[Squid]

I have absolutely no doubt that this is a true statement.:lmao:

Excellent. Then you understand the absurdity of using such biased sources ...

Liberals who disparage the Fox News Channel as "Faux News" on the one hand and tout articles published in liberal newspapers such as the New York Times as the gospel never cease to amaze me.

I had so hoped that you would be digesting the exchange at a better pace than people like "Jet Pilot". If you go back and actually read what I posted, you will notice that I declined to use those sources. IF you care to actually read what is being presented to you.

If the campaign and election of Barack Obama has accomplished nothing else it has revealed the radical left wing agenda of the mainstream media for all to see. The oceans are cooling, Chicago may receive its earliest measurable snowfall in recorded history tomorrow and the climate has cooled since 1998 despite ever increasing CO2 emissions. Those will not likely be front page stories in the SF Chronicle nor will the UN or our own government publicize this "news."

Of course - the entire world is trying to dupe you. My apologies.

Your trite, derisive references to FNC as Faux News is a reflection of your whole-hearted embrace of a liberal agenda and global warming is a cornerstone of that agenda. Why do you think that the left decided to substitute "climate change" for "global warming?"

No. My references to FNC as "Faux News" is my method of showing my contempt for a political outlet that poses as a news station. People that did not have the privilege of growing up during the days of Walter Cronkite and his ilk do not have the background to understand the difference between actual new reporting and the presentation of opinion in the guise of researched news. I don't know how old you are, but if you honestly believe that Faux News is presenting you with a non-biased view of researched facts, then you are seriously handicapped in your understanding of what is happening in our world. The fact that you want to defend FNC is sad - and quite revealing.

The climate changes. It gets warmer. It gets cooler. It gets warmer and then it gets cooler again. Eventually, the sun will burn our planet to a crisp but the Earth will continue to go through many climate cycles until then, whether we are here to record them or not.

Excellent. Fatalism at its finest.

[Hoot Gibson]

Excellent. Then you understand the absurdity of using such biased sources ...

Of course. A government intent on expanding would never pad the numbers and create an artificial crisis. Nor would the Obama sycophants in the liberal mainstream media ignore the conclusions of an increasing number of climate experts who now say that the earth has entered a prolonged cooling phase. In Ronald Reagan's prophetic words, "We are from the government and we are here to help."

I had so hoped that you would be digesting the exchange at a better pace than people like "Jet Pilot". If you go back and actually read what I posted, you will notice that I declined to use those sources. IF you care to actually read what is being presented to you.

Of course - the entire world is trying to dupe you. My apologies.

Sorry, but I have no interest in your disparaging comments about other posters - just your disparaging comments directed at me. Liberals always result to insults when the facts do not support their positions. The fact is that the earth is not warming and even most "reputable" global warming alarmists have acknowledged that fact. Discredited predictions of gloom and doom will live among liberal politicians and the agencies that depend upon them for many years and people like you will continue to ignore thermometers around the world.

No. My references to FNC as "Faux News" is my method of showing my contempt for a political outlet that poses as a news station. People that did not have the privilege of growing up during the days of Walter Cronkite and his ilk do not have the background to understand the difference between actual new reporting and the presentation of opinion in the guise of researched news. I don't know how old you are, but if you honestly believe that Faux News is presenting you with a non-biased view of researched facts, then you are seriously handicapped in your understanding of what is happening in our world. The fact that you want to defend FNC is sad - and quite revealing.

More wildly incorrect assumptions. I watched Walter Cronkite's take on the news growing up. If you are old enough to have done so and still believe that he presented an unbiased view of current events, then my hopes of convincing you that anthrogenic global warming is an elaborate hoax just took a nosedive. Cronkite was an extreme liberal who let his ideology taint his reporting. Walter said "and that's the way it was," but it rarely was.

