. Three large Chinese companies, SINOPEC, Petro China and CINOOC - China National Offshore Corporation, are involved in a large agreement, perhaps already underway, for coastal and deep-water explorations. Most significant to this topic, especially in light of other Chinese investment in Cuba, is the fact that Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, has stated a goal of helping boost Cuba's domestic oil production and producing 60% of its oil needs by 2006 ... Additional plans for exploration and development of other blocs of potential reserves were announced by two other Chinese oil companies, China National Petroleum Corp. and China National Offshore Oil Corp., after talks with CUPET, Cuba Petroleum. Some exploration will be in coastal regions but much, based on the better quality of the oil, will take place in off-shore deep waters.
Let's cut to the chase ... and pardon me if I scream here:
The point isn't that China is not presently drilling for oil within 90 miles of the U.S. The point is that they CAN! --- and, thanks to the Democrat congress --- we CAN'T.
Democrats would like us to wrangle over what IS happening. The issue is what CAN happen. They can drill. We can't. They're planning to. We aren't. Even government educated Democrat myrmidons can understand that." From Neal Boortz.

This is but one example of how the left brings down the American way of life. "

" Prof Clayson describes a review of an excellent movie, yes, I've seen it, in which the auther does the usual left winger tactic of throwing barbs at the author instead of discussing the movie. The reason there was no discussion of the movie is that the proevolution left doesn't have a leg to stand on on this issue, and Professor Clayson opines as to why. And he is correct. Hard core evolutionists, as shown in the movie and elsewhere, cannot explain the origins of life. Darwin himself can't. And there have been so many scientific hoaxes throughout recent history trying to fake data, it's almost comical. Ann Coulter's book, "Godless", points out many outright false hoods in the "mountain of evidence" that supports the theory of evolution. "

" Phil wrote: The truth - Dick Cheney says the Chinese are drilling 60 miles off our Florida shore in cooperation with the Cuban government. Of course that is not the case as the Chinese have no such agreement with Cuba, only an agreement to drill on the Cuban mainland, which they haven't even started doing.
see: http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm "

" Phil, Cross etc....
......truth.......biting....rear end..........you wouldn't notice.... "

" The global warming ilk are nothing but alarmists. They would rather make their points by perpetual repetition than with scientific facts.

Speaking of facts, can I list some?

- Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.

- "Global warming" is happening on Mars... think about it.

- No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes.

Obviously, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many groups to exploit...I'm not denying that the earth is warming to some degree, but to blame human activity is simply a guess. So, people come back with the statement of, "well, if we're wrong, it doesn't really do much harm." Are they kidding?? America alone is spending billions to "clean up our act" and the government is trying to force us to do it.

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this?

I'm sorry, but I will not subscribe to something as FACT until it is a fact. "

" I like pudding. "

" shouldbemayor
wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:48 AM:

" I'm a little confused by the jab at Bill and Hillary about not being validictorians. What does that have to do with anything? I have heard that Bill was one of the most intelligent presidents we ever had. Where was GW validictorian? Didn't he go to Yale as well? Where did he finish in his class?

What's the confusion. Bill and Hillary weren't valedictorians. Speaking of confusion, why did you post that you, aren't you special, heard that Bill Clinton was one of the most intelligent presidents we ever had. So. He wasn't valedictorian. Then you ask about President Bush who no one was claiming was valedictorian. Blind hatred. It's a terrible thing. "

" Even for Clayson, this was more mediocre than normal. "

" "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton - Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bill Clinton President in 1998? So that would mean (according to Phil & Cross)that Bush and Cheney must have contacted Bill, told him the "lie" and he fell for it. All this before Bush was even president. Eureka! It all makes perfect sense! We're so lucky to have Cross and Phil to guide us through these difficult waters. "

" Phil likes to deflect criticism about lefties by stating that McCain is an adulterer. This is like calling the pot black of course as Bill, JFK and Kennedys et al, and a long list of leacherous liberals.

Phil, is it ok for the left to cheat and not the occasional Right? Of course you will say something about the right and their bible beaters, yada yada. McCain is not the good guys' best choice for this election, but considering the good Barack Hussein Obama is running against him, it's the best of the worst.

If you equate adultery with lack of integrity, this Obama character is leading the way. "

" outstanding post rooster! I cant wait to hear why you are wrong. Cross/Phil? "

" xdfred - that is all very interesting about the contracts China and Cuba have in place. But Mr. Clayson's column was about TRUTH.

Mr. Cheney ignores the truth when he says China is currently drilling off the Florida coast - just like he ignored the truth to help start the war in Iraq. It was then, and is now, more convenient for him to lie to get his way. So no, the point isn't about IS happening or CAN happen - the point is you and Mr. Clayson can't see how the right - those glorious, hallowed, virtuous people - will distort or disregard the truth whenever it suits them to get what they want.

You want to have a debate about oil and drilling, fine, have a debate - but don't tell bald faced lies to try and get your way - that's the Cheney way - and its disgusting and childish. "

" hetfield - I'm not deflecting and criticism at all - Clinton deserves the ridicule he gets for what he did. On the other hand, Clinton and the Democrats don't act "holier that thou" like those on the right are prone to do. As far as the "occasional Right" cheating, it appears that between the polititians and right-wing preachers, its more like the rule than the exception. How do you tell if a right wing politician has a sex issue? By how loudly he proclaims to be against gays and pro-family.

You stay with the 26% who love Bush - its the kind of company that fits you well.

As for Mr. Obama, well George Bush doesn't have one tenth of the integrity he does. And with the way Mr. McCain is flip-flopping like a fish that just landed in the boat, he is about at that level of integrity as well. "

" rooster.. your post on Jun 16, 2008 9:52 PM... PRICELESS. "

" Uh, Phil, where exactly did Cheney say China was already drilling for oil off Cuba. The post I copied did not say China was drilling now. Just the steps they have taken to do so. So please prove a lie, instead of throwing accusations of bald faced lying, like a typical liberal.

You're right Phil, the Clinton's don't act holier than thou. They act better than thou and that the laws and norms don't apply to them. Obama is the same way. The liberal ruling class, minus the crown. But they do act holier than thou at certain times. Right before elections. Photo ops at churches.

How about Rooster's post, Phil? Was Clinton lying about Iraq too? Since you're the self proclaimed expert on lying and all. "

" Phil, One huge difference between President Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. President Bush does not hate our country. Obama does. Obviously. "

" Hey, Phil, here's a piece from the LA Times that spanks the Bush Lied theory even harder. Feeling foolish, yet. To get back to basics, here, this just shows what Prof. Clayson was describing in his opinion about liberals and truth. The two don't mix.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,7766785.story "

" Easy to respond to rooster - President Clinton said we needed to "respond". Now for idiots and imperialists like Bush and Cheney, "respond" means invade, destroy, and occupy the country. For civilized nations, "respond" means many other things like inspections, sanctions, negotiations, and so on (list is not all enclusive).

The fact that Pres. Clinton had part of his assumptions wrong could mean he was lying, or it could mean he was just wrong. Still he didn't choose war, Mr. Bush did.

