Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'

Feb 9, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Sacramento Bee Newspaper

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations.

Comments
261 - 280 of 363 Comments Last updated Mar 7, 2013
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#271
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>Since there are obviously two money trails to follow,which one do you?There are also people claiming to have scientific proof(scientific science fiction) on both sides.Are you as dumb as a box of rocks?Please tell us oh mighty one,which "facts" should we believe?Maybe you could cut and paste some for us.A link is always helpful when fact checking sources.
All the links are out there. Are you dumber than a box of rocks? Do you pay taxes? If you did than you can follow the money trail. No they don't have scientific proof, they use words like in my opinion, could be, not certain, forecast and so on. Ask Einstein about scientific proof. There are equal argument on both sides of the global warming, cooling climate change money trail hoax.Cut and paste is scientific science fiction.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#272
Jan 31, 2013
 
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof?
<quoted text>
Surely you've seen where I've put out the rebuttals showing how the right wing took sentences out of context to distort their meaning.
Let's see, you always ran off. Need to see some examples again?
<quoted text>
One example of a lie of yours, is when I asked you to explain why NASA
was "wrong" in their site of evidence.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You wouldn't reply to the substance, you simply put out a fat lie that there must be other NASA sites that said the opposite.
You put out some bad articles I proved were rebutted and CHALLENGED you to find me a NASA website, with their authentic logo that showed they didn't hold global warming was their official views.
You ran off, and keep playing these little games with words.
Telling, no????
<quoted text>
I give reputable science links all the time. Let's start with that NASA link above.
As for actual studies. I gave you a whole page of those once on CO2 warming. Care to see them again?
<quoted text>
CHALLENGE: HA HA. Then show them. I've debated this on another forum, and know all about this. Lindzen is from MIT, and was strongly rebutted... from NASA.
Spencer was a satellite satellite from NASA, also was disproven from the official NASA climatologists.
Nice try, dearie. You were demure about being paid by the denialists industry. I usually don't go there. But it would explain your lame posts.
Proof that the AAAS is spending more time chatting with politicos than conducting science. Their own web site for one and watch dogs for another.

You claim the right wing took things out of context then you should ask where they learned that. The answer of course is the main stream media has a history of doing just that.

I also notice that your only link to NASA is the one site. Funny thing is when you start looking you discover that more and more at NASA are jumping off that bandwagon before it sails over the cliff. In fact you claim Lindzen was disproved and discredited by NASA while ignoring that there are just as many at NASA who share his view and disagree with Dr Hansen.

You talk about playing word games and that is true. All you seem to offer is word games and the same few web sites. One of which is a NASA site that you seem to think should be accepted as the gospel truth just as others like you once thought of the IPCC while ignoring the fact that the page has several serious errors. Of course this error ridden link is called by you "reputable science links" while failing to provide one. Instead I see a steady stream from propaganda sites like skepticalscience and realscience. Maybe you should find a few reputable sceince links instead of relying on the same lame sources.

And as for the question of who is being paid. Are you? It would explain why you hold on to this silly argument. Of course I doubt anyone is paying you. Why pay a fool for being foolish when they will be foolish for free.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/0...

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#273
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>Since there are obviously two money trails to follow,which one do you?There are also people claiming to have scientific proof(scientific science fiction) on both sides.Are you as dumb as a box of rocks?Please tell us oh mighty one,which "facts" should we believe?Maybe you could cut and paste some for us.A link is always helpful when fact checking sources.
Why not find out for yourself. Go do the research and find out what each side says and more important what they are not saying. Dig into history and learn from the examples of the past.

Many of those like Wallop10 believe the way that they do because they want to matter. They want to solve a problem that is bigger than themselves and AGW was a perfect fit. They were looking for something they could blame on previous generations. History is full of examples of such youthful rebellion. Funny thing is when they become the age of those they are rebelling against they discover that those of the next generation is rebelling against them.

Do not rely on others to think for you. Think for yourself, learn what there is to learn.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Now you have done it, you scarred them away. I may have to seek other places now for free entertainment. You did spank them again good job.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof that the AAAS is spending more time chatting with politicos than conducting science. Their own web site for one and watch dogs for another.
No. They are a top science organization.
You "see" things.
Not to mention you ignored that I had every other top world renown science organization on a list that has a statement warning about global warming.