Liberals had a monopoly on the news in the 60s (and the 70s and 80s). Fox News shattered that monopoly. You are right to fear Fox News. It's audience will continue to grow as more people begin understanding the consequences of the liberal agenda on their everyday lives. I know that Alinksy taught that ridicule is a powerful weapon (Rule 5, I believe) but I do not believe that typing "Faux News" repeatedly is going to impact Fox News' ratings.

Excellent. Fatalism at its finest.

Fatalism?? Hardly. The sun will not burn forever but before it dies it will burn the earth to cinders. For that reason, our species should be working much harder to colonize the solar system in preparation to eventually move to a new home. For now, preventing naturally occurring climate cycles is beyond mankind's power and it will remain so for at least many decades.

[congressman]

I find it funny that the we distrust the weather forecast for the weekend, but fall prey to 100 year projections. I'm guessing that it'll rain sometime between now and then. 70% chance anyways. lol

[Squid]

Good luck, Hoot.

You keep dodging those evil liberals, cause goodness knows, they are the root of all evil in your world.

[Hoot Gibson]

The main reason that I do not believe in man-made global warming is that I have no confidence in the quality of the data and if we cannot trust the data to be reliable then the models based on them cannot be reliable. Let's ignore for for the time being the obvious incentive for developing countries to doctor the data and convince our government to cripple our economy. Let's look at how misleading the data can be as the result of incompetence or lack of funds to properly maintain the monitoring stations that track global temperatures.

For example, take a look at the graph below:

[Image: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/...e_plot.png]

It is pretty clear that the surface temperature in Forest Grove, Oregon has gotten much warmer because of global warming, right? Not so fast. Look at the photographs below and ask yourself if changes to the environment since the 1890s at the monitoring site might have affected the temperatures that were recorded.

[Image: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/forestgrove.jpg][Image: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/..._grove.jpg]

Now ask yourself if this might be a widespread problem, particularly in impoverished countries with fewer resources to maintain monitoring networks than the US. We know that the USSR suffered severe economic problems in the years preceding its collapse. How well has Russia and the former Soviet republics maintained their networks?

Maybe you think that this one example is unique or a rare exception. Well, then my question to you is how do we know? How much attention has the media given to the quality of the data used in climate modeling versus the pronouncements of UN bureaucrats and Al Gore on the dangers of "climate change?"

Is global warming man-made or is the global warming crisis man-made?

If you want to take a look at some other temperature monitoring stations that are used by man-made global warming proponents, this website contains quite a few examples: surfacestations.com.

Cap and tax will devastate our economy and grant more power to our federal government and it will have no benefit to our environment. Goldman Sachs and Al Gore will make out like bandits if the legislation passes but we will all be paying for their windfall, as will our children and grandchildren.

[Old School]

Thanks Hoot, this is a very good site, really shows how data can be manipulated by bad data.

I see that as of May 31, 2009 they have rated 78% of the 1221 stations, with 61% being rated CRN4 and 8% being rated as CRN5. Suprisingly only 10% of the stations rated so far fall into the CRN1 and CRN2 category.

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.


Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

[Hoot Gibson]

Thanks Hoot, this is a very good site, really shows how data can be manipulated by bad data.

I see that as of May 31, 2009 they have rated 78% of the 1221 stations, with 61% being rated CRN4 and 8% being rated as CRN5. Suprisingly only 10% of the stations rated so far fall into the CRN1 and CRN2 category.

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.


Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

What really strikes me about these stations is that many, if not most, of them were build in isolated areas that were gradually developed over time. How can historical trends be discerned when artificial heat sources were placed increasingly closer to the monitoring stations? Some experts claim that this problem has been factored into the analyses but IMO, once the researcher begins applying correction factors to thermometer readings the conclusions drawn from the data lose credibility.

[TheRealVille]

Cap and tax will devastate our economy and grant more power to our federal government and it will have no benefit to our environment.