Nobody is arguing that Saddam was a very bad person and that finding a way to get him out of power was a noteworthy goal. But invading and destroying a country is the very last resort, especially when the UN weapons inspectors proved that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush were wrong about the WMD's. Once that was established the war was baseless (not that it was worth it before then) and moving forward at that point means it was based on known falsehoods - also called lies. "

" I'm pretty sure congress 'chose' war.. if my government class and memory serve me correct.

I couldn't care less about Clinton's transgressions, but 'lies' can be thrown about until we are all blue in the face.. until President Bush is found to have lied under oath by judge or congress, 'lies' are nothing but opinion and speculation. "

" xdfred @ Jun 17, 2008 12:32 PM said, "here's a piece from the LA Times that spanks the Bush Lied theory even harder."

You know, xdfred, there's a reason that W has only about 26% support of the population now. It's that the rest has figured out that W did lie us into a war. By being among the 26% that think he's an honest fellow, you're among that group that probably still believes in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Smell the coffee and become a libbie. "

" cire, did you notice that human caused global warming is a fraud before or after Al Gore made global warming his cause? "

" xdfred @ Jun 17, 2008 11:38 AM said, "One huge difference between President Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. President Bush does not hate our country."

Another huge difference between W and Obama is that Obama is competent. "

" OK, Phil, so in other words, and not weasel words, Clinton lied? Because when he said what was quoted, all the other stuff you mentioned had already been going on. You know, the UN inspections and such. And we all know how effective the UN is at keeping the peace, don't we. "

" Cross, Obama is competent? In what? What great things has he done?

Global warming was a scam from day 1. Ever since Kyoto.

Cross (sniff) you mean (sob) there's no Easter bunny?

The 26% approval rating is due to open borders, excessive spending, and high energy prices. If president Bush lied, please prove it. Don't you think some one would have tried to by now? "

" xdfred @ Jun 17, 2008 3:01 PM said, "we all know how effective the UN is at keeping the peace, don't we."

Actually, xdfred, we really do. Every time there's a conflict, the UN is in there trying to stop it. Sometimes, it even sends in troop to stop the conflict. "

" cross, i really don't care what Al Gore believes or doesn't believe, there are a lot of Republicans that have fallen for the global warming scam too..it's not an issue that sticks to party lines. It is a non-event as far as I'm concerned...a media-motivated, environmentalist-fueled, manufactured crisis just like the "mini-ice-age" was 30 years ago.

The impact of humans on our climate is not catastrophic, and our planet is not in peril. Call me a skeptic, but i don't buy into claims that are unfounded and based on B.S. (Bad Science).

go look outside, the sky is falling! "

" Let's turn the debate back to the puppet-candidate Barack Hussein Obama. He is all about change, but he keeps linking himelf with the good ol boy network, Gore, kennedy, Johnson, soon to be the clintons. This is changfe? This guy is a joke.

And Cross, have you ever heard Obama without a teleprompter? the guy cant even speak without, uh-ing, and switching words around. I do beleive that the puppet candidate is going to get ridden out of town.

I will now watch the left and the greenies squirm because McCain is now wanting to revist state rights(you know, the constitution) when it comes to off-shore drilling. this guy should have done this all alone.

This campaign is almost over before it begins. Overwhelmingly Americans support our rights to drill our own oil, rather than relying on the Middle east.

Drill and supply our own oil, while creating thousands of US jobs.

Take that, the good Barack Hussein. "

" The Courier should establish a limit of 200 characters per blog and one blog per article. I don't waste time on drivel longer than the original editorial. "

" hetfield @ Jun 17, 2008 6:21 PM: said, "have you ever heard Obama without a teleprompter?

Actually, hetfield, I've heard him speak without a teleprompter lots of times. A substantial portion of his reputation as an orator is based on the fact that he seemed to be able to give a stem-winder both without a teleprompter and without notes. To be sure, in more recent appearances, he has used a teleprompter for big, set-piece speeches.

Question -- did you really not know that or were you again trying to deny an established fact? "

" Cross, i have also heard him. He stuttered and stammered like an unprepared, inexperienced school girl.

Even most puppets have more experience performing than the good Barack Hussein Obama. Maybe the Mrs. should take over? "

" Phil, Clinton supported the "Iraq thing" here's his own words from an interview with Time Magazine on 6/28/04.
"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing." "

" Wait, Hetfield is lecturing us on speaking eloquently and without a teleprompter? AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
You gotta be kidding me, dude. ... Every time I log on your flailing arguments have been shredded by 3 or 4 people.

What does this even mean:

"If you equate adultery with lack of integrity, this Obama character is leading the way."

I got news for you too. Wait until the two candidates take the stage together. We'll wait patiently for you to come back with your tail between your legs. I'm sorry, but issues, and even partisanship aside for a moment, McCain is gonna get leveled. And part of me thinks his handlers know it and are scrambling to come up with an unattainable solution.

Hey Hetfield: Do you also believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old?

Also, as a quick aside, this column makes no sense. It's another standard liberal bashing op-ed and Clayson is just continually butting into the same wall. I do watch the oft-offended, petulant Bill O'Reilly (Ignatius Reilly) a couple times a week and Clayson has totally aped Bill's style. ...I bet both of them have subscriptions to US Weekly.

Oh, and fred, on that last topic you said something about the GOP's resistance to getting MRAP's to your beloved Iraq war being comparable to implied previous mistakes in U.S. wars. Nah, buddy. Not good enough. Tactical errors in combat are definitely not the same as ignoring the clear request of commanders on the ground and data showing the stark differences between design protection of the MRAP vs. the Humvee for purely financial reasons.
Not to mention, even if there are some similarities to past military mistakes, that's your defense? Evidently, your noble belching about supporting the troops can't infringe on your partisan allegiance to all your GOP buddies, can they?

Also someone said Cross was too lazy or something to sandbag. Another earth shattering stroke of brilliance I think from xdfred. Are you kidding me? What kind of thing is that to say, fella? You said to me "first off, you don't know anything about me," when I earlier said you were afraid of Muslims. Duly noted.
But it's ok for you to make a despicable, obnoxious leap like that about someone with greater chances of having been affected in this disaster? What's your problem?
If it wasn't you fred, I really do apologize. But..I'm thinking it was. "

" I'll take Bush's 26% support any day over Congress at 18%. "

" Here's an example of Obama without a teleprompter - It's from a Town Hall meeting in Bristol, Virginia.

"What they'll say is, "Well it costs too much money," but you know what? It would cost, about... It -- it -- it would cost about the same as what we would spend... It... Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us... (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to... It... It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about -- hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad."

I'd go see him just for the comic relief. "

" I like how Hetfield is about 1% of the country that doesn't admit, even if they don't like him, that Obama is a stellar orator. Saying "uh" once in awhile and then following it with four or five original, well connected sentences is not the speech impediment you apparently think it is.

The attention-paying public knows he's got that on the android monotone, while inexplicably confused sounding, John McCain.

