Inhofe

[joiei]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by joiei

Senator Inhofe speaking in Congress

quote: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who has compared people who raise awareness about the climate crisis to the Third Reich, lied about former colleague Al Gore on the Senate floor today. He claimed that "everything" in An Inconvenient Truth — Vice President Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on climate change — has "been refuted many times" by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

You're right that is a lie!  Only 32 of the 36 claims made in his book were questioned by the UNIPCC.  The other two were only exaggerated!   In the end the UNIPCC accepted his claims regardless of any evidence or evidence to the contrary.

The US courts however did not.  Teachers showing the film must now provide this statement to their students:


In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Truth is not necessary for a Nobel prize, only support of policies that limit the power of nations and support socialist agendas.

To borrow a lead off from a fellow Tulsan, "And now for the rest of the story"

quote: In January 2007, the Federal Way (Washington State) School Board voted to require an approval by the principal and the superintendent for teachers to show the film to students and that the teachers must include the presentation of an approved "opposing view".[51] The moratorium was repealed after broad public condemnation at the subsequent meeting on January 23. [52]

from Wiki

Since you did not give credit for your source, where does it come from?

[joiei]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by joiei

Senator Inhofe speaking in Congress

quote: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who has compared people who raise awareness about the climate crisis to the Third Reich, lied about former colleague Al Gore on the Senate floor today. He claimed that "everything" in An Inconvenient Truth — Vice President Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on climate change — has "been refuted many times" by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

You're right that is a lie!  Only 32 of the 36 claims made in his book were questioned by the UNIPCC.  The other two were only exaggerated!   In the end the UNIPCC accepted his claims regardless of any evidence or evidence to the contrary.

The US courts however did not.  Teachers showing the film must now provide this statement to their students:


In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Truth is not necessary for a Nobel prize, only support of policies that limit the power of nations and support socialist agendas.

Found it and do you know what, the rest of the story is that Spoonbill is quoting a British paper and a British blog and a British website.  here is the link - clickety here THis is not a requirement of any court in the United States.  The only challenges have been dismissed.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FauxTurD
Well, better more efficient government regulation is the answer.

I can only hope that this the platform that Obama runs on.  

You do realize that terms "efficiency" and "government" are mutually exclusive?

Are you going to respond to my previous post or are you going to move on to another topic like usual?

Our government is very efficient at growing!


It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O'Rourke

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FauxTurD
Well, better more efficient government regulation is the answer.

I can only hope that this the platform that Obama runs on.  

You do realize that terms "efficiency" and "government" are mutually exclusive?

Are you going to respond to my previous post or are you going to move on to another topic like usual?

No. Obama's platform is to throw tons of money, increase the deficit, and hire cronies to help regulate extreamists like yourself. Hey. Wait a minute. That was Bushco/Repiglicans platform. No it wasn't. They told us one thing and did something else.

What previous post? I don't go back.....just move on forward...

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FauxTurD
Well, better more efficient government regulation is the answer.

I can only hope that this the platform that Obama runs on.  

You do realize that terms "efficiency" and "government" are mutually exclusive?

Are you going to respond to my previous post or are you going to move on to another topic like usual?

No. Obama's platform is to throw tons of money, increase the deficit, and hire cronies to help regulate extreamists like yourself. Hey. Wait a minute. That was Bushco/Repiglicans platform. No it wasn't. They told us one thing and did something else.

What previous post? I don't go back.....just move on forward...

I think he sums his platform up pretty well right here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america/

Disarmament and ambiguous programs.  I can't support that, but there are many who can.  I hope that the wisdom of the Hillary crowd will rub off on him as the party begins to unite.

Oh wait!  She's not done yet.  She has to send as many supporters to McCain as possible or she has no chance for nomination in 2012.

[iplaw]

What previous post? I don't go back.....just move on forward ignore facts and logic...

There, I fixed your post for you.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by FauxTurD
Well, better more efficient government regulation is the answer.

I can only hope that this the platform that Obama runs on.  

