Should We Take Obama At His Word ?

[Samson]

No lies yet, just Pubcrappe. As if a few E-mails in East Anglia disprove years of proof and every scientist who hasn't been bought off....Pub dupe/dittoheads... ya got NOTHING.

Cal girl- you're a moron LOL. READ IT!! LOL

Wow.

3 sentences, a new record for franco, but it is still gibberish

You are correct.

 

[HenryBHough]

Some choice we have in November:

Obama vs Obama-in-whiteface.

Wonder why America is plunging into decline?

 

[francoHFW]

Climategate is PURE RW BULLSHYTTE, according to the police, every respected science org, paper, network etc etc. You peoplie are MORONS.

The initial story about the hacking originated in the blogosphere,[5] with columnist James Delingpole picking up the term "Climategate" from an anonymous blogger on Watts Up With That?, a blog created by climate sceptic Anthony Watts. The site was one of three blogs that received links to the leaked documents on 17 November 2009. Delingpole first used the word "Climategate" in the title of his 20 November article for The Telegraph: "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" A week later, his co-worker, Christopher Booker, gave Delingpole credit for coining the term.[6] Following the release of documents in the blogosphere, unproven allegations and personal attacks against scientists increased and made their way into the traditional media. Physicist Mark Boslough of the University of New Mexico noted that many of the attacks on scientists came from "bloggers, editorial writers, Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds". According to Chris Mooney & Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America (2010), the accusations originated in right wing media and blogs, "especially on outlets like Fox News." Journalist Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported that according to an analysis by Media Matters, "Fox had tried to delegitimise the work of climate scientists in its coverage of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia" and had "displayed a pattern of trying to skew coverage in favour of the fringe minority which doubts the existence of climate change".[11]

The intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change, leading several publications to comment on the propagation of the controversy in the media in the wake of a series of investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing. In an editorial, the New York Times described the coverage as a "manufactured controversy," and expressed hope that the investigations clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies".[122] Writing for Newsweek, journalist Sharon Begley called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", noting that the public was unlikely to change their mind. Regardless of the reports exonerating the scientists, Begley noted that "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."[123]

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes said that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry".[124] Noting the media circus that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway writing about climate change denial, said that following the investigations "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all. Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious. After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning. But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."[125]

Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at the United States communications firm Burson-Marsteller, also described the incident as an organised effort to discredit climate science. He said it was not a single scandal, but "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science. Disproportionate reporting of the original story, "widely amplified by climate deniers", meant that the reports that cleared the scientists received far less coverage than the original allegations, he said.[126] Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever."[127] CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.[128]

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And MUCH MORE...Dittoheads!!

 

[francoHFW]

The Koch Bros. are proved to be financing most of the malarky...

NEXT!!

 

[francoHFW]

Some choice we have in November:

Obama vs Obama-in-whiteface.

Wonder why America is plunging into decline?

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

Try again.

 

[Darkwind]

Figures. A fucking moron quoting wikipedia. The irony cannot get much thicker.

 

[MeBelle]

Pretty much every economic measure that was trending negatively has been turned around since Obama was elected,

UE was trending higher, now it's trending lower.

Job gain/loss was trending down, now it's trending up.

GDP was trending down, now it's trending up.

Things have turned around.

Link pls?
And can you compare Obama's promised to said links?

 

[MeBelle]

Some choice we have in November:

Obama vs Obama-in-whiteface.

Wonder why America is plunging into decline?

Spankings for you!

 

[MeBelle]

Fucking sore losers have been whining non-stop for almost four years.

Yes, most Americans are losing.

 

[MuadDib]

Climategate is PURE RW BULLSHYTTE, according to the police, every respected science org, paper, network etc etc. You peoplie are MORONS.