What's it like going through life on the wrong side of every issue, even those inarguable ones we can hear and see crystal clear? "

" hetfield, I understand. You choose to deny an established fact. Clever way to state it though. "

" john14541 @ Jun 17, 2008 6:34 PM said, "The Courier should establish a limit of 200 characters per blog and one blog per article. I don't waste time on drivel longer than the original editorial."

John, does the Courier send someone around and make you read everything? "

" cire, what field of science is you Ph.D in? "

" Phil--regarding your 1:32 post. You say,

"Nobody is arguing that Saddam was a very bad person and that finding a way to get him out of power was a noteworthy goal. But invading and destroying a country is the very last resort, especially when the UN weapons inspectors proved that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush were wrong about the WMD's."

I guess my question is this: did Presidents Bush and Clinton lie or did they get it wrong? It must be one or the other as they were using the same intelligence. For the libbie's to continue to claim that "Bush lied" is disingenuous at best and treasonous at its worst. I believe that the Presidents had more information than has been reported in the media, and acted accordingly. "

" Cross: "Actually, xdfred, we really do. Every time there's a conflict, the UN is in there trying to stop it. Sometimes, it even sends in troop to stop the conflict. "

That's really really funny. I mean really funny. UN hasn't been successful at keeping the peace anywhere. Lebanon, both times, Rwanda, Darfur, you-name-it.

Either you are very wrong, or are lying through your teeth.

"The United Nations; Bringing peace to our world since 1948...(Actual results may vary)"

"If an impotent, corrupt and bloated bureacracy led by tin pot dictators and Third World despots can't solve your problem, then it's best left festering..."--UN Motto

Wait, I know what the UN is good for. Paying slave wages to have US food aid switched to UN labelled containers. "

" whyonearth - I will give both Clinton and Bush the initial benefit of the doubt and say they got it wrong on the WMD's initially. But after the weapons inspectors found no WMD's and the intel agencies interviewed Iraqi leaders who confirmed that they had gotten rid of their programs, but that they wouldn't admit it publically, then Bush moved into the lying category.

If this war was so necessary, then why didn't we attack the Soviet Union once they successfully tested an atomic bomb? Why didn't we bomb Cuba during the missle crisis?

Cause strong, sensible leaders explore options and keep war as a last resort. Bush is neither strong nor sensible - just a weak man strutting like a peacock. He and Cheney didn't have the courage to fight when it was their time, nor the courage to negotiate when they were in charge. "

" rooster - good for you - you take that 26% and hang on tight.

Meanwhile, isn't it funny how from 2000-2006 when the right wingers were in charge of both Congress and the Presidency that they didn't build such a loyal following from the American people? Maybe its because their policies and their idealogy are bankrupt failures? If they were so right why isn't their popularity at an all-time high?

Instead dead enders like xdfred, rooster and hetfield are left to defend the greed and destruction they brought to America during their years in power. Meanwhile the American people still support ideas like Social Security, Medicare, and other programs enacted by progressives and liberals decades ago.

I think there is some truth there that Mr. Clayson doesn't enjoy writing about. "

" cross, does Al Gore have a Ph.D that I'm not aware of?

and how come you didn't address the comment I made about the "little Ice Age" scare back in the 70's. Was that not backed by "science" as well?

A lot of scientists DO back global warming, but science does not work by consensus..there is no vote on truth. The "scientific consensus" has been wrong on many subjects and has remained wrong for decades. There is no reason to believe in (or to participate in) a campaign that promotes global warming as an agenda. "

" xdfred @ Jun 18, 2008 8:45 AM said, "UN hasn't been successful at keeping the peace anywhere."

How about Korea? The status quo ante was restored and nobody is dying anymore.

How about Bosnia? The "ethnic cleansing" was stopped."

How about innumerable times talking India and Pakistan out of going to war?

I think you suffer from a selective memory that only admits evidence that proves you prejudices. "

" The difference between Democrats and Republicans:

The Vice President issued a correction to his remarks within 24 hours of his unfortunate misstatement. Democrats ignore the correction.

Former President Clinton stills stands by the statement he didn't have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky. Democrats ignore the original statement. Say lying was justified. "

" "Instead dead enders like xdfred, rooster and hetfield are left to defend the greed and destruction they brought to America during their years in power. Meanwhile the American people still support ideas like Social Security, Medicare, and other programs enacted by progressives and liberals decades ago."
Greed and destruction? There is no worse greed than wanting to take something you did not earn. What destruction? My gosh, you prove Clayton's point time and time again.

As to people supporting SS, and Medicare, well, then why the whining every year by recipients who just want more, and the complaining that Medicare doesn't cover every elective procedure everybody wants. Let's not talk about bankrupting the fed piggy bank, either. The future for entitlement programs: Raise taxes and hurt the economy, or chop benefits. Somebody has to pay the piper. But it's worth it, since "progressives" and "liberals" feel good. "

" Cross:"I think you suffer from a selective memory that only admits evidence that proves you prejudices." Top of your class in English, huh?

What ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? That was another Clinton scam.

The United States military saved South Korea, only to have the UN continue the failed partition process and the perpetual state of war. And people have been dying on the front. Including US personnel.

How about the UN on terrorism? Where are they in all this? How about Israel? The UN condemns Israel for defending itself, but not a word about Hamas or Hezbollah. And Somalia, Rwanda, Darfur........
India and Pakistan being talked out of going to war? Where did this nonsense come from? "

" Earth to Phil. President Bush isn't running again. Neither is Cheney. You keep stating that war is the last resort, but what you really mean is no war at all, regardless of the consequences. "

" cire @ Jun 18, 2008 9:16 AM wrote about why global warming is a fraud.

Actually cire, if you don't have a Ph.D. then you're not entitled to your own opinion. With a Ph.D., you're a "scientist." Without one, then you're a "crackpot." It's just like not being entitled to your own opinion disputing the theory of gravity. You may associate yourself with those who are scientists (or associate yourself with other crackpots) but you my not have your own opinion.

On global warming, it's not a matter of which side of a scientific argument you are associating yourself with. It's a matter of whether you are going with the scientists or the crackpots. Unlike what you say, the consensus of scientific opinion is that global warming is real and is caused by human activity. To be sure, there are crackpots saying something else.

As for Al Gore, he's associated himself with the scientists and is telling you to believe what he says because it's what the scientists say. He is NOT saying, "Believe it because I believe it."

It's interesting that you mention Al Gore again. I suspect that you deny global warming because Al Gore supports the science. You don't really know anything about the science. You just want to oppose anything that Al Gore, a Democrat, has to say. "

" xdfred @ Jun 18, 2008 11:53 AM said, "complaining that Medicare doesn't cover every elective procedure everybody wants."

I don't think that Medicare covers ANY "elective procedure." Medicare keeps people alive and that seems like more that you'd allow if you were in charge. "

" xdfred @ Jun 18, 2008 12:01 PM said, "resident Bush isn't running again. Neither is Cheney."

McCain used to be known as "Mr. Straight Talk." But, he's now adopting position after position of the Bush Administration. It's perfectly fair to state the hyperbole that, "Bush is running for a third term."

