Buchanan: The Global Warming Hucksters

[PeterMP]

I don't agree with Buchanan on Gays, nor on protectionism(completely), nor on other core Buchanan issues.

I also wouldn't go with Buchanan on scientific issues necessarily. Like I said, issues with Pat tend to fall along black and white moral grounds. He doesn't see a lot of grey in the world and isn't one to be easily swayed by temperal concerns. But that's not my point.

Pat's a true throw back. A guy who doesn't put put his finger to the wind when he asked a question. He speaks from his heart. That doesn't make him right/or wrong most of the time, but it does make him unique. I find him refreshing even though I don't agree with him often. I definitely respect him.

The dude will take positions regardless of who he pisses off across the political spectrum. I respect that.

I don't disagree, but the point was that Pat was being hypocritical for accusing others of using scare tactics when he does the samething in support of his own positions. Some seemed to believe that since he is against the Iraq war that he hasn't generally used scare tactics to support other WOT initiative by the Bush administration/Republicans, which is just false.

[PeterMP]

I don't agree with Buchanan on Gays, nor on protectionism(completely), nor on other core Buchanan issues.

I also wouldn't go with Buchanan on scientific issues necessarily. Like I said, issues with Pat tend to fall along black and white moral grounds. He doesn't see a lot of grey in the world and isn't one to be easily swayed by temperal concerns. But that's not my point.

Pat's a true throw back. A guy who doesn't put put his finger to the wind when he asked a question. He speaks from his heart. That doesn't make him right/or wrong most of the time, but it does make him unique. I find him refreshing even though I don't agree with him often. I definitely respect him.

The dude will take positions regardless of who he pisses off across the political spectrum. I respect that.

I don't disagree, but the point was that Pat was being hypocritical for accusing others of using scare tactics when he does the samething in support of his own positions. Some seemed to believe that since he is against the Iraq war that he hasn't generally used scare tactics to support other WOT initiative by the Bush administration/Republicans, which is just false.

[hokie4redskins]

Just out of curiosity, hokie4skin, do you have a problem with government regulating emissions from cars? Or mandating certain levels of MPG of cars? Or mandating that larger polluters (such as buses and farm equipment) move to cleaner fuels such as CNG?

The less government regulation, the better. If private companies (you know, capitalism??) want to invest in their own R&D and sell their own products to consumers (you know, free markets??) at more energy efficient standards, God bless 'em.

Honestly, the only thing I want my government to do is have a laissez faire attitude when it comes to free markets and maintain a strong national defense. Global warming is a scourge, but not in the way you think it is.

[hokie4redskins]

Just out of curiosity, hokie4skin, do you have a problem with government regulating emissions from cars? Or mandating certain levels of MPG of cars? Or mandating that larger polluters (such as buses and farm equipment) move to cleaner fuels such as CNG?

The less government regulation, the better. If private companies (you know, capitalism??) want to invest in their own R&D and sell their own products to consumers (you know, free markets??) at more energy efficient standards, God bless 'em.

Honestly, the only thing I want my government to do is have a laissez faire attitude when it comes to free markets and maintain a strong national defense. Global warming is a scourge, but not in the way you think it is.

[PeterMP]

The less government regulation, the better. If private companies (you know, capitalism??) want to invest in their own R&D and sell their own products to consumers (you know, free markets??) at more energy efficient standards, God bless 'em.

Honestly, the only thing I want my government to do is have a laissez faire attitude when it comes to free markets and maintain a strong national defense. Global warming is a scourge, but not in the way you think it is.

And if you were in control the hole in the ozone layer would be much bigger than it is becuase industry wasn't going to move away from CFC's voluntarily anytime soon.

[PeterMP]

The less government regulation, the better. If private companies (you know, capitalism??) want to invest in their own R&D and sell their own products to consumers (you know, free markets??) at more energy efficient standards, God bless 'em.

Honestly, the only thing I want my government to do is have a laissez faire attitude when it comes to free markets and maintain a strong national defense. Global warming is a scourge, but not in the way you think it is.

And if you were in control the hole in the ozone layer would be much bigger than it is becuase industry wasn't going to move away from CFC's voluntarily anytime soon.

[JMS]

I don't disagree, but the point was that Pat was being hypocritical for accusing others of using scare tactics when he does the samething in support of his own positions. Some seemed to believe that since he is against the Iraq war that he hasn't generally used scare tactics to support other WOT initiative by the Bush administration/Republicans, which is just false.

Pat is definitely a fire brand. I don't think anybody is arguing that. As for hypocricial, that's in the eyes of the beholder. Pat's positions are pretty freaking consistant, as is his inability to compromise.

Fear mongering isn't fear mongering if you are right. And believe me Pat believes he's right, whether he's arguing paelio vs neo con issues or whether he's taking on Al Gore on environmental issues.

Pat doesn't come softly to the keyboard.

[JMS]

I don't disagree, but the point was that Pat was being hypocritical for accusing others of using scare tactics when he does the samething in support of his own positions. Some seemed to believe that since he is against the Iraq war that he hasn't generally used scare tactics to support other WOT initiative by the Bush administration/Republicans, which is just false.