So, you think power companies should be able to pollute without paying extra for extra pollution? By the same token, you don't think less polluting companies should be able to sell their extra pollution credits that they don't use? Maybe if the more polluting companies have to pay more, they might begin to pollute less. Are you a typical conservative that doesn't care to rape and pilage the Eatrth and expect God to bail us out by ending time? What if it doesn't happen, and your decendants 1000 years down the road have to pay?

AEP says(since about 5 years ago) they can pay the fines instead of fixing the problem until 2014 and still come out ahead. This kind of disregard has brought about a lot of this.

[Old School]

And where do you think this "scientific community" gets their funding....I'll give you a hint, it's the opposite of right. The left wing liberals (ie. Al Gore) are funding these studies. The scientific community is not going to "cut their noses off to spite thier faces". As I've always been told...Stats don't lie, statisticians do...same goes for scientists. As Hoot Gibson said, quit believing everything the mainstream media (controlled by the liberals) is telling you.

Good Point IT....These guys and gals will do whatever it takes to keep the money rolling in.

Here you go, Beetle.

I went ahead and searched a little deeper on the NAS website, and found this news release from 2000.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...ordID=9755

The release is actually quite conservative in its tone, as the rate of warming has actually just recently been discovered to be more accute than was previously understood.

The very first paragraph puts your reference to "modern temperature keeping" in perspective:
"Despite differences in temperature data, strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is "undoubtedly real," and that surface temperatures in the past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for the past 100 years, says a new report by the National Research Council of the National Academies".

As you said the report was written in Jan. 2000, just after data from 1998 was released. Since there has been no warming since 1998 and the fact that about 70% of the temperature measuring stations are not now located in proper areas within the guidelines.

[Old School]

No. My references to FNC as "Faux News" is my method of showing my contempt for a political outlet that poses as a news station. People that did not have the privilege of growing up during the days of Walter Cronkite and his ilk do not have the background to understand the difference between actual new reporting and the presentation of opinion in the guise of researched news. I don't know how old you are, but if you honestly believe that Faux News is presenting you with a non-biased view of researched facts, then you are seriously handicapped in your understanding of what is happening in our world. The fact that you want to defend FNC is sad - and quite revealing.

History shows most people past and present, in the media are liberals, it's just with todays 24/7 coverage we see more of it.

Quotes from Cronkite:
“I know liberalism isn't dead in this country. It simply has, temporarily we hope, lost its voice...

We know that no one should tell a woman she has to bear an unwanted child....Gawd Almighty, we've got to shout these truths in which we believe from the housetops.

“I believe that most of us reporters are liberal,

Walter Cronkite: “I define liberal as a person who is not doctrinaire. That is a dictionary definition of liberal. That's opposed to 'liberal' as part of the political spectrum....open to change, constantly, not committed to any particular creed or doctrine, or whatnot, and in that respect I think that news people should be liberal.”
— Exchange on CNN's Larry King Live, September 11, 1995.

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090720124745.aspx

[Squid]

History shows most people past and present, in the media are liberals, it's just with todays 24/7 coverage we see more of it.

Quotes from Cronkite:
“I know liberalism isn't dead in this country. It simply has, temporarily we hope, lost its voice...

We know that no one should tell a woman she has to bear an unwanted child....Gawd Almighty, we've got to shout these truths in which we believe from the housetops.

“I believe that most of us reporters are liberal,

Walter Cronkite: “I define liberal as a person who is not doctrinaire. That is a dictionary definition of liberal. That's opposed to 'liberal' as part of the political spectrum....open to change, constantly, not committed to any particular creed or doctrine, or whatnot, and in that respect I think that news people should be liberal.”
— Exchange on CNN's Larry King Live, September 11, 1995.

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090720124745.aspx

I am not claiming that Cronkite was not a liberal. I am making the claim that news, back in the day, went to GREAT lengths to ensure that events were reported with as little bias as possible, and only after a great deal of research was done on a given story.

The "fourth estate", in this day and age, is dominated by talking heads that do almost no reporting, and offer opinion in its place. A lot of young people today, do not have the ability to discern between news and rhetoric.