As for the war, it's doubtful that anyone could make the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, (and soon to be Iran), and the Middle East any worse than Bush/Cheny have made it. Getting out will be tough. But, no matter how tough, it's not going to be worse than trying to "win" -- whatever that means. "

" xdfred @ Jun 18, 2008 11:58 AM said, "What ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? That was another Clinton scam."

You have GOT to be kidding! Mass graves are still being found. Denying that is lunacy. "

" cross, let me get this straight.. someone's opinion does not matter unless they went to school and received a degree for something relating to it.. Is that right?

So....how about the scientists who do not believe the increase in temperatures is caused by human activity? Or do they fall into the "crackpot" category since they don't fall in line with your beliefs?

I know a meteorologist who received his bachelor's in atmospheric science..and he believes global warming is simply a natural cycle. Does his opinion count or not since he doesn't have a Ph.D? Please enlighten me, so I will know whose opinion matters and whose doesn't. "

" OK, Cross. You must be easy to spot in a crowd. You'd be the one with your hands up.

"You have GOT to be kidding! Mass graves are still being found. Denying that is lunacy."Prove it. The last information I found says less than 3000 dead, and from battle, not murder. You just made Clayson's point again.

"I don't think that Medicare covers ANY "elective procedure." Medicare keeps people alive and that seems like more that you'd allow if you were in charge. " OK, killer Cross, you continue to murder.....the English language. Do you think there aren't government types now contemplating ways of bumping people off somehow to avoid paying SS and Medicare? You don't think that's happening? What makes the people in charge now saints? And if the Fed goes bankrupt, what then?

You just proved Clayson right yet again. According to you, anyone who even questions the human caused global warming scam is a crackpot. Nice label Yet the evidence just isn't there, is it? "

" cire @ Jun 18, 2008 1:56 PM asked, "someone's opinion does not matter unless they went to school and received a degree for something relating to it."

For something that involves knowledge of a complicated area of science, the answer is, "yes." Sure, you may have an opinion without the education, but your opinion doesn't matter.

cire asked, "So....how about the scientists who do not believe the increase in temperatures is caused by human activity?"

As far as I know, there aren't any real "scientists" who believe global warming isn't caused by humans. The crackpots have managed to find some pseudo-scientists who are deniers or they misquote or quote out of context real scientific work.

cire, you're just going to have to give it up. Scientific opinion is heavily against you.

cire also asks, "I know a meteorologist who received his bachelor's in atmospheric science..and he believes global warming is simply a natural cycle. Does his opinion count or not since he doesn't have a Ph.D?"

No, it doesn't. "

" xdfred @ on Jun 18, 2008 2:10 PM said, "The last information I found says less than 3000 dead, and from battle, not murder.

xdfred, that is total bull feathers. Something like 100,000 to 200,000 are dead. And people who are bound and gagged are hardly KIAs. Waterloo has a lot of Bosnians. Ask one of them whether it's true or not.

He asks, "Do you think there aren't government types now contemplating ways of bumping people off somehow to avoid paying SS and Medicare?"

Yes, I deny it. Your claim is a libel against many good people. But, your claim is testimony to your jaundiced view of anything relating to government.

He claims, "And if the Fed goes bankrupt, what then?"

Actually, the chances of bankruptcy by Medicare or SS are zero (0). By definition, you can't go bankrupt when you're still collecting billions in revenue every year. The worst that could happen if the situation is not fixed is that years from now the amount being paid out would have to be reduced. But it will never be stopped because of a lack of funds.

Those on the hard right have used "bankruptcy" regarding the fact that present revenue eventually won't pay all of the claims being made. Some people, like yourself, believe that the funds will eventually be exhausted. That's just not true.

Once again, you have your own "facts" that are not correct. It gets a little tiresome to contend with great ignorance purporting to be great wisdom. "

" Cross, it just hit me that you actually equated human-caused global warming to the law of gravity...... wow "

" cire, you really don't get science at all, do you. The process of taking a theory and testing it, rejecting the theory if it doesn't test right, developing a new theory, and testing it, are the same for all the sciences. Thus, yes, the questioning and testing of gravity and whether humans have caused global warming were both tested.

No matter what you do, you cannot escape the fact that well-educated and experienced scientists have concluded that we are ruining our own climate. The consensus on that is plain to see. Arguments by crackpots don't count. "

" xdfred @ Jun 18, 2008 2:10 PM said, "OK, Cross. You must be easy to spot in a crowd. You'd be the one with your hands up."

xdfred, if that means what I think it means, then I really resent it. I served in the military in a war. I would suggest that questioning my willingness to put my life on the line when my country needs it is the tactic of a horses behind. "

" Note to; Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell & The Wright Brothers. According to Cross your opinion doesn't matter since you never finished your education. As he puts it "For something that involves knowledge of a complicated area of science, the answer is, "yes." Sure, you may have an opinion without the education, but your opinion doesn't matter." Classic! "

" Phil & Cross, Why won't Al Gore debate his global warming theory? He's been offered large amounts of money that could be used to buy a lot of carbon offsets. I would think he would welcome the opportunity to advance his agenda. I'll give you two credit, you will actually "debate". BTW did you see his energy consumption is up 10%? Good for him. That helps my retirement account. "

" Oops, I forgot to mention Anton van Leeuwenhoek. "It was he who discovered bacteria, free-living and parasitic microscopic protists, sperm cells, blood cells, microscopic nematodes and rotifers, and much more. He had no fortune, received no higher education or university degrees, and knew no languages other than his native Dutch." I got that from a Berkeley website of all places. Just another in the long list of people who's opinions don't matter. "

" Hmm, if Bush didn't lie why did Congress vote 251 to 166 in favor of bringing 35 articles of impeachment against the president? Ask your congressman about HR 1258. "

" Cross do you have a Ph.D. in science? If not, your opinion on Human Caused Global Warming doesn't matter. Do you have a Ph.D. in anything? If not, your opinion on anything doesn't matter. "

" oh chester and cross, you big mean guys you...yes b. hussein obama is a heck of a speaker! he is! this is why he was chosen by the libs to run. that is it and that is all. it is the only thing he can do well.

he is a great speaker only when using a teleprompter reading a speech someone else has written. Without the aid of a teleprompter is he lost! He can hardly hold a thought. Do you know why? It isnt that he cant talk and lie with the best of the libs, it is that he has no clue how to answer the question unless he has his cue cards of correct responses from the left puppetmasters.

Another reason is he has no experience in real life at anything other than railing on the American, conservative, way of life. This guy is just a puppet for the ex clinton administration.

Now onto Algore. He has now proven that the US needs to drill and drill now. What Rooster posted is exactly why. He and his little 'green' mansion increased energy consumption 10% from last year. Not only that, but these 'improvements' cost more than the GNP of most 3rd country nations. Real nice mr VP.


I thought the good obama was all about change? Why is he sounding like the same old record of the left? Why does he continue to hire, cling to, then eventually dump the same leftist advisors of clinton? They just keep on moving down the food chain.

