130 environmental groups call for ened of capitalism

[cooltigger21 0]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

[autigeremt 6,569]

I think they have some valid points. I'm an environmentalist, but I chose to think on my own, not in a collective.

[homersapien 11,353]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\ - at face value.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

cooltiger....thanks for posting. Interesting stuff.

[Tigermike 3,007]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

[homersapien 11,353]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

[AFTiger 282]

The true agenda of warming alarmists exposed. Communism.

[Tigermike 3,007]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

So since the Daily Caller is a partisan enterprise that somehow means the agenda of a large number of environmental groups is not communism?

[TheBlueVue 177]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

Well of course, you lefties are never partisan are you? I find it enormously entertaining when you categorically dismiss others' sources as partisan when the ones you routinely provide links to are literally the most liberal AND partisan sources in media. Hypocrite much?

[homersapien 11,353]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

So since the Daily Caller is a partisan enterprise that somehow means the agenda of a large number of environmental groups is not communism?

No silly. Who suggested that?

Who were these groups anyway and how many signed on to the paper in question?

[homersapien 11,353]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

Well of course, you lefties are never partisan are you? I find it enormously entertaining when you categorically dismiss others' sources as partisan when the ones you routinely provide links to are literally the most liberal AND partisan sources in media. Hypocrite much?

OK then. Forget the source. Focus on the content.

The only reason the source is relevant at all is as explanation of the obvious propaganda motive of distorting the actual facts, which weren't really provided.

And it's kind of hard to avoid charges of using biased sources when communicating with people who think all non-conservatively-slanted sources are biased. (Thus the term, "main street media". )

Oh, btw, "hypocrite" is not a verb. Stupid much?

[Tigermike 3,007]

So basically what you are saying is everyone but you uses biased sources. Got it, I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

[TheBlueVue 177]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

Well of course, you lefties are never partisan are you? I find it enormously entertaining when you categorically dismiss others' sources as partisan when the ones you routinely provide links to are literally the most liberal AND partisan sources in media. Hypocrite much?

OK then. Forget the source. Focus on the content.

The only reason the source is relevant at all is as explanation of the obvious propaganda motive of distorting the actual facts, which weren't really provided.

And it's kind of hard to avoid charges of using biased sources when communicating with people who think all non-conservatively-slanted sources are biased. (Thus the term, "main street media". )

Oh, btw, "hypocrite" is not a verb. Stupid much?

Thank you professor "Knowitall" I love it when you get testy for being called out as a hypocrite, which you are, and of the highest order.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The red menace is gonna get us.

[Strychnine 1,802]

The red menace is gonna get us.

That's what we need to turn this country around, a resurgence of McCarthyism!

[homersapien 11,353]

So basically what you are saying is everyone but you uses biased sources. Got it, I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

Wrong again. (Why am I not surprised.)

Of course I use sources that are supporting a position.

The difference is my sources - at least in the case of AGW - typically provide a reasonable argument based on facts, whereas the denier sites are trying to distort those facts. This is proven by my providing a technical analysis of whatever particular claim is being made.

Apparently, you guys had rather just stick with the headline.

[homersapien 11,353]

http://dailycaller.c...-to-capitalism/ Well I'll give them credit for being honest about who they are. This should remove all doubt aa to what the environmental movement is all about. I know though that some among us will try to deny it. Either tjey are just hopelessly naive or they are true bwlievers like these people.

Well not exactly. It was one paper presented at a Venezuelan conference attended by 130 different organizations.

You are either "hopelessly naive" or perhaps just two lazy to get the facts instead of taking a misleading headline - from the "Daily Caller" no less :-\/> - at face value. <_</>

You dismiss his source yet offer no alternative source. Was it reported by the MSM?

It was a minor conference, apparently consisting of Latin American organizations, since the paper in question is in Spanish. (I looked it up).

Notice that the Daily Caller didn't bother to note how many of these organizations signed on to the paper, much less who these organizations are.

This is much ado about nothing. The only reason we know about it at all is because a partisan organization picked up on it and tried to exploit it for propaganda purposes.

Well of course, you lefties are never partisan are you? I find it enormously entertaining when you categorically dismiss others' sources as partisan when the ones you routinely provide links to are literally the most liberal AND partisan sources in media. Hypocrite much?

OK then. Forget the source. Focus on the content.

The only reason the source is relevant at all is as explanation of the obvious propaganda motive of distorting the actual facts, which weren't really provided.

And it's kind of hard to avoid charges of using biased sources when communicating with people who think all non-conservatively-slanted sources are biased. (Thus the term, "main street media". )

Oh, btw, "hypocrite" is not a verb. Stupid much?

Thank you professor "Knowitall" I love it when you get testy for being called out as a hypocrite, which you are, and of the highest order.

I couldn't care less about your opinion of me, so knock yourself out.

[Tigermike 3,007]

Got it, your sites are good, everyone else's not so good. Your site's never distort or mislead.

[TheBlueVue 177]

So basically what you are saying is everyone but you uses biased sources. Got it, I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

Wrong again. (Why am I not surprised.)

Of course I use sources that are supporting a position.

The difference is my sources - at least in the case of AGW - typically provide a reasonable argument based on facts, whereas the denier sites are trying to distort those facts. This is proven by my providing a technical analysis of whatever particular claim is being made.

Apparently, you guys had rather just stick with the headline.

I have never seen you mention that climate data has been falsified to support the "scientific" community's claims. That it happened is a fact.

[AUDub 11,131]

I have never seen you mention that climate data has been falsified to support the "scientific" community's claims. That it happened is a fact.

Example?

[TheBlueVue 177]

I have never seen you mention that climate data has been falsified to support the "scientific" community's claims. That it happened is a fact.

Example?

[homersapien 11,353]

I have never seen you mention that climate data has been falsified to support the "scientific" community's claims. That it happened is a fact.

Example?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V64KzVTqFJg

First, please stick to written reports. Newscasts are typically and notoriously inaccurate.

Second, and to the point, propagation of a typographic error is hardly falsifying data. It's the difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you understand the difference or does it need to be explained?

[Strychnine 1,802]

First, please stick to written reports. Newscasts are typically and notoriously inaccurate.

Second, and to the point, propagation of a typographic error is hardly falsifying data. It's the difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you understand the difference or does it need to be explained?

I think it needs to be explained, if for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity.

[homersapien 11,353]

First, please stick to written reports. Newscasts are typically and notoriously inaccurate.

Second, and to the point, propagation of a typographic error is hardly falsifying data. It's the difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you understand the difference or does it need to be explained?

I think it needs to be explained, if for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity.

You don't understand the difference between a making a mistake (such as inadverdently propagating a typo) and deliberately falsifying data?

[Strychnine 1,802]

You don't understand the difference between a making a mistake (such as inadverdently propagating a typo) and deliberately falsifying data?

I do, and I would have thought you knew that. I just wanted to see it explained. More importantly, you already know you will end up having to anyway.