You have a warped view if you can pick on one that invalidates all the others. I forgot your whacked out reason for saying Britain's Royal Society should be ignore, for example
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

You claim the right wing took things out of context then you should ask where they learned that.
Actually I proved it multiple times.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

The answer of course is the main stream media has a history of doing just that.
Well there you go. If you can imagine anyone else doing it, of course the right wing has an excuse for distorting by taking out of context.

LOL.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

I also notice that your only link to NASA is the one site.
Well, let me correct that now.

http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And let me notice, when I ask you for an official NASA agency website on climatology, you ran off **AND ARE EVEN TOO DISHONEST TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT**
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is when you start looking you discover that more and more at NASA are jumping off that bandwagon before it sails over the cliff. In fact you claim Lindzen was disproved and discredited by NASA while ignoring that there are just as many at NASA who share his view and disagree with Dr Hansen.
They aren't climatologists. I can find you a NASA programmer who believes in demons and married a woman who drowned their children in the bathtub in Houston Texas.

I'm sure you can try and twist that too!
The rest of your post is trash.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
You did spank......
How can 'Less than a Box of Rocks' spank?
Flailer

Auburn, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

PHD wrote:
Now you have done it, you scarred them away. I may have to seek other places now for free entertainment. You did spank them again good job.
Do you realize that you have spent a great deal of time here contesting Tina and her assertations,repeatedly refering to her as stupid as a box of rocks.Then a few posts back you did a complete about face and now you count on her to make points for you that you can't quite articulate? Did you change your point of view on all this just recently or were you unable to tell what her point of view is from her posts?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>Do you realize that you have spent a great deal of time here contesting Tina and her assertations,repeatedly refering to her as stupid as a box of rocks.Then a few posts back you did a complete about face and now you count on her to make points for you that you can't quite articulate? Did you change your point of view on all this just recently or were you unable to tell what her point of view is from her posts?
PHD is unintelligible most of the time. She doesn't appear to get it, so hey, let her waste her time.
Flailer

Auburn, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not find out for yourself. Go do the research and find out what each side says and more important what they are not saying. Dig into history and learn from the examples of the past.
Many of those like Wallop10 believe the way that they do because they want to matter. They want to solve a problem that is bigger than themselves and AGW was a perfect fit. They were looking for something they could blame on previous generations. History is full of examples of such youthful rebellion. Funny thing is when they become the age of those they are rebelling against they discover that those of the next generation is rebelling against them.
Do not rely on others to think for you. Think for yourself, learn what there is to learn.
LOL...I have found out for my self and my request to "PHD" was sarcastic.You could figure that out? LOL. How do expect you to understand anything at this point?Your remarks about Wallop10 are funny because from your own posts most people would think that it is you who is so desperate to feel like you matter.I would hope that as an American,you too hope to find the answers that this country needs.I think that it's obvious from following the money trail that you are just a tool.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
PHD is unintelligible most of the time. She doesn't appear to get it, so hey, let her waste her time.
Walloped, walloped, walloped all day long. How are those walloped tires working for you?
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#281
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
How can 'Less than a Box of Rocks' spank?
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>Do you realize that you have spent a great deal of time here contesting Tina and her assertations,repeatedly refering to her as stupid as a box of rocks.Then a few posts back you did a complete about face and now you count on her to make points for you that you can't quite articulate? Did you change your point of view on all this just recently or were you unable to tell what her point of view is from her posts?
Why thank you for your concern. Well here in a free America that would be my choice to decide what side of the fence I wish to be on. I never said stupid see you made an ASSumption of your---self. I said less than a box of rocks. No, I see your point of view which is a zero. Next ASSumption of your--self move bring it.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283
Feb 1, 2013
 
Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>
to PennyHD:
Your remarks about Wallop10 are funny because from your own posts most people would think that it is you who is so desperate to feel like you matter.
I think that is the psychology going on here too.

