Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Science? Guess we don't need it any more....

Posted By: Observer on 2005-08-31
In Reply to:

Poll: Give Bible story of creation equal time


Laurie Goodstein,  New York Times
August 31, 2005 RELI0831











 





In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly 66 percent of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.


The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.


In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; of those, 18 percent said that evolution was guided by a supreme being, and 26 percent said it occurred through natural selection.


In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.


The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people; the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.


The poll showed 41 percent of Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say school boards should.


Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. Those who believe in creationism said they were very certain of their views (63 percent), compared to those who believe in evolution (32 percent).


The poll also asked about religion and politics, among other things. Respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44 percent agreed), and that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent agreed).




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

ARROGANT? The Decider had that down to a science!
Landing on that aircraft carrier with his fake package - hahahahaha - Mission Accomplished all right! See ya in the soup kitchen!
A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the

theory of evolution is science.  Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over. 


Gravity is not a theory.  You jump 100 floors, you die.  Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory. 


So much for your public education. 


facts, evidence, science, and reason
Hasn't worked so well lately, has it?
This is not rocket science. If Americans have access to
it creates a win/win situation for us all. If they open that plan to such a broad base, they would be able to essentially write their own ticket in terms of policy and coverage. As the plan stands now, it is perfectly acceptable, affordable and offers broad choice.

If McCain and his supporters want to wallow around in the politics of nay-saying, fear and hate, no problem. Go for it, but don't expecct Americans who are ready for change and are looking forward instead of backwards in terms of policy to buy into all hat negativity. That's the Bush world mentality and those days are numbered now down to less than 100.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out....
the crap you are posting is just that, crap.
I see you've been reading the junk science

mags, watching AL Gore movies.  You really are being disingenous here.  There are 692 scientists who have declared that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.  Now, we are talking scientists with pedigress a mile long after their names.  You make that insidious claim that the ice caps are melting, and yes, they are, like they usually do, but you neglect to speak to the fact that as they melt, bigger ice caps form that are not melting.


If you have the intelligence to read the report on Fox News, you will see that this is a UN initiative that has been in the works for years.  It goes right along with their plan to strip property rights, huddle the masses in "villages," and only those in power will be the land owner barons. 


Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.


 


 


Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!

 


It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it.  But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.


 


Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon


Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State



POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005

UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005


The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.

The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.

About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.

From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year












from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html


For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.


By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.


For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.


We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.


Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.


In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.


This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.


This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.


This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.


An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.


Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.


Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.


Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.


It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.


The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.


Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.


Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.


Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)


David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.


Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.


In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.


But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.


It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.


Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.


Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.


SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.


Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.


This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.


In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.


Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.







www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email
Copyright




 


Religious "voodoo?" Science has documented and shown that....sm
life begins at conception, those cells are living, have their code, and I have seen my own children on ultrasound as early as 8 weeks (with high risk pregnancies) fully formed, moving all extremities, trying to suck their thumbs, kicking, tiny heart beating away, with everything that you or I have, only inside the womb. Now if you wish to believe that a woman can do with THAT as she wants, so be it, I still have to stand with the pro-choice crowd not because I believe in abortion or that it is okay and not murdering a human being, but because I can see the instances where a woman would be justified in her actions, and let her make her own peach and atonement with God, as we all will. Science more and more is proving out what has been in the Bible all along. I do not think that was a fair or rational characterization of "religion," and it was hurtful and inflammatory. Choose to be atheist or agnostic, Christianity is not "voodoo."
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.

Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."

Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.

He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.

This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics



Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves


In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."


Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.


Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"


Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.



"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.


"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.


"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.


"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.

Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”



'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
N/M
Good don't guess. It's my guess though.nm
x
My guess would be

THREE!



guess what
Now you know how it feels, don't you?
That's anybody's guess. sm
But I think it is an educated guess to think most democratic voters in this election were against the war and most republican voters were for the war. Just my guess.
I guess your'e in the 39%
Bush approval rating dips to 39 percent - poll

Wed Oct 12, 9:47 PM ET

President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 39 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Bush's approval rating dipped in the poll below a mid-September ranking of 40 percent. The survey also found only 28 percent of respondents believed the country was headed in the right direction, NBC reported.

Bush's political challenges have been piling up in recent weeks, from criticism over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, to growing unease over rising gas prices to conservative discord over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many conservatives are outraged that Bush picked the White House insider with no judicial experience instead of a judge with clear-cut conservative credentials who could be counted on to move the high court firmly to the right.

Twenty-nine percent of people surveyed said Miers was qualified to serve on the highest court in the United States, while 24 percent thought she was not qualified and 46 percent said they did not know enough about her, NBC said.