Pat is definitely a fire brand. I don't think anybody is arguing that. As for hypocricial, that's in the eyes of the beholder. Pat's positions are pretty freaking consistant, as is his inability to compromise.

Fear mongering isn't fear mongering if you are right. And believe me Pat believes he's right, whether he's arguing paelio vs neo con issues or whether he's taking on Al Gore on environmental issues.

Pat doesn't come softly to the keyboard.

[PeterMP]

Pat is definitely a fire brand. I don't think anybody is arguing that. As for hypocricial, that's in the eyes of the beholder. Pat's positions are pretty freaking consistant, as is his inability to compromise.

Fear mongering isn't fear mongering if you are right. And believe me Pat believes he's right, whether he's arguing paelio vs neo con issues or whether he's taking on Al Gore on environmental issues.

Pat doesn't come softly to the keyboard.

1. What if he is wrong?

2. Does that mean Gore isn't fear mongering if he believes he is right?

I've discussed this before, but I'm not sure w/ you. Gore goes to far. Most studies don't, for example, support the idea of sea levels rising as far (and especially not as fast) as Gore says in his movie, but that doesn't mean Global Warming isn't real, and that the sooner we do something about it the better off we are going to be. Why'd Gore use the numbers he did? I don't know, but just because a politician is (likely) wrong about a scientific matter doesn't mean that all the science else is wrong, and even most conservative scientists will tell you the long term risks aren't worth ignoring.

[PeterMP]

Pat is definitely a fire brand. I don't think anybody is arguing that. As for hypocricial, that's in the eyes of the beholder. Pat's positions are pretty freaking consistant, as is his inability to compromise.

Fear mongering isn't fear mongering if you are right. And believe me Pat believes he's right, whether he's arguing paelio vs neo con issues or whether he's taking on Al Gore on environmental issues.

Pat doesn't come softly to the keyboard.

1. What if he is wrong?

2. Does that mean Gore isn't fear mongering if he believes he is right?

I've discussed this before, but I'm not sure w/ you. Gore goes to far. Most studies don't, for example, support the idea of sea levels rising as far (and especially not as fast) as Gore says in his movie, but that doesn't mean Global Warming isn't real, and that the sooner we do something about it the better off we are going to be. Why'd Gore use the numbers he did? I don't know, but just because a politician is (likely) wrong about a scientific matter doesn't mean that all the science else is wrong, and even most conservative scientists will tell you the long term risks aren't worth ignoring.

[JMS]

I commend you on your zealous defense of Pat, but I still think he is a political talking head and the fact that he retreats to a morality stance whenever the facts ellude his position (as you stated in an earlier post) is why I choose not to buy his bull.

In my opinion (which I still have a right to) he is just another talking head.

Come on man. Pat doesn't retreat. Pat starts on the moral line and if the country decides to go a different direction, ( as Roosevelt did with WWII ); Pat just reminds you of the error of your ways for the next six decades.

Again, what makes Pat refreshing, interesting, even educational on occasion isn't that he's always correct. It's that he's constant, intelligent, and fearless no matter who he upsets.

[JMS]

I commend you on your zealous defense of Pat, but I still think he is a political talking head and the fact that he retreats to a morality stance whenever the facts ellude his position (as you stated in an earlier post) is why I choose not to buy his bull.

In my opinion (which I still have a right to) he is just another talking head.

Come on man. Pat doesn't retreat. Pat starts on the moral line and if the country decides to go a different direction, ( as Roosevelt did with WWII ); Pat just reminds you of the error of your ways for the next six decades.

Again, what makes Pat refreshing, interesting, even educational on occasion isn't that he's always correct. It's that he's constant, intelligent, and fearless no matter who he upsets.

[JMS]

1. What if he is wrong?

Pat is often wrong. I would ague that that is also true of the consensus talking heads too however, especially over the last decade. What I like about Pat isn't that he's always right. It's that on a show of five guys there are two opinions. If Pat is there, what he says isn't a reflection of who spoke before him on the pannel.

2. Does that mean Gore isn't fear mongering if he believes he is right?

I've never liked Al Gore when he held political office. I've gained a lot of respect for Al in reading all these foreign policy books like Hubris, and Against all Enemies. Gore comes across as a person of strong convictions who put backbone in Clinton era policies. I haven't seen his movie so I can't discuss it.

In general though, publically, Gore hasn't been one known for speaking his mind irregardless of political consequences. I will not that his latest stance on global warming has netted him an Oscer and a Nobel Peace Prize.

I've discussed this before, but I'm not sure w/ you. Gore goes to far. Most studies don't, for example, support the idea of sea levels rising as far (and especially not as fast) as Gore says in his movie, but that doesn't mean Global Warming isn't real, and that the sooner we do something about it the better off we are going to be. Why'd Gore use the numbers he did? I don't know, but just because a politician is (likely) wrong about a scientific matter doesn't mean that all the science else is wrong, and even most conservative scientists will tell you the long term risks aren't worth ignoring.