Time to drill, boys, time to drill! "

" Cross..some of your comments are very, very condescending. No-one's opinion matters unless they have a Ph.D??? haha, that's comedy right there. I had several professors at UNI who had Ph.D's that made absolutely moronic statements and had insane philosophies of the world...but I guess I should side with them because they have a title...what a joke.

Food for thought, below are actual headlines pertaining to "climate change", the articles were backed by plenty of scientific "evidence"...

New York Times (1895): "Prospects of Another Glacial Period"

New York Times (1959): "A Warmer Earth Evident at Poles"

New York Times (1961): "Scientists Agree, World is Colder"

Time Magazine (1974) - "Another Ice Age"

LA Times (1978) - "No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere"

New York Times (2007) "Science Panel Calls Global Warming Unequivocal"


Cross, the climate changes all the time...get used to it. You seem to put a lot of faith in your bretheren of Ph.D's... however history speaks volumes, and history is on my side, not yours. "

" rooster @ Jun 18, 2008 7:38 PM said, "Note to; Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell & The Wright Brothers. According to Cross your opinion doesn't matter since you never finished your education."

If I wanted information on the specialties of any of those people, they can certainly be asked. But, on the cause of global warming, their opinions are as good as yours or mine. That is, nothing at all. I doubt that anyone could master universal knowledge. But, those who have spent a lifetime studying and thinking about the causes of global warming are not the same as any of those you mention or you and me. Among those people who have learned and studied, the overwhelming consensus is that human activity has caused global warming. The topic is not open for debate by those who are crackpots. "

" rooster @ Jun 18, 2008 8:01 PM said, "Why won't Al Gore debate his global warming theory?"

rooster, I judge that you haven't heard. The debate is already over and the winner is those on the side that humans are causing global warming. After all, look at the scientific consensus that humans cause global warming.

Debating it makes as much sense as a debate on whether gravity exists. It's a waste of everyone's time to debate something on which there is a consensus by everyone but crackpots. "

" cross: "As far as I know, there aren't any real "scientists" who believe global warming isn't caused by humans."

Are you kidding? Now there are "real" scientists and "fake" scientists?? Cross, please explain to us all how many categories of scientists there are.. I thought before today that you were either a scientist or not a scientist...but apparently I'm wrong (again)...now there are sub-categories of scientists. I learn something new every day reading your posts.

If you care to know, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who disagree with the scientific "consensus" that most of this warming is attributable to human activities..with published studies, published articles, etc, etc..

But I have to admit, these are probably the "fake scientists" you've been talking about. "

" cire @ Jun 18, 2008 11:36 PM said, "As far as I know, there aren't any real "scientists" who believe global warming isn't caused by humans."

If you really believe that, then you're not paying attention.

Also, "If you care to know, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who disagree with the scientific 'consensus'"

If that were really true then there wouldn't be a consensus. Fortunately, it's not true. "

" Cross, you're running away from your statement. You said "For something that involves knowledge of a complicated area of science, the answer is, "yes." Sure, you may have an opinion without the education, but your opinion doesn't matter." The people I mentioned did not have degrees and yet they were the founders of microbiology, aeronautics, electrical engineering and software engineering. Given your definition of "scientitsts" these people are "crackpots". "

" Cross, If scientitst are still debating global warming then how can there be a concensus? The arguement isn't over just because you say it's over. You're so typical of the left. If someone disagrees with you, you resort to name calling and character assasination. I've yet to see you post any facts or studies to support your claim. All I've read from you is intellectual elitism and name calling. "

" Phil & Cross, do you agree with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., that we global warming "deniers" need to be treated as traitors? Just curious if we should be put in jail because our ideas differ from yours. "

" I found a few more "crackpots" that kept researching even though the "debate was over". Thankfully they didn't listen to the Al Gore's of their day;

Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
His idea that electrolytes are full of charged atoms was considered crazy. The atomic theory was new at the time, and everyone "knew" that atoms were indivisible (and hence they could not lose or gain any electric charge.) Because of his heretical idea, he only received his university degree by a very narrow margin.

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes in 1930, squashed by Eddington)
Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics, major recognition only fifty years. Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington.

C.J. Doppler (Doppler effect)
Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.

Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
It was not the church authorities who refused to look through his telescope. It was his fellow scientists! They thought that using a telescope was a waste of time, since even if they did see evidence for Galileo's claims, it could only be because Galileo had bewitched them.

George S. Ohm (Ohm's Law)
Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal. His work was called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. ten years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance.

See any parallels to todays global warming crowd? For the complete list query "Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated". "

" "scientists" not "scientitst" - Fruedian slip. "

" rooster @ Jun 19, 2008 5:54 AM asked, "If scientitst are still debating global warming then how can there be a consensus?"

That's the point, rooster. The scientists are NOT still debating whether global warming is caused by human activity. There is a consensus. The "debate" among scientists is just a fabrication apparently by the hard right who think that the lefties are pushing it so it has to be wrong.

And, sure, there are cases in history when the scientists have been wrong. However, that's not the way to bet. "

" what the global warming advocates are trying to do is akin to watching 2 seconds in the middle of a movie and telling you how it's going to end.
Our scientific knowledge, when it comes to global warming/cooling/whatever, is very limited and in it's infancy.

Should I state AGAIN that our best scientists predicted 30 years ago that we were slipping into another Ice Age. They were so certain back then too, but they were wrong. I'm sure the people who criticized the scientists'/media's opinions back in 1978 were also labeled "crackpots" by people like you.

Again, cross..I'm not denying that the earth may be warming, but to say that it is caused by humans and is catastrophic? Come on...everything is a crisis with you guys. "

" The global warming crowd is the latest "ship of fools" to set sail in America. Gore and his ilk use the global warming farce to further the agenda of more and more government, more and more control. We is two stoopid two no no beter. We nead Al Gor to help us git on the write trak.

Is so funny to see the same groups recycle the same thought processes (socialism) into different causes every few years. They will never be satisfied until they have they the power, and the US becomes a socialist state. You see... socialism has failed everywhere on the planet, but that's only because the liberals in the US haven't tried it yet. They labor under the illusion the they will be the one's to finally get it right.

All of you rats can follow the Pied Piper Al Gore right off the cliff as far as I'm concerned. "

" "There is no worse greed than wanting to take something you did not earn."

You must mean like Ken Lay and the folks at Enron (that guy Bush claims he didn't know - but used his airplane when campaigning in 2000). The "Enron loophole" was pure greed and it is still hurt America by allowing speculators to drive up the price of oil. They play games with the market to fill their greedy pockets at our expense. Nothing is created by these tranactions - no product created - just greed. Recent testimony before Congress indicates that 25% or more of the price paid for oil and gasoline is due to the Enron loophole speculators - supported by the way by McCain staffers who lobbied to keep the loophole in place.

Destruction - of our middle class, of our economy, of our rights under the constitution, of our standing in the world, of our honor as a country who doesn't torture----how many more do you need?

Bush's legacy will be greed and destruction.