The poll also found that strong majorities did not believe that recent charges against former House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas or a federal investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, were politically motivated, NBC said.

DeLay has been indicted in Texas on money-laundering and conspiracy charges linked to campaign financing. Frist is being investigated over a stock sale.

With the 2006 congressional elections a year away, 48 percent of respondents said they preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who said they preferred Republican leadership, NBC said.

The 9-point difference was the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had been tracking the question, NBC said.

The poll of 807 adults was conducted from Saturday to Monday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points
where are you? I guess some way
from Houston, too close to it myself! you are right about the crime wave, up just about everywhere. have your kids told you what Sugarland and Ft. Bend County are like now?

Anyway, nobody is going to hire a medical Transcriptionist with 143 days experience on her resume and I don't feel inclined to hire a president with that, either.

Immigration is not the problem; invasion is, lawbreakers are a problem. We just had a pastor on TV in Houston who has had 5 wrecks, all caused by uninsured motorists and that is the least of it. I personally have seen what is happening to our ER's, unfortunately, the media says little about it. I understand 87 hospitals in southern California have folded. No private hospital can withstand the onslaught of all this clinic business. But, of course, the actual clinics designed for this are only open during regular business hours. Well, just a few thoughts of mine.
To Guess Who?

Sam,


Here, here! Couldn't have said it better myself! We ALL have our own personal experiences with illegals.  Where is the mention of all the illegals that come here with drugs, and murder and rape our people?! Did I mention the pedophiles?! Just watch the news and it's all over the place! Just yesterday, they were talking about an illegal from Mexico in SanFrancisco that killed a father and his 2 boys, over a traffic incident!!!??? He was part of a gang! He previously was in trouble with the law before, and nothing was done! Now 3 people are dead, and a wife and 2 other children are forever torn apart by this low-life piece of sh*T that couldn't care LESS about life, liberty, and the pursuit!!!! Same story just a few months ago in LA.  Another gang member (illegal) shot a young teen and he is now dead! These are just 2 of the MANY stories out there! Even the people that are coming here "for a better life", I can understand that.  What I don't understand is them coming here and getting FREE medical, FREE housing, etc. etc. etc.... Why the hell are THEY entitled, but we, as natural-born citizens are not, because we may "make too much money?!" My dad is 62 years old, and probably will work till the day he dies, because he isn't "entitled" to any of this, he doesn't have savings or 401K to fall back on.  My husband busts his butt, and pays a LOT of $ every month so that we all have medical, why? so they can come here and drop a kid for free, at the expense of OUR tax dollars?! BS!!! You wanna come here, fine! Then WORK for your OWN medical, housing, food, etc. etc.! I agree with the above, as for the lawbreakers, molesters, murderers, gang-bangers, let them all rot on an island together! And don't come here and wave your Mexican flag, or any other flag for that matter! If you went to other countries with your American flag, you would most likely be shot!


So please, Guess Who, get a grip and a life!


To everyone else, have a lovely day!


Guess what?! At 17, you should not
be having sex!  Duh!  My mother started working outside the home when I was 12.  She gave me VALUES of responsibility, of self-respect, and the consequences of my actions.  I never had to be told not to have premarital sex.  Unreal!  If this stuff was coming out about Chelsey Clinton, you all would be all over it!  What a meltdown!
You must be, I guess....nm
x
THough I guess they won't be able to use them...
if we have two women running next time...lol. Guess I can put a big red X through "him" and write on "her." lol.
Well, then I guess I have a very

simple view of politics.  I would think that if a bad bill is being put on the table, that enough politicians will see that it is bad and will vote against it, i.e. the bailout bill. 


I guess that's just too simple.  Agree to disagree.


I guess we will have to.............. sm
learn to say "Do you want fries with that?"

I'd say LOL if it weren't such a scary prospect.