I don't have a problem with Gore. From what I know of him since he left office, I rather preffer him to either Hillary or Obama. Again most of my positive opinions on him come from the books I've read since he left office. Publically I don't think Gore can be trusted to say what he really thinks on any given subject. It's hopeing for too much to make that your criteria for voting for someone. I would vote for Gore over the other Dems, because I think he has strong opinions and I think he's more right than wrong on those opinions. Hillary I don't believe has any strong opinions, and while that worked out pretty well for the country under her husband; I find that leadership style very frusterating. Obama is just too much of a blank sheet. He's very smart and charasmatic but I just don't know where he stands on many important issues, nor do I know if he's strong enough while being pragmatic enough to move the country forward.

[JMS]

1. What if he is wrong?

Pat is often wrong. I would ague that that is also true of the consensus talking heads too however, especially over the last decade. What I like about Pat isn't that he's always right. It's that on a show of five guys there are two opinions. If Pat is there, what he says isn't a reflection of who spoke before him on the pannel.

2. Does that mean Gore isn't fear mongering if he believes he is right?

I've never liked Al Gore when he held political office. I've gained a lot of respect for Al in reading all these foreign policy books like Hubris, and Against all Enemies. Gore comes across as a person of strong convictions who put backbone in Clinton era policies. I haven't seen his movie so I can't discuss it.

In general though, publically, Gore hasn't been one known for speaking his mind irregardless of political consequences. I will not that his latest stance on global warming has netted him an Oscer and a Nobel Peace Prize.

I've discussed this before, but I'm not sure w/ you. Gore goes to far. Most studies don't, for example, support the idea of sea levels rising as far (and especially not as fast) as Gore says in his movie, but that doesn't mean Global Warming isn't real, and that the sooner we do something about it the better off we are going to be. Why'd Gore use the numbers he did? I don't know, but just because a politician is (likely) wrong about a scientific matter doesn't mean that all the science else is wrong, and even most conservative scientists will tell you the long term risks aren't worth ignoring.

I don't have a problem with Gore. From what I know of him since he left office, I rather preffer him to either Hillary or Obama. Again most of my positive opinions on him come from the books I've read since he left office. Publically I don't think Gore can be trusted to say what he really thinks on any given subject. It's hopeing for too much to make that your criteria for voting for someone. I would vote for Gore over the other Dems, because I think he has strong opinions and I think he's more right than wrong on those opinions. Hillary I don't believe has any strong opinions, and while that worked out pretty well for the country under her husband; I find that leadership style very frusterating. Obama is just too much of a blank sheet. He's very smart and charasmatic but I just don't know where he stands on many important issues, nor do I know if he's strong enough while being pragmatic enough to move the country forward.

[chomerics]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Hypocrisy!! Coming from a Mass communist-wannabe who'd probably take up arms against his own country to spite Bush.

Are you frickin serious? Do you have a brain? Heck, you just used wnd as a source, so I think you are one of the 14% of the people that still believe Bush is doing just a "dandy and fine job" as president :doh:

I will thank you though. . .I thank you for showing the entire ES community that people like you actually exist, and they are not a figment of our imagination. . .unlike the "communist who is going to take arms against the country" imaginary person you have concocted to justify your piss poor views and position :doh:

[chomerics]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Hypocrisy!! Coming from a Mass communist-wannabe who'd probably take up arms against his own country to spite Bush.

Are you frickin serious? Do you have a brain? Heck, you just used wnd as a source, so I think you are one of the 14% of the people that still believe Bush is doing just a "dandy and fine job" as president :doh:

I will thank you though. . .I thank you for showing the entire ES community that people like you actually exist, and they are not a figment of our imagination. . .unlike the "communist who is going to take arms against the country" imaginary person you have concocted to justify your piss poor views and position :doh:

[The_cavalierman]

Come on man. Pat doesn't retreat. Pat starts on the moral line and if the country decides to go a different direction, ( as Roosevelt did with WWII ); Pat just reminds you of the error of your ways for the next six decades.

Again, what makes Pat refreshing, interesting, even educational on occasion isn't that he's always correct. It's that he's constant, intelligent, and fearless no matter who he upsets.

Agree to disagree on this one...

[The_cavalierman]

Come on man. Pat doesn't retreat. Pat starts on the moral line and if the country decides to go a different direction, ( as Roosevelt did with WWII ); Pat just reminds you of the error of your ways for the next six decades.

Again, what makes Pat refreshing, interesting, even educational on occasion isn't that he's always correct. It's that he's constant, intelligent, and fearless no matter who he upsets.

Agree to disagree on this one...

[Predicto]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

[Predicto]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

[Burgold]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

There. That's more like it. Don't you just feel so much cleaner than you did last week when you were defending Coulter! :laugh:

[Burgold]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

There. That's more like it. Don't you just feel so much cleaner than you did last week when you were defending Coulter! :laugh:

[chomerics]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

There ya go again, bringing sense and reason to a thread, you'll learn one of these days

[chomerics]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

There ya go again, bringing sense and reason to a thread, you'll learn one of these days

[DeanCollins]

Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.

He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really.

you're a nice guy Predicto, I'll just call him a moron. and like most morons, he thinks he's a genius