Listening to someone try to pass FNC off as a legitimate source of unbiased reporting of news is laughable. No - make that revealing.

[Old School]

I am not claiming that Cronkite was not a liberal. I am making the claim that news, back in the day, went to GREAT lengths to ensure that events were reported with as little bias as possible, and only after a great deal of research was done on a given story.

The "fourth estate", in this day and age, is dominated by talking heads that do almost no reporting, and offer opinion in its place. A lot of young people today, do not have the ability to discern between news and rhetoric.

Listening to someone try to pass FNC off as a legitimate source of unbiased reporting of news is laughable. No - make that revealing.

I not sure about the GREAT lengths they went to, but they were better than the ones out there today.

I wonder why Fox News has been rated as the no. 1 cable news network for the past 4 or 5 years, and last month had the top 6 shows, even O'Reilly reruns are doning better than those on MSNBC and CNN.

Just remember their motto "WE REPORT YOU DECIDE".

[Hoot Gibson]

So, you think power companies should be able to pollute without paying extra for extra pollution? By the same token, you don't think less polluting companies should be able to sell their extra pollution credits that they don't use? Maybe if the more polluting companies have to pay more, they might begin to pollute less. Are you a typical conservative that doesn't care to rape and pilage the Eatrth and expect God to bail us out by ending time? What if it doesn't happen, and your decendants 1000 years down the road have to pay?

AEP says(since about 5 years ago) they can pay the fines instead of fixing the problem until 2014 and still come out ahead. This kind of disregard has brought about a lot of this.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is not toxic and it is, in fact, absolutely necessary for plant growth. Al Gore and the environmental radicals could just have easily labeled another greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide as a pollutant but common folk would have laughed at them. So, instead they are targeting carbon dioxide, which their under-educated constituents tend to confuse with carbon monoxide, a deadly poisonous gas.

The government should focus on reducing or eliminating real pollutants and ensuring that Americans continue to have access to the cleanest cost effective energy possible. CO2 is a product of complete combustion and any process that produces energy and CO2 as its byproduct is almost ideal.

Cap and tax is a solution looking for a problem. Scratch the surface and you will find greedy, power-hungry politicians and their crooked friends at Goldman Sachs scheming to fleece taxpayers of even more of their hard earned money.

[ImagineThat!]

I am not claiming that Cronkite was not a liberal. I am making the claim that news, back in the day, went to GREAT lengths to ensure that events were reported with as little bias as possible, and only after a great deal of research was done on a given story.

The "fourth estate", in this day and age, is dominated by talking heads that do almost no reporting, and offer opinion in its place. A lot of young people today, do not have the ability to discern between news and rhetoric.

Listening to someone try to pass FNC off as a legitimate source of unbiased reporting of news is laughable. No - make that revealing.

I guess you think that CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS and HNN are legitimate sources of unbiased reporting of news. If you believe this, then you're as gullible as the day is long. These stations are the equivilant of Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

Very good point Old School.

[Hoot Gibson]

I not sure about the GREAT lengths they went to, but they were better than the ones out there today.

I wonder why Fox News has been rated as the no. 1 cable news network for the past 4 or 5 years, and last month had the top 6 shows, even O'Reilly reruns are doning better than those on MSNBC and CNN.

Just remember their motto "WE REPORT YOU DECIDE".

I heard recently that Red Eye, which I believe airs at 3:00 AM, has been drawing more viewers than CNN's 8 PM programming.

I wonder what great lengths Cronkite went to when he reported the Tet offensive as a crushing US defeat, when it was in fact a demoralizing defeat for the North Vietnamese. Cronkite and the other liberals who controlled the US media gave hope to Hanoi when all looked lost. Hopefully a handful of media companies will never exert that kind of control over the news that we receive ever again. The "good old days" of TV news that liberals remember was anything but.