Come out of the caves and see the light of day - the American people are. "

" Sure, Bosnia genocide never happened, and Saddam didn't kill his people either. Cause if you believe one, then you must believe the other one. Oh, and no one has been killed in Darfur either.

In other news, the tooth fairy says business is up this year and Santa Claus is glad he uses reindeer instead of transportation that is based on oil or gasoline. "

" Phil, you and Barack Hussein Obama have at least one thing in common. Miles, and I mean miles, of gibberish, but not really saying anything.

" Sure, Bosnia genocide never happened, and Saddam didn't kill his people either. Cause if you believe one, then you must believe the other one. Oh, and no one has been killed in Darfur either." Pure silliness. There's plenty of proof (bodies) for the last two, but not for Clinton's illegal, unsanctioned, deflect attention from WJC's little war. "

" xdfred @ Jun 19, 2008 9:15 AM said, "I'm still not buying your combat veteran malarkey, Walter Mitty."

Here you have a indicator of the depth and breadth of xdfred's willingness to deny reality. He denies the occurrence of a part of my own life. It shows, more than anything else, that he's just plain mean. It's bad enough that he also engages in personal invective ("Liar liar pants on fire.") but to deny service to one's country is just beyond the pale if civilized conduct.

I suspect that xdfred is one of those who loudly proclaim the need to thank our veterans. His denial of my status shows his true belief. "

" Here's your UN, Cross:

"TABOO SUBJECTS FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
The top official of the United Nations Human Rights Council is concerned that there are "taboo" subjects that the council refuses to address ... can you guess what main subject would be taboo for the Human Right Council? That would be ANY discussion on Islamic Sharia Law.
On Monday Council chair Doru Romulus Costea cut off a speaker who raised the subject of Islamic Sharia law in relation to human rights. The man had the nerve to bring up rules for women under Sharia law, which include the death penalty by stoning for alleged adultery.
His comments sparked a "furious response" from Arab and Islamic members and Egypt's ambassador declared that "Islam won't be crucified before this Council". What he meant to say was, how dare you insult the religion of Allah, may peace be upon him. Then the chairman of the council explained that the human rights council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth ... if they aren't going to discuss religious matters then what the hell is the point? But Costea insists that "the Council doesn't have the expertise to debate about the fascinating links between religion and human rights."
This, my friends, is you United Nations. And this is your praise-worthy Human Rights Council."

From Neal Boortz "

" If the theory of evolution were true, there should be plenty of older fossils without eyes, like, say, early trilobites. Hey, there aren't any! So either we just haven't found any, or eyes developed super quick. But, that can't happen, can it?

Evolution depends on millions of years for species to change from germs to, say elephants. Which, of course proves the earth is millions of years old. But is it? It has to be for Darwin's theory to hold water.

Darwin's theory explains changes from one species to another, but cannot explain the origin of life. Even the atheists and darwinists interviewed in Ben Stein's movie could not answer this. And yes, they did look foolish.


Feel free to call me a crackpot. "

" cire @ Jun 19, 2008 9:43 AM said, "what the global warming advocates are trying to do is akin to watching 2 seconds in the middle of a movie and telling you how it's going to end. Our scientific knowledge, when it comes to global warming/cooling/whatever, is very limited and in it's infancy."

Well, that's not exactly correct. Ice cores taken from the north of Greenland and from the South Pole shows what atmospheric conditions were like about 160,000 years ago. Ocean sediment, tree rings in ancient trees and other evidence testify to weather conditions over the long haul. They also provide a continuous record. And, they all show the increased temperature and CO2 levels.

The evidence of global warming from the industrial revolution on is there for all who will read it. "

" Cross, I'm not denying reality, as you put it. I'm denying your Walter Mitty syndrome story. It's that simple.
I'm not denying service to one's country, either. I'm denying your bogus claim.

Or are you the master arbiter of "reality" now?

To all real veteran's especially those that bled for the cause, Thank you.

Now Cross, you don't have to suspect anything. "

" Cross, did the ice cores, tree rings, sediments, tea leaves, and the other "evidence" show we were in for another ice age 30 years ago? How much extrapolation of the equations based on the data is required to predict global warming? How about error bands? How much error is involved? And why are we the only country required to drop to third world status to save the planet? And why don't we build 2000 nuke plants and go all electric? No human caused global warming crackpot has suggested that to save the world. Why? Because that is not the real goal. The goal is two fold. Pocket politics, the lining of Al Gore and his ilk's pockets, and the trashing of our economy. A lot of non value added bottom feeders are lined up to cash in on this scam. "

" Hey Cross, what about the medieval warming period? Around the 14-1500's. You know, when Greenland was actually green? Phil? Anybody? How about the silver means that were discovered in Sweden when the ice pack pulled back? Medieval working silver mines were found. But the debate is over, isn't it. Prof Clayson speaks the truth. Cross speaks with forked liberal tongue. "

" xdfred - gotta give you credit - you don't stop trying to defend the indefensible. The world has long since passed your ideas and idealogy by, but you continue to hang your hat with flat-earthers like Clayson and Stein.

Some do it for greed, power or to milk the ignorant, what's your excuse? You just don't know any better? "

" xdfred @ Jun 19, 2008 2:57 PM said, "Because that is not the real goal. The goal is two fold. Pocket politics, the lining of Al Gore and his ilk's pockets, and the trashing of our economy. A lot of non value added bottom feeders are lined up to cash in on this scam."

It has been my belief that most of the resistance by the hard right to belief in human-caused global warming has mostly to do with being against something that Al Gore is for. At least xdfred is admitting it. "

" That would be silver mines, not silver means. "

" " rooster @ Jun 18, 2008 8:01 PM said, "Why won't Al Gore debate his global warming theory?"

Heh. You wanna know why this is, rooster? Because some people are starting to reject this media spun notion that we have to give two sides to every issue, even those facts beyond reproach. Thank God. Why give any credence to stupidity?
The overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that global warming is real and 7 billion living people are having an effect on climate change. For every 1 superpartisan, hysterical Al Gore hater with a BA you find there are 30 non-biased members of the scientific community with far reaching credentials who don't have time for Hardball type bickering, and probably don't even fully realize how much it goes on. How much these stupid little shouting matches like we have here go on outside the shop.
These very qualified climatologists with, oh I don't, 25 years and a doctorate more than say, self proclaimed experts like Sean Hannity, have put thousands of pages of their raw data and observed and tested findings into journals and made your quacks look ridiculous. But we're still forced to listen to the quacks.
We now live in a country where we have to give face time to dopes that think God causes floods in anger and the Earth is a few thousand years old and because there is a loudmouth group of dummies out there with big, fat chips on their shoulders and seething hatred for anything Clinton related, we can't discuss these issues rationally.
Because when we do, the press is labeled "liberal" or "left leaning".
We have to coddle absolute morons like James Dobson and Tony Perkins and that's the society we now live in. Giving equal weight to lightweights.
You have no ground to stand on. But throw a tantrum and cry "liberal bias" because of your petulant personal hangups and crazypeople get invited to the table now.
Ever seen "Idiocracy"? Not a really great movie or anything, but hyperbole aside, that is in many ways the direction we are headed. "

" It is my belief that most of the acceptance by the hard left to belief in human-caused global warming has mostly to do with being for anything that Al Gore is for. "

" If George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the oil companies, Wall Street, and the Pentagon all said global warming was real (and helpful to their "interests") - and telling us how patriotic it was to fight it - you can bet that Leo46, xdfred, rooster, etal. would be telling us how it was real and we all better do something about it right now or the terrorists will win (or something like that).

