I'm not speaking as a "denier" here. I trust the scientific method to eventually come to a fact-driven conclusion, whichever that may be, on carbon warming. My objection is to the way the left has clutched warming to its heart by demanding, that science confirm the most apocalyptic possible scenario on climate.

You might want to get your left and right hands to talk to each other before typing, so one doesn't make a very bad liar out of the other in the same breath. That, and try not leading with stuff like "Church of Warminetics", and it wont be so obvious that you're engaging in willful anti-vaxxer like dumbfuckery.

Why is it that the uber-rich on the Left are never mentioned?

Because being an uber-rich leftist is a contradiction in terms, that's why.

Most of the richest people in the US Congress are Democrats.

You say that as if it means something. Protip: when those Democrats are to the right of Reagan on most issues, it doesn't.

Why don't we hear more about George Soros

Not a leftist.

Tides Foundation

Not lefists.

How about Bloomberg?

How about making it obvious that you're as dumb as Fox?

Or if you want to get to the real money in political contributions, look at public & private sector unions.

Or you could quit being a moran for five seconds. If unions had that much money or power, the GM bailout wouldn't have put a slow bleed on the UAW by forcing new hires to work for half as much money as experienced workers. Obama's RTT is going to put more unionized teachers out of their jobs than Bush's NCLB.

Self-declared Socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (D) Vermont.

Not even close. Cheney could call himself a Socialist, but it wouldn't make him one. Not that Bernie is like Cheney - he's like a middle of the road, 1970's era Republican on most issues.

even if you're a winger. You aren't arguing science, you're arguing ideology as much as an anti-vaxxer.

I don't care how serious it is... whenever I hear talk of "how serious a threat *Item X* is to man kind" I can't help but think of the Communist-threat style debate that went on in the Stargate episode, Politics.

Maybe you should put aside Stargate as a reference and look at past mass extinction events, which generally involved.......rapid climate change. Asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs? Climate change. Methane release that wiped out most of the life on the planet? Climate change.

And it's not like AGW has to be that dire for it to be worth avoiding. Forest fire season starting months in advance, higher summer utility bills so people don't suffer from heat stroke, more hurricanes that cause billions in property damage at a pop, etc. None of that will result in hundreds of millions of deaths, much less extinction - but they're still a bunch of easily avoided financial catastrophes.

I think it's good for the public to see these kinds of things, so they can fully appreciate the reality of the threat posed to our society.

Your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist, bedwetter. Your threat assessment is about as good as a biker who insists on riding without a helmet but refuses to fly on a plane "because it might crash."

.....that just ordered the mass execution of a couple hundred protestors? The one propped up by the USG? The same USG that overthrew Gaddafi and is trying to overthrow Assad for "killing their own people"?

He called for a deep revolution in thought about the tenets of Islam.

Is that before or after Christianist Americans have a revolution in thought conducting world wide kidnapping and torture programs, continuing to hold prisoners in gulags that have been cleared for release? It takes a few supertankers of willful dumfuckery to throw stones from that glass house.

Watching a Christianist American whine about violence committed by a few Muslims is like watching Jack the Ripper whine about how Chris Brown treats women.

Might wanna check that racist mass murdering beam in your eye before throwing stones at someone's mote.

And Bill and Barack are diametrically opposed Democrats. Barack had an African father and beat Bill's wife for the presidency. Therefore, people who compare their free trade deals are just craaaaazy.

/willfullymissingthepoint

The most comprehensive recount was a $1 million effort sponsored by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which owns papers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun. That press recount, the big one, found that Bush still won, even without the military votes.

Hoist on your own snobby petard. The very study you mention is the one showing Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario. Of course the chickenshit press buried that behind two pages of talking about how Bush would have still won if Gore's legal team had gotten their way in the recount, which again is irrelevant as he wasn't the one recounting the votes.

So are you going to move on from your fools mate and deal with the fact that Gore won Florida, or just retreat deeper into your anti-vaxxer denial?

There is no consistent set of rules which result in a Gore win. His camp acknowledged that by insisting on strict rules in conservative precincts and liberal rules in precincts that leaned Democrat. Additionally, you have to ALSO exclude votes from the men and women serving overseas.

More winger urban legends with no basis in reality. No to mention the projection, given the fact that illegally cast overseas ballots were counted, which favored Bush.

If you think you can come up with ANY set of procedures that result in a Gore win when applied consistently

Which part of "Gore won a statewide recount under any scenario" did you have a hard time understanding?

Gore won Florida. You can either deal with that fact, or be as willfully pathetic as the morons who keep blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge after they've been told that happened when George H.W. Bush was still president.

Do you also demand to know why the US of A continues to spend billions on roads every year, after Eisenhower spend all that money in the 50's building the interstate highway system, because you've never heard of the term "ongoing expense"? Or why you should keep getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist cuz after the first time you saw one when you were four? Or why you should have to keep spending money on gas after you drive a car out of a dealership?

Just wondering if your willful stupidity is general, or specific. Either way, it's a non sequtiur as it's. a. simple. fact. that Clinton gutted welfare in the United States.

Somebody making 2, 3 dollars a day (I'm looking at YOU, Pakistan!!) can't afford to pay American rates for content.

And yet working Americans are supposed to compete with those people making 2, 3 dollars a day for jobs that can be outsourced of offshored. Funny how "globalization" is always a one-way street, though.

Did you catch the "you first" part? Where's the ethics in forcing consumers across the planet to adopt increasingly absurd, corporate-written copyright laws while enforcing regional pricing at the same time?

It's information like this that inclines me to launch grass roots efforts to boycott various content providers...

Which of course is about as effective as boycotting banks that charge NSF fees a the drop of a hat, or airlines charging luggage fees.....when they all do it outside of some holdouts like Southwest. Barring the creation of a World War Z hive mind, consumer boycotts will do nothing to change widespread corporate behavior, no matter what the Libertarian Loons would have you believe.