Nothing to guess about. s/m
They'll be crying about their bottom line profit which they will pass down to consumers and they'll lay everyone off so they can send the jobs overseas.  No guess about it.  Then they'll cry some more when no one has any money to buy their overpriced stuff.
Well, guess I can guess! what it says.
We had several Cubans come over here back in the late 60's, all close friends, one a doctor who warned all of us then where medicine was going and he was right on the money. They fled Cuba for their lives at the time. I am watching my country unravel and there is not a dang thing I can do about it outside of this one vote.
My guess is...and only a guess....
because SS is in such pitiful shape now, this will take the place of it for those of us still working...while we continue to pay for those who are on social security NOW (with our payroll taxes) because in a congress in times past Democrats decided to "borrow" from social security and never paid it back. Liberal socialist ideas NEVER work. And people keep voting them in anyway and blaming it on Republicans. LOL. Like mice on a treadmill. Sigh.
Well, then, I guess we should

keep the 10 Commandments in church too.  Then we could just go around raping, killing, stealing, lying, whatever we felt like doing.  I believe 76 some odd percent of the U.S. describes their religion as Christianity.  We let Madeline O'Hair or whatever her name is take away prayer in schools, etc. etc.  I am sick to death of this p.c. stuff.  If someone wants to be an atheist or muslim or what the heckfire ever, let 'em be.  If they don't want to participate with the MAJORITY then I don't know of any law that makes them. 


Guess who said this

"we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."


The New Yorker Magazine


This is not an opinion, simply a quote.


My guess would be..............sm
just like the rest of the sheeple, they have been duped into believing this man will turn the economy around with his smoke-and-mirrors approach to healing the financial condition of this country, which in turn benefits them as the money is redistributed back up to the top. Who do you think will ultimately benefit from Obmama's plan. That's right..the rich...as the lower and middle class have more disposable income, the money will trickle right back up to the top.
my guess is a lot of them
x
I guess a lot of them
Question: I would like to know who "them" are?
Well, I guess you don't but
at least if you see it alive you know if it is sick.  I posted earlier about chickens.  I promise you if you ever saw the LIVE chickens loaded in the crates on the truck headed for the slaughter house you would NEVER EVER eat another chicken  And that's a pretty site compared to the inside of a 500 foot chicken house where hundreds of chickens are raised never seeing the sunlight and standing toe to toe in their own excrement.  Well.....get the picture?  But by the time they get to the grocery store all neatly packaged...........want me to tell you where they get the cut up chickens, breasts, thighs, legs, wings?  No?  I didn't think so.
I guess it's okay then............sm
especially in light of the fact they were serving coffee! LOL
guess not................sm
ms, but I guess we will all get a bowl of that ice cream now.
I think she did just guess also (sm)
I know she had been reading some articles in political magazines about him, not Muslim magazines.  So that part probably should not have even been mentioned in my post, as I think it had nothing to do with it.  She is not Muslim.  She is not religious at all I don't think.  She was a coworker I enjoyed talking with but since I went back home to work I haven't talked to her much so have not discussed it with her recently.  She and her husband consider themselves African-American although she is a mixed race.  So she may have been following his progress because of that, not sure.
Then I guess you can....... sm
take it up with God when you see Him. This kind of reasoning is so in line with the "me, me, me" greedy society that we have now. And as far as adopted children....I know quite a few who view their adoptive parents, the ones who loved them and provided for them, as their "real" parents rather than the biologic parent and have no desire whatsoever to meet the biologic parent. And I am sure they are thankful that the biologic parent didn't take the easy way out for herself and deny them the right to life.

My guess is that they don't like him because he is ...
BLACK!
Let me guess....(sm)

Since you call yourself FeFiFo, your last name must be Fum?  Or is it Pfffffft?  I know you use that as a sign off a lot.  Doesn't sound Jewish at all to me.  LOL.  First of all, *sm* is not a moniker; it simply means *see message.*  And so what if he/she doesn't use a moniker? 


Using a moniker isn't cowardly, it's protecting one's identity....that is unless you want to be considered cowardly as well since you do the same thing. 


Try sticking to the subject for a while.  *SM* (assuming it's the same person throughout this thread) has brought up some very interesting ideas concerning the situation, and yet the only response you have to these ideas (the other side) as well as mine (basically just backing up *SM*) is to call us ignorant.  I thought this was a board for discussion, not a board for the 4-year-old *it's mine -- no it's mine* tantrum you seem to want to throw.


I guess that's no better than
Those first exects that got the bailouts and went to the resorts and spent $$$$$$$ at the spas.

I loved the replies to the ad. I say no more bailouts for anyone. NONE, NADA, ZIP. After seeing what these "people" do with the bailout money makes me sick. And the fact that nobody in congress questions it or takes the money back makes me even sicker. Congress should find out what they spent on that ad and demand they return that money or else find themselves in a nice little 8x8 room (metal bars not optional).
You got it - I guess
I'm with you. I don't understand it. This is a guy, a man, a human being. He doesn't have any supernatural powers, unless you call hyptnotizing people into trances.

But it is all the celebrity status. Most people believe that if a celebrity movie start says he's great then they must be right. People worship celebrity stars so why wouldn't they worship obama.