Just vote the troll a peanut, and then ignore it.
Flailer

El Dorado Hills, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>
No end to your box of rocks mentality. Go back to school start at pre school level K level is beyond your scope of thinking and pay attention this time.Your taking your gender to a lower level please go back to school.
Honestly I didn't bother to read through all of your posts to find the word "stupid" because I only had to go to the first page of this thread to find these statements that you made about Tina Anne.The truth is that you can't comprehend what anyone is saying on here and you have made repeated comment attacking Tina Anne as "stupid".Using words and phrases that are synonymous with stupid doesn't change it.Unfortunately for you,everyone here can go back and see what you have said so there is no reason for you to try to lie about it.So.....why have you changed your stance.Are Tina's assertations just the ramblings of someone who is as you say"taking your gender to a lower level" and who should "go back to school" and "pay attention this time"?Is it true that K level is beyond her "scope of thinking"? First you attack her as uninformed and as dumb as a "box of rocks" and then you change 180 degrees with out explaination.I guess that this week you agree with Tina and next week you will be back to siding with Wallop.Maybe you should stick to logging on to your computer when you are sober because you aren't making a bit of sense.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#285
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>Honestly I didn't bother to read through all of your posts to find the word "stupid" because I only had to go to the first page of this thread to find these statements that you made about Tina Anne.The truth is that you can't comprehend what anyone is saying on here and you have made repeated comment attacking Tina Anne as "stupid".Using words and phrases that are synonymous with stupid doesn't change it.Unfortunately for you,everyone here can go back and see what you have said so there is no reason for you to try to lie about it.So.....why have you changed your stance.Are Tina's assertations just the ramblings of someone who is as you say"taking your gender to a lower level" and who should "go back to school" and "pay attention this time"?Is it true that K level is beyond her "scope of thinking"? First you attack her as uninformed and as dumb as a "box of rocks" and then you change 180 degrees with out explaination.I guess that this week you agree with Tina and next week you will be back to siding with Wallop.Maybe you should stick to logging on to your computer when you are sober because you aren't making a bit of sense.
You should be concerned with your own post. No, I have not changed anything. In addition, if you had spent some time reading the chain of events you would not look like the uninformed. I do not have to explain anything to you. Now if you would get off the elicit drugs you are on maybe you would make a bit of sense.
Flailer

Loomis, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#286
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You should be concerned with your own post. No, I have not changed anything. In addition, if you had spent some time reading the chain of events you would not look like the uninformed. I do not have to explain anything to you. Now if you would get off the elicit drugs you are on maybe you would make a bit of sense.
I have read every post and you have flip flopped over and over.Your posts are full of spelling errors and the worst grammar I have ever seen.They seem to be written by someone with about a sixth grade education.I have no idea what "elicit drugs"are but I do know how to use a dictionary when needed so I don't look uninformed as you do.Now put away your illicit drugs you lazy moron and pick up a dictionary.You are truly as dumb as a box of rocks.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>.You are truly as dumb as a box of rocks.
Any rational person here can see they are dumb as a box of rocks.

Throw some science out, and see if they get bored. We already know PHD can't handle that.
terry scott

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#288
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
do you even know where you stand on this? Go back and read yourself dude.you are a nut job. Maybe you can ask your mom to show you how to use spell check.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#289
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Flailer wrote:
<quoted text>I have read every post and you have flip flopped over and over.Your posts are full of spelling errors and the worst grammar I have ever seen.They seem to be written by someone with about a sixth grade education.I have no idea what "elicit drugs"are but I do know how to use a dictionary when needed so I don't look uninformed as you do.Now put away your illicit drugs you lazy moron and pick up a dictionary.You are truly as dumb as a box of rocks.
There you have it folks the mental midget at its best. You have no idea what anything would be. So that would make you a dumbASSumtion less-on. No go out, get a real education, and study real science. That cut and pastes scientific science fiction useless babble only scares the children of the world.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

terry scott wrote:
<quoted text>do you even know where you stand on this? Go back and read yourself dude.you are a nut job. Maybe you can ask your mom to show you how to use spell check.
In addition, another one like a rodent with its back against the wall taking attacks on peoples mothers. Whatever side I decide to be on would be my choice. You like to be a dictator than move to those third world countries that allow that sort of thing. We in the GREAT USA do have the freedom to choose. In addition, you are a mental midget.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••