[TheRealVille]

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is not toxic and it is, in fact, absolutely necessary for plant growth. Al Gore and the environmental radicals could just have easily labeled another greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide as a pollutant but common folk would have laughed at them. So, instead they are targeting carbon dioxide, which their under-educated constituents tend to confuse with carbon monoxide, a deadly poisonous gas.

The government should focus on reducing or eliminating real pollutants and ensuring that Americans continue to have access to the cleanest cost effective energy possible. CO2 is a product of complete combustion and any process that produces energy and CO2 as its byproduct is almost ideal.

Cap and tax is a solution looking for a problem. Scratch the surface and you will find greedy, power-hungry politicians and their crooked friends at Goldman Sachs scheming to fleece taxpayers of even more of their hard earned money.

Burning
Combustion of coal, like any other fossil fuel, occurs due to an exothermic reaction between the components of the fuel source and the components of the air surrounding it. Coal is made primarily of carbon, but also contains sulfur, oxygen and hydrogen. The reaction between coal and the air surrounding it produces oxides of carbon, usually carbon dioxide (CO2 - an important greenhouse gas) in a complete combustion, along with oxides of sulfur, mainly sulfur dioxide (SO2), and various oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Because of the hydrogen and nitrogen components of air, hydrides and nitrides of carbon and sulfur are also produced during the combustion of coal in air. These could include hydrogen cyanide (HCN), sulfur nitrate (SNO3) and many other toxic substances.

Further, acid rain may occur when the sulfur dioxide produced in the combustion of coal, reacts with oxygen to form sulfur trioxide (SO3), which then reacts with water molecules in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid (see Acid anhydride for more information). The sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is returned to the Earth as acid rain. Flue gas desulfurization scrubbing systems, which use lime to remove the sulfur dioxide can reduce or eliminate the likelihood of acid rain.

However, another form of acid rain is due to the carbon dioxide emissions of a coal plant. When released into the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide molecules react with water molecules, to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3). This, in turn, returns to the earth as a corrosive substance. This cannot be prevented as easily as sulfur dioxide emissions.

Coal and coal waste products, including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag, contain many heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.[8][9] While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released, resulting in more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants.[8]

[edit] Mercury Emissions
Mercury emissions from coal burning are concentrated as they work their way up the food chain and converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound[10] that harms people who consume freshwater fish. In New York State, winds bring mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. The mercury is consumed by worms, who are eaten by fish, and then by birds, including bald eagles. As of 2008, mercury contamination of bald eagles in the Catskills had reached new heights.[11] Ocean fish account for the majority of human exposure to methylmercury; the sources of ocean fish methylmercury are not well understood.[12]

Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal[/ame]

[Hoot Gibson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment...ts_of_coal

Although most of the article to which you linked appears to be factual (the accuracy of estimates of illnesses and deaths attributable to pollution can never be precisely determined), the article is irrelevant to the discussion.

You are confusing genuine air pollution, which almost everybody agrees should be tightly regulated, with the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. Capturing relatively small quantities of heavy metals, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants is a much easier technological feat than the long term sequestration of billions of tons of CO2. If CO2 were toxic, we would all be dead.

[Squid]

I not sure about the GREAT lengths they went to, but they were better than the ones out there today.

I wonder why Fox News has been rated as the no. 1 cable news network for the past 4 or 5 years, and last month had the top 6 shows, even O'Reilly reruns are doning better than those on MSNBC and CNN.

Just remember their motto "WE REPORT YOU DECIDE".

The reason that FNC is always high in ratings is simple. They pander to a base of around 20-25 million people in this country that have a perpetual need to have their biases reinforced by people that they consider to be "informed".

There is approximately the same number of people on the far left, that constitutes the diehard liberals that would support anything and everything that is done under the heading of "Democrat". The difference is, that group of people doesn't need to have their biases reinforced (indicating that they are more self assured than their counterparts on the right).

