This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

Depends on what's most important, job security or integrity.
Fox doesn't take kindly to those who disagree with the memo.
Accu-Weather can be replaced.
Plenty of other weather outfits.

--Vic

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 18, 8:42*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"but does this mean that man is causing global warming?"

Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer. *But
this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the
guise of doing good. *Nothing is going to change. *We're just going to give
some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution
control. *It's that simple.

Steve

And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle
the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 18, 7:02*pm, John H wrote:

And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle
the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there.


Oh, man! You got that right, John!

i see 'em all the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlutmu-xiI

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"but does this mean that man is causing global warming?"

Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer. But
this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the
guise of doing good. Nothing is going to change. We're just going to give
some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution
control. It's that simple.

Steve

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

I think that was probably a mis-quote....

No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this
exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate.


I don't think *anybody*,
except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause
of "global warming."

Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine.

Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the
period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just
stupid.

Yep.

It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man
couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is
whether man can create a tipping point.

Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to
emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce.

If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the
politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science
going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on.....

The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate
clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do -
he just wants to get the science right.

Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is -
the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say
"hey - wait a minute".

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 8:42 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"but does this mean that man is causing global warming?"

Didn't we just go through this a while back with the ozone layer?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

I can and do believe that there was some causality the ozone layer.
But
this thing about carbon dioxide is just a way to transfer wealth under the
guise of doing good. Nothing is going to change. We're just going to give
some poor countries money we don't have so they can have token pollution
control. It's that simple.

Steve

And we will have higher taxes and more government agencies to handle
the transfer. There really are black helicopters out there.

reply: I lived through the Viet Nam era. Graduated high school in 1966.
GI's were coming back with a lot of talk about unilaterilism, one world
government, survivalism, stocking up arms and ammo, having a self sustaining
lifestyle, and all manner of kook things. Mostly anti-government,
conspiracies, and the world run by a few fat old men in back rooms smoking
cigars and chanting Templar incantations.

Now they don't seem so kooky.

Steve

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:27:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

I think that was probably a mis-quote....

No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this
exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate.


I don't think *anybody*,
except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause
of "global warming."

Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine.

Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the
period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just
stupid.

Yep.

It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man
couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is
whether man can create a tipping point.

Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to
emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce.

If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the
politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science
going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on.....

The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate
clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do -
he just wants to get the science right.

Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is -
the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say
"hey - wait a minute".

You'll wait for honest data while realists watch the polar caps melt.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:45:00 -0500, "mmc" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:01 -0500, "mmc" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 10:09 am, "mmc" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message

...



And to think many on the right believe every word he utters....

Last evening on my drive home, I was listening to Hannity. He
made
a
statement about the weather in Geneva where they are having the
climate talks. Well, this idiot said something to the affect that
global warming is a hoax because the weather in Geneva was
supposed
to
be a record cold! THEN he had the guy that is the head of
AccuWeather
on. Now if you listen to Hannity, he'll ask questions in such a
manner
that it will help in HIS discussion. Well the weather guy was
asked
by
Hannity something like well, if the weather in Geneva is this
record
cold, doesn't this disspell the global warming debate? The
weather
guy, who is Hannity's friend replied, "no, it doesn't mean
anything
like that. As a matter of fact, there is very real evidence that
global warming IS real." Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so
he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?"
The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that
man
has
NOT caused global warming. Again, there is a LOT of data
suggesting
that man's pollutants and co2 levels have had an affect on
warming.
We
just don't know how much." These may not be exact quotes, but
that
was
from the horses mouth! So what did Hannity do? Changed the
subject
of
course.

One thing the hard right has to be applauded for is thier ability
to
stick
together no matter what. And to blindly follow the party line.

Copenhagen, not Geneva.

reply:

Typical lib not to even know the major details of the conversation.

Geneva. That's rich.

Steve

Details and facts don't matter to those on either far end of the
political stick.
Ron Paul 2012.



Ron Paul is absolutely at the far end of the political stick. He's an
ultra-libertarian, and he's irrational about what is right or even
possible politically. He's a joke.


--
Nom=de=Plume

The joke part is that he dosen't stand a chance as long as there are
bought
and paid for Republicans AND Democrats driving this screwed up train.
Paul
is far less a joke than many of the elected celebrities from the big 2.
Why are both sides so afraid of a third party? The closest we're allowed
to
have is Ralph Nader, who corporate America buries by pumping huge $$$
into
the Rep/Dem beauty contests.
I guess it's better sharing almost every elected office in this country
with
one other group instead of two.
Neither you nor the Reps want to see mainstream America calm and working
together. Like the cable news programs upon which you suckle, MSNBC and
FOX,
you'd rather see people divided than a strong group in the middle -
otherwise your collective BS would dry up and blow away.

i can report that your last statement is complete bull****.

