What's Mallard raving about today?
TOOTS DAYUmm, is the noted scientific journal Reason saying Arctic ice grew 60% between summer and winter? Because all the non-ideological sources are saying the Arctic could be ice-free in summer within a few years.
The surface area has increased, on the rebound from the smallest it's been measured at. The sheets are thinner than ever. Hope polar bears don't mind treading water for a while.
Fools like Mallard have ignored so many accurate predictions from our best experts - we know, for example, that all Arctic ice will be gone by the summer of 2012, http://www.theage.com.au/environment/our-melting-planet-ominous-warning-signs-in-the-arctic-20080803-3pc9.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2Even Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore told us, on 13 December 2008: “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years”Why won't anyone listen!
Awesome way to back up your prediction about the arctic ice growing back, AnonyBruce! Why didn't you quote your Amazing Predictions about how oil would be a dollar a gallon after we invaded Iraq, or how the economy would rebound if we kept taxes ridiculously low on the "Job Creators"?How about quoting some science from actual scientists, rather than oil company flacks and their paid right-wing flunkies like you? Or do you still believe that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, too? Must be true, RJ Reynolds proved it in the 1970s! Keep lickin' that spittle, Bruce!
On MF's favorite topic of spending tax dollars on schools:http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/In summary, much of the attention, and dollars, is spent on sports rather than math, science, etc.DW(And wasn't Sunday's MF one the most stupid ones?)
Say, remember how outraged and scornful Brews was when predictions like "We'll be welcomed as liberators"; "It's a slam dunk we'll find weapons of mass destruction"; "I doubt it'll take six months"; or "The insurgency is in its last throes" proved spectacularly wrong? But if the tiniest detail in climate change models is off...
Well, he's got his little misleading factoid, and he'll keep worrying it like a dog shaking a piece of rope until it's worn away to nothing. Once somebody somewhere has said it, it becomes God's Trvth to him, and nothing will ever displace it, as long as it toes the party line.
CW, it's like with drugs. They believe in all these diddly little unrepeatable studies funded by corporations with an agenda, but for anything else, by gosh, we need more facts before we can act!Mind you, I'm of the belief that we shouldn't crap where we eat even if the world isn't coming to an end, but that's an even harder sell.("leanGov 57"?? Who writes these captchas? Orly Taitz?)
SADDER DAYYes, Brews, heaven forbid any money be spent to counteract the flamingly dishonest propaganda campaign to discredit the Affordable Care Act. I see which side of that you're lining up on. Speaking Truth to Power requires lies to get at the real truth, is that what you're telling yourself?
I'll bet no other president ever did this ever before, ever!
Of course, the amount of money spent on promoting Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with having to counter the constant fetid stream of disinformation campaigns organized by the GOP and their corporate puppeteers for the express purpose of terrorizing people into acting against their own best interests regarding health care. How many hundreds of millions of dollars do you suppose have been spent on those ads, Mallard?And it's funny, isn't it, how wingnuts only get all puffed up and proprietary about how it's "their" money when those taxpayer dollars are being spent on something they don't like.
Post a Comment