But if Al Gore (track record - right on most things) and 10,000 scientific members say anything about it - well then it is a fantasy promoted by a bunch of crackpots and libs.

That's the burden liberals have to bear. The founding fathers were liberal to the point of radical. Most of the great programs in place that we now take for granted are liberal ones. Nothing new about that - just hard for the Clayson's of the world to acknowledge. "

" Truth was what Mr. Clayson's column was about. Well here are a couple of truths for you.

1. Oil around $140 barrel.

2. This - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php "

" One thing that the hard-right has held onto tightly is that government in this country has gone to an exceedingly hot place ever since FDR was president. The fact, though, is that with the exception of short periods the government has NOT been all that "liberal." The reason is that the "solid South" acted as an anchor on what the Democrats, although in nominal control, could do.

That may be about to change. If what happens in the election is what everyone expects, then we'll have a strong liberal president and a Congress controlled by northern, Midwest, and west-coast Democrats. The "solid South" will still be solid but it will be in the operational minority.

The result will be that those on the hard-right, who at one time were thinking that they had a "permanent majority." Now, we may see a long period of control by the Democratic Party. Those Democrats will be talking to traditional Republicans. However, I think that those on the hard right will only be remembered as a bad dream. "

" Phil states, "Al Gore (track record - right on most things)"

So..Al Gore DID invent the internet? or is that one of the rare times he was wrong?

seriously though, what has he been "right" about? I'd like to know.. "

" Phil, actually GWB DID say Global Warming was real, don't know about "Dick Cheney, the oil companies, Wall Street, and the Pentagon" and don't care.
As I've said on here before. Global Warming may or may not be a fact. ( evidence shows world temps have actually decreased over the last ten years)What I question is the supposed evidence of humans causing it. (No real evidence, just theories) "

" chester, it's funny you mention the movie "Idiocracy", I just watched it last night. You're right, it was not that good, and I definitely felt dumber after watching it.

I have plenty of liberal friends that really liked the movie and thought it painted the picture of hicks & conservative hillbillies perfectly.

The irony of this is that liberal elitists (like yourself), see themselves as better than the rest of Americans because 1. They loudly proclaim their belief in equality, and 2. they believe they all have above average IQs.

The mindset of most Democrats is that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, therefore Independents & Republicans cannot be right about any issues..because, after all, Democrats are smarter. Gotta love the elitist attitude. "

" cire, how have you gotten the message that Democrats think they are smarter? I would suggest that they have done no such thing. For some reason, you have plucked that out of thin air. But, I have no idea why you or anyone else would do that to themselves. "

" cross, it seems rather obvious to me..

Democrats must think that many Americans are too stupid to think, deduce, or act on their own. Why else would they want to have more & more government control & establish more bureaucracies? They obviously think government (with Dems in charge) can accomplish things BETTER than the people can. "

" cere, it's my view that the Democratic Party and our candidates are subject to the heavy influence, if not control, by the people. For that reason, I don't see the "government" as controlling the people because it thinks it is smarter that the people it works for. They are doing what the people want and it's usually what the people can't do or that can be done better collectively.

In the meantime, in case you think that any of my rebuttals are couch in terminology that you think isn't respectful, then I apologize. Your arguments are clear and you don't engage in ad hominum. "

" Again, let's start a chant that is great for America! Time to drill, boys, time to drill!

Barack Hussein Obama is now lost and can do nothing but hide behind the greenies and the wackos at Sierra.

Maybe he can add some more muslims to his next photo-op. "

" Chester, I got a kick out of your post. You write "Why give any credence to stupidity?" and then procede to write 6 paragraphs giving credence to my "stupidity". Now thats funny. "

" cire wrote:
"The irony of this is that liberal elitists (like yourself), see themselves as better than the rest of Americans because 1. They loudly proclaim their belief in equality, and 2. they believe they all have above average IQs."

No, I just have a contempt for people who take pride in their ignorance. The guy who is darn certain that wearing a lapel pin is the surefire mark of a brave patriot and votes with only that, and what he heard on Rush this morning, in mind. Or those who wave their flags and their bibles and tell us they support the troops and consistently and without fail, cut veteran's benefits, send obviously messed up soldiers back to the desert, and stifle funding for more armor and better equipment.
And I have contempt, and think I am smarter than, those who repeatedly fall for empty slogans about "less government", yet support the most hypocritical, tax money grubbing officials in our nation's history.

And yes, I do want intellectuals handling weighty matters. What's the alternative? Psychics like Bill Kristol whose win/loss record makes the Washington Generals look like national champions. We've seen that alternative, and the rest of the Western world makes fun of us. They see America's most outspoken delegates fall back on religion and jingoism in an embarrassingly hysterical fashion whenever they get cornered, and the rest of the enlightened world laughs at us.
You know how you see the 2 billion members of the Muslim community as a certain bunch of radical terrorists? Well, guess what. Everyone now sees us as a country of sweaty fat guys with combovers holding a bible up high in one hand and clutching a list of call girls down low in the other.

I will give it up, for a second, for xdfred who actually made at least some half hearted attempts at poking the Goliath of overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change with something more substantial than "call a waaahmbulance for the polar bears!"
He's at least trying. For those few posts anyway.

But elsewhere we have tools out here who continue to beat the "Obama is a Muslim" drum, which is the best a guy like Hetfield can come up with. And once again, brutha, that swiftboating ain't gonna work in November. Barack Hussein Obama, how you so maturely refer to him, is going to be your next POTUS. Get used to it. I don't know if he's going to be an effective leader or not really, but you oughta start making travel plans now to 1933 Berlin where your neocon mindset will be most accommodated.

Anyhow cire, I'm sure you figure me for some college boy limousine librul, which couldn't be further from the truth, but whatever. Your favorite politicians have ingrained that warped stereotype in your head so they can continue being the exact people they tell you to condemn.

cire wrote:
"The mindset of most Democrats is that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, therefore Independents & Republicans cannot be right about any issues..because, after all, Democrats are smarter. Gotta love the elitist attitude. "

Why wouldn't they? You guys destroy all credibility you could possibly have when you suggest things like the planet is a few thousand years old.
You complain about how schools have gotten all touchy-feely and "feminized" and implicate teachers in some liberal scheme to stop teaching math and reading and science. Stop teaching science!? Your buddies want us to teach fantasy. What's more touchy-feely than that?