I know, you must be right and they must be wrong!
Afraid of the competition? I like Paul because he's a real conservative,
not
what passes for conservative nowadays.

I'd welcome the competition, especially if it were truly from the left
since all these ****ers who occupy DC are patsies for business. No
one has the people's business in mind.

Second, you took the meaning of my response and twisted it. I was in
favor of Obama because he was so interested in using what we could all
agree on to break the partisan cycle. Evidently, anyone left of
Musolini didn't get the memo.

"Please sir, give me some more?"

Actually, if the Dem leaders are going to play against the Reps they
should
eat more red meat. As rare as possible. Reid and Pelosi are the definition
of wimps. Some have the testicular fortitude to stand up, like Grayson,
but
not the top dogs.

I don't agree on Pelosi, Reid I'd like to kick in the nuts to see if
it hurt. I don't think he has any. Grayson could certainly never get
anything done, given his polarizing rhetoric. I love him but he's not
the guy you want negotiating the deal.


I'm not talking about competition from the left, but from the cernter. I
think many Americans have a desire for a balance in Gov't but there is no
party to address this balance and they end up in the camp that comes closest
to thier own beliefs.
I voted for Obama, as much to break the Bush rut as because I liked his
message. Not having a moderate party I end up voting for the candidate I
like better, which is different than voting for my actual choice.
During the first Iraqi eletion I heard Americans laughing about there being
something like 60 candidates for president. My immediate response to that
was why can't we have this? Why do we have to choose between 2 mediocre guys
that barrage us with repetative speeches?
That's all we really get, the primaries are a popularity contest within the
top ******s in each party and a chance for them to get some publicity for
themselves. We really have no say in this so by the time it gets to us we
get a choice of beauty queen A or beauty queen B and the better lier/story
teller gets the job.
I think many Dems have a case for Grayson because he hasn't limited his
attacks to the Right, he's also gone after the Dems for being weak willed.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 18, 10:27*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0500, Gene

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:02:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:53:02 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

" Now, Hannity didn't like this answer, so he
asked "but does this mean that man is causing global warming?" The
weather guy answered "No, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that man has
NOT caused global warming..."

Talk about stupid comments...

I think that was probably a mis-quote....

No - it wasn't. My friend Bassy had it right because I read about this
exchange on a alarmist blog so it's accurate.

I don't think *anybody*,
except a poster or two here, has ever said that man was the sole cause
of "global warming."

Hmmm - ok, if that's your perception - it's not mine.

Global temperature change has a historical record extending into the
period predating man, so to say "man caused global warming" is just
stupid.

Yep.

It would be equally ignorant to dismiss, out of hand, that man
couldn't have any effect on global temperatures. The real question is
whether man can create a tipping point.

Well that is the debate and so far, now that the truth is starting to
emerge, it would appear that AGW is a farce.

If we could get the oil companies, greedy scientists, and the
politicians out of the way...... then get some good and honest science
going..... maybe we'd know what is really going on.....

The real honest science is being done by those outside the climate
clique - guys like McIntyre who, oddly, view it the same way you do -
he just wants to get the science right.

Which, when viewed through history's prism, if the way it usually is -
the established "science" is tosed about by mavericks who want to say
"hey - wait a minute".

Right. The only "honest science" is the science that perfectly fits
the right wing agenda in your eyes.

This is How Stupid Hannity Can Get
 

On Dec 18, 5:13*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:52:58 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
No. There was no message.

LOL!! Dude - the Hannity screed was one huge blast against a
messenger.

No. Not at all. It was an actual dialogue between Hannity and the
Accuweather founder.

Look, you're on the wrong side of this issue - you know it, you just
don't want to accept it.

The "science" isn't "settled" because it's based on a fraudulent
premise with amateur data mining done by amateur programmers to fit an
agenda that created a job worth millions. *Your guys have been proven
wrong on so many climate issues that it should be embarrassing.

And please don't do your usual prove a negative schtick - it's really
old.

Every time someone here shows you actual data that shows FOR A FACT
the direct correlation between CO2 levels and warming trends you sweep
it under the carpet, saying that the only "honest science" is that the
fits your right wing agenda.