You do realize that terms "efficiency" and "government" are mutually exclusive?

Are you going to respond to my previous post or are you going to move on to another topic like usual?

No. Obama's platform is to throw tons of money, increase the deficit, and hire cronies to help regulate extreamists like yourself. Hey. Wait a minute. That was Bushco/Repiglicans platform. No it wasn't. They told us one thing and did something else.

What previous post? I don't go back.....just move on forward...

Does that silver-spoon you eat with taste like $hit.....

[FOTD]

Ouch....another sucker punch from the resident closet freak.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Ouch....another sucker punch from the resident closet freak.

A little self flagellation?

[joiei]

How Inhofe takes care of Oklahoma Vets
This is how well Mr Inhofe takes care of our Vets
March 16, 2006

S. Amdt 3143 to S. Con. Res. 83 vote 67

To prevent the imposition of excessive TRICARE fees and co-pays on military retirees.

INHOFE: NO (The amendment failed 46-53)

April 26, 2006

S. Amdt 3642 to H.R. 4939 vote 98
To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

INHOFE: NO (Amendment passed 84-16)

March 23, 2007

S. Con. Res. 21 vote 114

The 2008 Budget Resolution that included $3.5 billion increase in funding for veterans' healthcare programs.

INHOFE: NO (The bill passed 52-47)

December 18, 2007

H.R. 2764 vote 441

An omnibus appropriations bill that included $3.7 billion in emergency funding for veterans programs.

INHOFE: NO (The bill passed 76-17)

and there is a lot more here.

[Conan71]

Ever dawn on you there were probably pork jammed in those bills which had nothing to do with Veteran's spending?

[FOTD]

Pork jam ala repiglicans pass all the time attached to bills that have shredded the rights of Americans.

Two very different views of where our country needs to go.

Inhofe makes Oklahoma look bad to the rest of our nation.

[cannon_fodder]

AOX, I agree that some of the positions that he takes look bad on the national radar...

BUT, I stand by him on voting against Veterans bills with other crap stuffed in there.  That is nothing but a sham.  You have to vote for it or you hate veterans!  

If it's such a priority for everyone else to take care of them - why not present a clean bill that takes care of the veterans without building museums, unneeded bridges, or other random pork in select districts?  Gasp, he didn't vote for the Veterans benefits and new bridge to nowhere bill?  He hates our military!

The one thing I can say I really appreciate about him is his quest against pork.  IF he votes against the "stop people from raping children law" because it is stuffed with pork - I'm fine with that.  If anyone really cared they could present it sans pork.  

But in this instance the pork is just as important to the Democrats (and most of the Republicans) as anything having to do with Veterans benefits.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Pork jam ala repiglicans pass all the time attached to bills that have shredded the rights of Americans.

Two very different views of where our country needs to go.

Inhofe makes Oklahoma look bad to the rest of our nation.

I'm going to type slowly so a Dumb-o-crap like yourself can understand this.

Pork is stuffed into bills which favor sensitive special interest groups so that the bills may be used as wedge issues and used to un-seat incumbents.  

This shell game for political gain is one of the biggest hose-jobs Congress foists on the American taxpayer.  It's pretty much the same thing as how headlines are used to inform these days.  No one reads the whole story and no one remembers the details they saw or heard on the TV or Radio, just the sensational lead in and salacious first paragraph.  

No one bothers nor has the time to read through 500 pages of a bill and convert the legalese to common English to figure out what all gets jammed into bills that is totally un-related to whatever the "cover" beneficiary is to the bill.

People on this forum biznitch about all the waste of the Republican-led Congress from '94 to '06, yet we have two hawks in the Senate who are trying to cut government waste and all people like you can say is: "what an embarrassment!"

BTW- Repiglican is one of the funnier mutations of Republican you've come up with so far.

[tim huntzinger]

So we are all agreed that the bondoogle $25M for 'river improvements' tucked into the recently passed OK highway bill is wasteful pork??  Naaaaaaahhhhh. That ain't pork, must be some other white meat . . .