Blame the Universe for Global warming

Raven, I don’t have to do homework. Because people like me. When people like you, you don’t have to work as hard. It’s alot easier to be cool than it is to do alot of hard work. Since they pay about the same, I’ll just take it easy. I could do your homework, but I think you may not be able to withstand the brunt of my rhetoric. I’ll just let you keep studying and I’ll keep being cool. It seems to work for us.
Back to the original topic…
Maybe climatologists don’t consult astrophysicists about climate change becaue they’re in agreement with some of them and they’re going off the assumptions of those. Maybe they feel as though they can make the predictions that they do based on thier own evidence and that there’s no need to consult anyone else. Who knows?
I do think that policy decisions about climate change need to have as many good minds working on them as possible. Without being an expert in that field I’d have to defer to all of them to figure out the real issues that they’re facing, but even without any real knowledge of the science I can say that second opinions are always a good idea.

It would be very beneficial to the Bush administration and for yourself to practice what you preach.

Bush consults with Cheney, who consults with halliburton, who consult with the leadership of the UAE. How about that!

The same opinion three times is not a Second opinion.

If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, and go to another one who also recognizes the fact that you have cancer, is the second one wrong?

Hey Scott, what happened to your blunt picture. I miss that pic, it was fun, and always reminded me not to take this forum too seriously.

I’ve gotta resize it a little.

Nice pic!

Second opinions are not about right or wrong they are about independence.
If the second opinion is based on the same test results or comes simply from the same file then they don’t count as second opinion.
Exactly how the Iraq war was justified by US and UK security sources.
They received the same misinformation and then treated each other as confirming source.
General populace calls that gossip and are not considered intelligent.

Fair enough.
But what does this sentence mean?
Exactly how the Iraq war was justified by US and UK security sources.

During the period from March 2000 through September 2003, the U.S. State Department paid nearly $33 million to the Iraqi National Congress, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office report released in 2004.
Subsequently, Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress was paid about $335,000 per month by the Defense Intelligence Agency until May 18, 2004.

Once upon a time, Ahmad Chalabi had friends in high places. The M.I.T.-educated Iraqi exile was the odds-on choice of a powerful coterie inside the Bush Administration to run Iraq once Saddam Hussein was gone. In the fall of 2002, well before the U.S. invaded, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith was trying to get Congress to release $97 million earmarked for groups, like Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (I.N.C.), that were agitating for regime change. The Administration was relying on Chalabi’s sources to provide intelligence on Saddam’s alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But the State Department and the CIA persuaded the Senate Appropriations Committee not to release the money, arguing that Chalabi’s intelligence wasn’t worth paying for.

Iraq’s WMD. Oversight of Chalabi’s information operation was shifted from the skeptics at State to the Pentagon, where his champions included Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. … 09,00.html

The Cabinet Office now a US ‘mouthpiece’?
It has been very strongly suggested to me that the Joint Intelligence Committee which receives a considerable input from US Intelligence sources also obtained information believed to have come from Iraqi exile groups that went a long way to confirm the strongly held US contention that MI6 and GCHQ were taking an over-cautious line on Iraqi WMD.

The Daily Telegraph, owned by Conrad Black, who has on one of his boards the prominent Pentagon hawk and Chalabi supporter Richard Perle, published a flattering profile of Mr Chalabi last year, characterising him as “the de Gaulle of Iraq”. The article did not refer to his conviction or the collapse of Petra Bank at all., … 04,00.html

War-loving republican leaders payed with taxpayers money to a convicted fraudster to create the illusion of WMDs and then passed on that information to Blairs office.
Their were ‘three’ sources to support the threat of WMDs,
the media, the CIA and MI6 but all three used the same false information of preapproved postwar Iraqi leader Chalabi.
I wonder who is writing the Climate Change reports?

MIT scientists who want Bush to give them control of the weather?

NGC 604? SOUND FAMILIAR? Take out the G and the C and the 0…

It’s all Nintendo’s fault.

Ohhhh no its shaneytiger, and his teenage nonsense. RUN FOR THE HILLS! :laughing:

Damnit. It’s my arch-nemesis, Warshed.


if (Logic == Nonsense)
then Quote = True;
Quote = False;

(awesome = cool = totally rad)

If (Shaneytiger = awesome = G)

and (Warshed = slightly awesome = J)

then G > J, and therefore I am cooler than you.


I bow down to your infinite logic.

As well you should, young man.

As well you should.