It's just beyond me their reasoning, but at least I know I've got some sense because I don't follow their reasoning and think for myself.

It's just very hard to educate people now adays. Especially after they've been brainwashed so much.
Well....I guess it is our job to

research and find out who voted for what and wanted what speciality added to the stimulus and when we get the chance......VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!  If we start holding them accountable and voting them out for their bad decisions, maybe these politicians will think twice before they screw their constituents up the rear.


This whole thing disgusts me.  Here we are talking about our economy and the need to stimulate it and all some in government care about is getting free stuff for them.  We want new furniture.  Hey...let's all set a good example for the environment and charge new hybrid vehicles for the government to the tax payers.  Correct me if I'm wrong.....don't they make enough money to buy their own hybrid cars if that is what they want?  


I'm seriously considering the whole trip to DC with my torch and pitchfork.  I'm getting VERY irritated with our government.  If this so called stimulus package passes, I will be taking a trip.  That is all I've got to say. 


My guess is that...(sm)

she couldn't answer O'Reilly's questions because he wouldn't shut up long enough for her to get it out.  That's how it always works on his show.  I really don't see the point of anyone going on his show.  He doesn't interview people, he just screams out his right wing crazy crap.  It's like watching Jerry Springer.


The no spin zone ---- Good for right wing books, screaming matches, and, of course, door mats.


Let me guess...(sm)

You're going with the back-peddling New York Post excuse that that's supposed to be Pelosi?  Give me a break!


If they, and you, are going to be racist, you should at least have the balls to admit it. --- Pitiful.


this is not a guess
Which thing is a fact?

a. That Iran has, at this moment, long-range missiles aimed at our heartland?
b. That Iran has some uranium that could be used, years and years from now, for nuclear weapons, if nobody ever bothered negotiating with them and everybody treated them like dangerous lunatics?

The facts point to one option (and in fact the NYT article covered some of this), but the slant and the propanda lead, as always, to the other one.

I don't have any rose-colored glasses. What I have is the knowledge that our government has lied over and over to get us into war, that newspapers and TV have accepted and regurgitated those lies, and that those lies have repercussions far beyond what the news is willing to report. At some point we've got to stop listening to people we know are dishonest, saying exactly the things we JUST HEARD A FEW YEARS AGO to send us to war with Iraq.

Of course, the next step will be a humanitarian crisis, as we discover the Iranian government is killing some people we never cared about before, but that now provide a convenient excuse for us to get even madder! (Kurds, could you move over a bit?)
Let me guess...(sm)

You also can't "grasp the idea" that there are people in this country who are starving, or people who are losing their homes because of medical bills, or younger people who are simply struggling for everything, or people who are paying through the nose to get their kids through college, and yes, actually have to put off for a few days buying some things.  You really need to open your eyes.  There are people in this country who cannot afford the finer things in life.  We have 2 jobs and work overtime but we can't afford vacations most the time, certainly cannot save 600 a month, etc.  Let me define "snooty" for you:  The act of looking down one's nose and condemning those who are not as fortunate (or lucky) as oneself.  I personally would have chosen a different word. 


I wouldn't stay in that glass house too long if I were you.  Someone might come by with a rock.


That's my guess too..nm
nm
So I guess
you would rather have the crack skanks giving birth?  Wow, how nice!   You're a loser, go away.
My guess is they were sm
screaming for someone to do something, talking about patriotism, etc. Problem is how soon they forget. Now this country is less protected, I think, than it has ever been. Wait til the next attack and see what the "left" screams about then! Obama doesn't have a clue how to protect this country
Then I guess you are not yet
one of the Borg.  But watch out.  I think even repeated short exposure has a cumulative effect. 
Let me guess...(sm)

You're in that group that thinks Jesus played polo on the back of a dinosaur.


"....


No one can guess
anyone's sexual preferences/behaviors in life unless they happen to be with their significant other or tell someone about them. Most people do not make derrogatory statements because we really don't care unless you are pushing this "lifestyle" on our children or grandchildren. I don't see that anyone on this board has used any derrogatory names except for those who happen to be "offended" by those people who do not approve of homosexuality. The shortening of the term "homosexual" to "homo" does not compare to the terms you have been spewing. You cannot expect a person to NOT be offended by something they view as immoral, distasteful and unhealthy. And you cannot expect all of us to change our opinions and beliefs just because the homosexual community thinks we should, even on the heels of perverted laws. Getting "married" and enacting laws will not change opinions and beliefs. That's what homosexuals need to accept.