Anyone feel queasy when they realize they voted for Bush?

[_Coggins7]

Because I don't worship the free market above all else and assume that care of the environment is communism, I must be a radical leftist?

Where did I ever make any such assertions?

I

.e becuase I am not a william f. buckley jr. wanna be, extreme right wing ideologue like Coggins (something even some of the conservatives here have agreed with), I must be a "Lenninist".

William F. Buckley is an "extreme right wing ideologue"? A Leftist would certainly believe that. I'm not at all sure a moderate Liberal would.

[_Coggins7]

[quote]Yes, but in fact, no matter what my opinion is about the role of government (have I even stated it?), apparently just my agreeing with the majority of experts on a purely scientific issue is enough to lead Coggins to call me a Leninist. WTF?

My best friend is more or less libertarian (European style). But harming the environment does harm to other people and so violates his basic principles. Since it is an intrinsically global issue, the environment is a special case of sorts. American rightist libertarianism doesn't seem to fully understand the importance and the place of global cooperation or long term social responsibly. Everything is seen as a communist plot of some sort.[/quote]

Let's be charitable and take fully 1,000 names off the Oregon Petition (far more than Tarski's sources assumed at the high end) and we have some 16,000 scientists from various disciplines who disagree with the "consensus". Add to this the Heidelberg and Leipzig declarations. Tarski's High School popularity contest is leaning toward him at the moment, but he terribly exaggerates its size and nature. Many climate scientists who hold personal opinions supportive of AGW wouldn't publish that in a professional journal, because the evidence isn't in yet and the uncertainties are vast. There are nuances of opinion among many scientists who believe in human cause, such as its magnitude, its relative importance alongside other human causes of climate change, and its relative importance against the truly colossal background of natural CO2 production. The magnitude and time frame of its effects are also highly uncertain and hotly disputed throughout the scientific community. As Lindzen pointed out in the article I posted, the "consensus" is pure fiction. Tarski wants you to believe it for ideological reasons, not scientific (as his continual statements about concepts like "global cooperation or long term social responsibly" and " Everything is seen as a communist plot of some sort" attest. He has so little knowledge relative to what either conservatives or libertarians actually believe it quite readily takes your breath away).

Keep up the pose Moonbat, the next ice age is just around the corner.

[_Tarski]

Because I don't worship the free market above all else and assume that care of the environment is communism, I must be a radical leftist?

Where did I ever make any such assertions?

I

.e becuase I am not a william f. buckley jr. wanna be, extreme right wing ideologue like Coggins (something even some of the conservatives here have agreed with), I must be a "Lenninist".

William F. Buckley is an "extreme right wing ideologue"? A Leftist would certainly believe that. I'm not at all sure a moderate Liberal would.

No you are the extreme one (and a bit confused to boot).

But what you continually fail to realize is that I am simply asserting that is is rational for a layperson to tentatively agree with such a large majority of scientific opinion. I would think that even if I were a scientifically trained version of Buckley or a scientifically trained version of his political opposite.

The question you fail to answer is how a scientifically untrained person can claim to ascertain that the majority scientific opinion is wrong.
You are going by political wishes and political motivation which is exactly what I am not doing.
You are not in a position to judge that Richard Siegmund Lindzen's arguments are weightier than the huge majority of climate scientists.
How is that even rational? You are like my friends nutty wife who thinks that all the doctors are wrong about magnetized water or some usless homeopathic medicine just because she finds a doctor or 2 that promotes it in a popular book.
She ingests something like 200 times the recommended amount of vitamin D because of the say so of one doctor who wrote a book.
But, she should agree with the majority opinion. She has no good reason not to but some personal inclination to believe in fringe medicine.
I told her so and like you, she called me an "elitist". *sigh*

[_barrelomonkeys]

Actually never mind.

I'm finished. :)

[_Brackite]

I do....I was young and stupid.....but that's no excuse.....someone take away my Suffrage. I think I lost the right to vote when I voted in Dubya....

Hi,
Yes, I did vote form George W. Bush twice for President , and now I very strongly feel queasy about voting for him, especially the second time around. George W. Bush's Second term has been horrible and horrendous. George Bush tried to get Harriet Miers nominated to the Supreme Court. Luckily that failed. The Bush Administration did a pretty awful and horrible job with the hurricane Katrina aftermath. The Bush Administration has done a pretty awful with managing the Iraq War within the last couple of years. The Bush Administration pretty very much mishandled the firing of the nine U.S. Attorneys. George W. Bush Pardoned his high up friend Scooter Libby, while then at about the same time, George W. Bush Refuses to Pardon the little Guys. George W. Bush's Second term has indeed been very awful, very horrible and horrendous. I do very strongly regret for voting for George W. Bush for President, especially during the second time around.