And I like how you lump Independents in there. As if the definition of the word "independent" suggests that those professing themselves to be one subscribe to the hardright neocon school of "thought" any more then they believe in living in treetops to keep them from being chopped down. "

" Cross, You wrote "how have you gotten the message that Democrats think they are smarter?". How about a quote from the man of the hour himself? In 1994 Al Gore was commenting on Oliver North's Senate run and said that North was counting on political contributions from "the extra-chromosome right wing." Remember that gem? Good one Al, nothings gets a good laugh like Down's Syndrome. "

" Al Gore's carbon footprint is larger than the combined footprint of everyone that posted here. Way to lead by example Al! "

" chester, the straw man in the room left hours ago.. I (for one) don't believe the earth is mere thousands of years old or that Obama is a Muslim. In fact, Obama appears anti-Muslim because he won't be seen on camera with them.

btw, i AM an Independent, because I don't like the way the Republican party abandoned their fiscally conservative ideals. I do happen to have an American flag hanging outside large enough that some people mistake my house for a Perkins. Please explain to me what is wrong with being proud of your country and displaying the flag of a country that so many of our ancestors fought and died to protect? Do you get upset when you see someone waving a flag or wearing a flag pin?

You prove my point of liberal elitism because you look at everyone else as stupid, fat, bible-clutching, flag-waving hillbillies with comb-overs...not sure why you mentioned a comb-over but I guess that does make us all look more stupid, so you might as well tag that one on your description I guess. "

" Did you see your boy Obama redesign the Presidential Seal and put it on his podium?? wow...is he aware this carries a maximum 6-month prison sentence? br />

18 USC Sec. 713 ...
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. "

" Ok, cire, I will look forward to the Independent thought on display in your future posts. Seriously.

Also, I'm sorry I lumped you in on some of those issues I said are squandering the credibility of conservatives. But I think you have to admit, those are some of the prime tenets of the modern Republican.

And I'm not talking fiscal conservatism, which is a terrific philosophy. I am talking about the mangled, 21st century version of conservatism. All silly, emotional social issues. And they blame liberals for packaging everything in emotion.

Now,you'll invariably say (or maybe you won't) that under Kennedy, MLK, liberalism was once a proud ideology and tree huggers and Cindy Sheehan have turned it on it's head. I'll admit that folks like that have a tendency to, unintentionally, undermine what progressives are working towards. Although, Sheehan is a good human being who just wanted an end to a complete miscarriage of power. She just could've gone about it a little differently.

Anyway, for the record, I'm less pro-liberal than I am anti-neocon.

As far as the sweaty, fat, combover, Bible beating stuff, that IS how many in Europe and Canada see most of the representatives of our country. Because guys like that are our loudest. And the combover thing was kind of a joke but hey, Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh are who many people in other countries think of when they think American politics. And those bums' disgusting ideologies make us look like ignorant rubes to so much of the informed world.

And, please, once and for all explain to me, cire, how very rich men like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and let's just say the top 500 most powerful Republican elected and appointed officials in this country, and throw in a plethora of right wing media pundits, are anything BUT elitists. We're talking about a cabal of millionaires. Sure, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, same thing..I won't deny it,
But you act like the guys you consistently defend are townhall populists. Maybe not you, but a lot on those appearing to be your side of the fence, see W. in a cowboy hat and think he actually herds cattle down in Crawford. What a fantastic misdirection the neocons concocted there.
Elitist...Sure, ok.
Why, because we believe in science and not in juvenile absolutes?
Isn't the perpetual wool on your face getting warm? "

" I missed this one.
xdfred wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:48 PM:
" If the theory of evolution were true, there should be plenty of older fossils without eyes, like, say, early trilobites. Hey, there aren't any! So either we just haven't found any, or eyes developed super quick. But, that can't happen, can it?"

Come on xdfred, there are millions of years of fossilized remains without eyes. Look up nematodes, and annelids. Every evolutionary stage of ocular development can be found within the fossil record. It's actually quite a fascinating reality of nature. If you could detach yourself from man-made stories and inform yourself on the issue, it's quite a rewarding subject. You don't have to not believe in God to believe in evolution.

"Darwin's theory explains changes from one species to another, but cannot explain the origin of life. Even the atheists and darwinists interviewed in Ben Stein's movie could not answer this. And yes, they did look foolish."

Oh, people handpicked by Stein to appear in the film weren't outstanding in selling evolution? Imagine that.
How about that it's not the theory of evolution's job to explain the origin of life anymore than it's the job of a your plumber to explain the origin of life. The reality of evolution simply advises that organic beings have developed for the past 5 billion years to adapt to changing climates and adversities. It suggests nothing about how life was created. I won't argue for one second on that issue with you because I really would respect your opinion if you said a supreme being created the universe billions of years ago. It holds as much integrity, really, as the Big Bang Theory.

"Feel free to call me a crackpot. "
Ok. "

" Really fred, the best example you'd be most effective in sticking with on the subject of evolution is that you yourself haven't experienced it yet. "

" rooster wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:49 PM:
" Chester, I got a kick out of your post. You write "Why give any credence to stupidity?" and then procede to write 6 paragraphs giving credence to my "stupidity". Now thats funny. "

I was just trying to be nice. "

" One last thing there, cire. You act like I have distaste for you because you hang a big American flag in your yard. I have one in my window. I am also a veteran. Not a combat veteran but a veteran of the USN. And I love the ol' red, white and blue.
Come on. That's what you guys always fall back on. Way to be disingenuous.
Not so long ago we all had an America where we didn't trust our government but we loved our country. The right maintains that that's what we should all do but then when we criticize this administration their defenses go up.
It's the guys that throw up the flag as a symbolic license to run ramshod in Washington.
So, my short reply is, just because you wear a lapel pin don't make you a patriot. "

" One last thing there, cire. You act like I have distaste for you because you hang a big American flag in your yard. I have one in my window. I am also a veteran. Not a combat veteran but a veteran of the USN. And I love the ol' red, white and blue.
Come on. That's what you guys always fall back on. Way to be disingenuous.
Not so long ago we all had an America where we didn't trust our government but we loved our country. The right maintains that that's what we should all do but then when we criticize this administration their defenses go up.
It's the guys that throw up the flag as a symbolic license to run ramshod in Washington.
So, my short reply is, just because you wear a lapel pin don't make you a patriot. "

" Good post Cire. Of course, Barack Hussein Obama could care less about American laws and values.

hey as long as the Mrs is proud of him now. "

" Chester, you're dreaming. There are no fossils of creatures without eye sockets covering the span it would take for evolution to suddenly create vision. Just not there. Also, i you study the fossil record, you will find that the dating abruptly ends. Why would that be?

Hey Phil, oil prices skyrocketed after Democrats took over both houses.

" xdfred - gotta give you credit - you don't stop trying to defend the indefensible. The world has long since passed your ideas and idealogy by, but you continue to hang your hat with flat-earthers like Clayson and Stein.

Some do it for greed, power or to milk the ignorant, what's your excuse? You just don't know any better? "

Great way to duck the question and issue, Mr elitist. So, what about the medieval warming period? What caused that? Too many campfires?

Face it. You're wrong, again. "