The initial story about the hacking originated in the blogosphere,[5] with columnist James Delingpole picking up the term "Climategate" from an anonymous blogger on Watts Up With That?, a blog created by climate sceptic Anthony Watts. The site was one of three blogs that received links to the leaked documents on 17 November 2009. Delingpole first used the word "Climategate" in the title of his 20 November article for The Telegraph: "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" A week later, his co-worker, Christopher Booker, gave Delingpole credit for coining the term.[6] Following the release of documents in the blogosphere, unproven allegations and personal attacks against scientists increased and made their way into the traditional media. Physicist Mark Boslough of the University of New Mexico noted that many of the attacks on scientists came from "bloggers, editorial writers, Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds". According to Chris Mooney & Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America (2010), the accusations originated in right wing media and blogs, "especially on outlets like Fox News." Journalist Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported that according to an analysis by Media Matters, "Fox had tried to delegitimise the work of climate scientists in its coverage of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia" and had "displayed a pattern of trying to skew coverage in favour of the fringe minority which doubts the existence of climate change".[11]

The intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change, leading several publications to comment on the propagation of the controversy in the media in the wake of a series of investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing. In an editorial, the New York Times described the coverage as a "manufactured controversy," and expressed hope that the investigations clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies".[122] Writing for Newsweek, journalist Sharon Begley called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", noting that the public was unlikely to change their mind. Regardless of the reports exonerating the scientists, Begley noted that "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."[123]

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes said that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry".[124] Noting the media circus that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway writing about climate change denial, said that following the investigations "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all. Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious. After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning. But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."[125]

Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at the United States communications firm Burson-Marsteller, also described the incident as an organised effort to discredit climate science. He said it was not a single scandal, but "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science. Disproportionate reporting of the original story, "widely amplified by climate deniers", meant that the reports that cleared the scientists received far less coverage than the original allegations, he said.[126] Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever."[127] CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.[128]

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And MUCH MORE...Dittoheads!!

Global warming is man-made.

The idea is man-made. The data is man-made. And the crisis is man-made.

 

[California Girl]

No lies yet, just Pubcrappe. As if a few E-mails in East Anglia disprove years of proof and every scientist who hasn't been bought off....Pub dupe/dittoheads... ya got NOTHING.

Cal girl- you're a moron LOL. READ IT!! LOL

You're a moron if you think anyone can dumb down enough to read shit that contains a bunch of and shit. I don't speak gibberish, nor do I speak dumb shit. We cannot converse if you cannot write intelligently.

Why do even your fellow left wingers avoid your crap? Hmmm? Clue: They think you're stupid too. Idiot.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, dupes, the whole world is a conspiracy EXCEPT the provable one, the RW/Pub propaganda machine one. Wikipedia quotes police, respected scientific orgs, networks and papers of record from around the world, with links, but you chose the mindless hyteria of Rush, Beck, and Breitbart etc. Every time they're proven to be totals BSers, but you believe the huge pile of Pubcrappe, made up of thousands of disproved crappoids from bought off orgs and "institutes" online bs finsanced by Koch et al and the dupes. Amazing chumps..

 

[francoHFW]

I give a damn about your BS and reps circle jerk. I'm writing a book about you Pub dupe morons-and you're fantastic examples tyvm.LOL

Your "facts" are all BULLSHYTTE LOL

 

[Zxereus]

I give a damn about your BS and reps circle jerk. I'm writing a book about you Pub dupe morons-and you're fantastic examples tyvm.LOL

Your "facts" are all BULLSHYTTE LOL

You're not Canadian by chance ?

 

[francoHFW]

Mid-Atlantic Commonwealth.

 

[francoHFW]

Have you considered looking at my location? I'm always right and never lie.

 

[skookerasbil]

I give a damn about your BS and reps circle jerk. I'm writing a book about you Pub dupe morons-and you're fantastic examples tyvm.LOL

Your "facts" are all BULLSHYTTE LOL

Shit franco bro........Im writing a book too!!!


Title of my book is Winning. Whats the title of yours?



Make up a decision on the avatar thing???

 

[Zxereus]

Have you considered looking at my location? I'm always right and never lie.

Ahh, New York. Shocking.

 

[francoHFW]

More cows than people, and 62% dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

Have you been checking the Warspite? We had a hotel next to that wreck- but 5 years later and it looked like a tanker. I was 3.