The sad thing is, the right wing base of wingnuts that buy into the FNC machine honestly believe that, since FNC has high ratings, they must somehow be "right" on the issues. It is a classic case of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses).

[Squid]

Just out of curiousity - why do you think that companies like Apple, PG&E, and many others have resigned from the Chamber of Commerce over it's insistence of denying global warming?

Are they equally misinformed, or are they also part of a grand plot by Obama, to ruin the US economy?

[Mr.Kimball]

The reason that FNC is always high in ratings is simple. They pander to a base of around 20-25 million people in this country that have a perpetual need to have their biases reinforced by people that they consider to be "informed".

There is approximately the same number of people on the far left, that constitutes the diehard liberals that would support anything and everything that is done under the heading of "Democrat". The difference is, that group of people doesn't need to have their biases reinforced (indicating that they are more self assured than their counterparts on the right).

The sad thing is, the right wing base of wingnuts that buy into the FNC machine honestly believe that, since FNC has high ratings, they must somehow be "right" on the issues. It is a classic case of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses).

Things sure have changed over the years. I'm sure you remember the good ol days when all one had to do was just sit around with Andy, Barney, and the boys down at Floyd's Barber shop and catch all the lastest. Who needed TV. Still think Calvin Coolidge said it best. Wadda you think Squid? Bring back any old memeories for you? hh:....:biggrin:

[Squid]

Things sure have changed over the years. I'm sure you remember the good ol days when all one had to do was just sit around with Andy, Barney, and the boys down at Floyd's Barber shop and catch all the lastest. Who needed TV. Still think Calvin Coolidge said it best. Wadda you think Squid? Bring back any old memeories for you? hh:....:biggrin:

I'm absolutely old enough to remember the Andy Griffith show. Great stuff. Between Andy Griffith and Ben Cartwright, there was no problem that couldn't be solved.

I'm not too sure about Calvin Coolidge though - he was before my time, and I don't know if you're referring to a specific quote by him.

[Mr.Kimball]

I'm absolutely old enough to remember the Andy Griffith show. Great stuff. Between Andy Griffith and Ben Cartwright, there was no problem that couldn't be solved.
I'm not too sure about Calvin Coolidge though - he was before my time, and I don't know if you're referring to a specific quote by him.

Aunt Bea was always my personal favorite. And yours?

[jetpilot]

Aunt Bea was always my personal favorite. And yours?

:lmao:

:worthy:

:yikes::ChairHit::flush::devilflam:Clap::redboxer::igiveup:irateSho:moon::thanks::thatsfunn :blabbermo :argue::HitWall:hh:

[Squid]

Aunt Bea was always my personal favorite. And yours?

I'd have to go with Don Knotts, as Barney Fife. He did an episode of Candid Camera, where he was a jeweler that did ear piercing (way before it was common). He was shaking like a leaf, and the friends of the people that were supposed to get there ear pierced were too terrified to watch.

I tried to find it on Youtube, but it doesn't look like they have it.

[Mr.Kimball]

I'd have to go with Don Knotts, as Barney Fife. He did an episode of Candid Camera, where he was a jeweler that did ear piercing (way before it was common). He was shaking like a leaf, and the friends of the people that were supposed to get there ear pierced were too terrified to watch.

I tried to find it on Youtube, but it doesn't look like they have it.

Yeah, that was a goodun, wasn't it?














Nice recovery!!:biggrin:

[Old School]

The reason that FNC is always high in ratings is simple. They pander to a base of around 20-25 million people in this country that have a perpetual need to have their biases reinforced by people that they consider to be "informed".

There is approximately the same number of people on the far left, that constitutes the diehard liberals that would support anything and everything that is done under the heading of "Democrat". The difference is, that group of people doesn't need to have their biases reinforced (indicating that they are more self assured than their counterparts on the right).

The sad thing is, the right wing base of wingnuts that buy into the FNC machine honestly believe that, since FNC has high ratings, they must somehow be "right" on the issues. It is a classic case of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses).

Surely, you don't believe that nonsense do you, if other liberals believe the way you do then it's no wonder their ratings are down.

I must admit I was mistaken when I said that Fox News had been the number one news network for 4 or 5 years, actually it has been 9 years. The fact is Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, could the high ratings at Fox be because people are sick and tired of the "I get a thrill run up my leg every time Obama speaks" type of rhetoric from the pundits, could the viewers be getting bored with all of the adulation Obama recieves from all of the other networks pundits. Since Obama took office in the 25-54 age group CNN ratings have dropped 37% MSNBC 26% while Fox News has increased 31%. Fox also leads in he 18-49 age group.

[Hoot Gibson]

Surely, you don't believe that nonsense do you, if other liberals believe the way you do then it's no wonder their ratings are down.

I must admit I was mistaken when I said that Fox News had been the number one news network for 4 or 5 years, actually it has been 9 years. The fact is Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, could the high ratings at Fox be because people are sick and tired of the "I get a thrill run up my leg every time Obama speaks" type of rhetoric from the pundits, could the viewers be getting bored with all of the adulation Obama recieves from all of the other networks pundits. Since Obama took office in the 25-54 age group CNN ratings have dropped 37% MSNBC 26% while Fox News has increased 31%. Fox also leads in he 18-49 age group.

Don't forget that CNN recently fact-checked a Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at President Obama's record of non-accomplishments. I do not recall that ever happening during the eight years during which Bush was the favorite punch line of SNL comedians. Nor did CNN fact check the Tina Fey skits that lampooned Sarah Palin. Would a serious news media outlet ever do a serious fact check of a comedy sketch? I think not.

[Squid]

Surely, you don't believe that nonsense do you, if other liberals believe the way you do then it's no wonder their ratings are down.

I must admit I was mistaken when I said that Fox News had been the number one news network for 4 or 5 years, actually it has been 9 years. The fact is Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, could the high ratings at Fox be because people are sick and tired of the "I get a thrill run up my leg every time Obama speaks" type of rhetoric from the pundits, could the viewers be getting bored with all of the adulation Obama recieves from all of the other networks pundits. Since Obama took office in the 25-54 age group CNN ratings have dropped 37% MSNBC 26% while Fox News has increased 31%. Fox also leads in he 18-49 age group.

LOL - I'll take it that you are in that group of dedicated FNC viewers that need such confirmation.

[Squid]

Don't forget that CNN recently fact-checked a Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at President Obama's record of non-accomplishments. I do not recall that ever happening during the eight years during which Bush was the favorite punch line of SNL comedians. Nor did CNN fact check the Tina Fey skits that lampooned Sarah Palin. Would a serious news media outlet ever do a serious fact check of a comedy sketch? I think not.

Hooter, you need to take a deep breath, and slow down a little. If CNN doing a fact check of an SNL sketch is setting you off this badly, you have probably been attending too many teabag parties sponsored by the RNC.


Oh yeah, Hoot - any answer to my question regarding the companies that are leaving the Chamber of Commerce?

[Hoot Gibson]

Hooter, you need to take a deep breath, and slow down a little. If CNN doing a fact check of an SNL sketch is setting you off this badly, you have probably been attending too many teabag parties sponsored by the RNC.


Oh yeah, Hoot - any answer to my question regarding the companies that are leaving the Chamber of Commerce?

You disparage people who watch the Fox News Channel but you cannot even acknowledge the lunacy of another cable news network fact checking a comedy sketch. Very interesting and also mildly amusing.

What is there to say about a few corporations jockeying for favor from the president that they helped elect? When the government meddles in the private economy it creates more losers than winners but it does create some winners. GE, for example, stands to make billions if Obama's cap and tax program passes and Goldman Sachs will also continue to profit from Obama's socialist agenda. I hope that I have answered your question to your satisfaction. I am certainly satisfied with my answer.