I’ve written and lectured a LOT on this subject and the answer is YES. Hate crimes are message crimes. They tend to be more violent and severe because the goal is to make some group fearful. Just like acts of terrorism (that also aim to make a group fearful), in a hate crime the victims themselves are relatively unimportant. For example, many of the post 9/11 anti-muslim hate crimes attacked people who were neither Muslim nor Arab. The goal is to advance some agenda.

I’m surprised anyone would not think hate crimes are a form of terrorism.

It’s a slight stretch, but on some levels, the answer is yes.

Hate crimes, at their core, are about intimidation. They are about punishing a person/persons, for what they are, be it based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The ultimate goal is to ‘encourage’ these individuals to change what they are (if that’s physically possible), or go somewhere else.

Terrorism and hate crimes have the same basic goal, to force people to become like the terrorists or suffer for that refusal. I’d consider them two sides of the same coin. The only real difference (though it is still a significant one) is how many people are being hurt by the action.

There is NO such thing as a hate crime. It is either a crime or it is not, there is no distiction.

A crazed white supremacist opened fire a few hours ago at the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

My initial reaction was why is Robert Byrd (Democrat Senator and former Kleage in the KKK) shooting people?

Jed Clampett

All violent crimes are acts of terrorism. The intent is to sew fear and hatred, to make others react in an equally violent way, as the Al Qaeda attack on the WTC showed. As Randy stated, violence is an act of cowardice and hatred, perpetrated by those who have little mental capacity to resolve their issues in an intelligent manner.
BTW- are the levels of violence going up yet, or does it have to go up more?

What this particular act at the museum will do is give the powers that be the excuse to start shutting down these organizations whose sole purpose is to intimidate some portion of the population.
Let’s start with Limbaugh and his inflammatory rhetoric… or do we have to wait till he sets the theater on fire first?

Unfortunately, they will overreact and impinge on all our rights to free speech. I’ve seen it before, it’s happening here now. Good luck.

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with both Jed Clampett and Thanks For Playing. Hate crimes are acts of terrorism, because they are based on an inability to reason with people or an ideal they disagree with. But at the same time, hate crimes are very much of the ether. Crimes based on the same principle are committed every day around the world, but go undescribed as hate crimes. A quandry, based on such a fine line which explains such a thing. Terrorism is often thought of and spoken as a grand act, such as the ones the media report on. But in truth, it is also much smaller actions, emanating from those of small minds, and even smaller patience.

Define ” HATE CRIMES ” in a Racially Unbiased way first…
Then we can discuss it.

Terrorism is what causes terror or fear. Do you feel safe going around our country knowing that every one can buy a gun and everyone can use it?Especially now with the 24 hour news cycle and web site etc..too much un-real facts are disseminated and those that lurk in the dark unable to reason, alone and depressed.That is big risk here.
I think freedom of speech should not include a minority group supporting a hateful doctrine.
We are allowing hate crime to occur because our freedoms are not well defined in the light of morality collapse and craziness.
We must have some limits or our freedom will compromise our liberties.

Dear Mr. Clampett,

RE: Let’s start with Limbaugh and his inflammatory rhetoric…

As opposed to the hateful rhetoric as seen in NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Boston Globe….I could go on for days?

Bonus Question:

Is Obama a fascist, seeing as he runs two car companies and countless banks? I ask this because you always rail against the CORORATIONS?

To label an incident a hate crime is to elevate one group above an other.

A murder is committed in exactly the same way on two individuals but in one case the motivation is determined to be a hate crime. The perpetrator of the so called hate crime is given additional penalty for his/her crime.
At that point the victim of the non hate crime is determined by society to be of less value then the other victim.

Should we now call the non hate crime a love crime?
I am of course exaggerating to make my point.

Why don’t we just treat everyone equal under the law. Or we might as well just remove the blind fold from Lady Justice. Which I believe is the motivation behind a lot of hate crime laws.

Don’t let me get into hate speech.

I find it interesting that while Mr. Dickinson’s ‘discussion’ question did not mention a specific crime, most posters all gravitated towards yesterday’s Holocaust Museum shooting.

I wonder why this question did not occur to anyone in the wake of
Abdulhakim Muhammad’s shooting of two U.S. Soldiers outside an Army-Navy recruiting center in Little Rock AR last week?

A double-standard, perhaps?

They are the same thing an organized group attacking people because of race gender or “religion”. Attacking any people because of profileing is a hate crime Terroris is a more national thing but both have the same concept they are also both considered a capital offense. And its obvious the law of innocent until proven guilty does not apply.

They are the same thing an organized group attacking people because of race gender or “religion”. Attacking any people because of profileing is a hate crime Terrorism is a more national thing but both have the same concept they are also both considered a capital offense. And its obvious the law of innocent until proven guilty does not apply.

they are the same but terrorism is on more of a mass scale.

Jed Clampett

Hate, like a drug, can be addictive. In a nation where drugs are frowned upon and co.untered with a ‘war’, irrespective of the ‘collateral damage’, and imposed on the foot soldiers without consideration of the leadership that promotes the exploitation; one has to wonder how the spread of hate can be allowed to flourish and in fact make a few in the leadership rich and relevant.
When you really think about it, like the scourge of drugs, hate filled speech is also an exploitation of the population, it exploits the mentally unbalanced for political or economic considerations.

In closing “Face the Nation” this weekend Harry Smith had this exchange with Newt…
“HARRY SMITH: You have said that you will decide whether or not to run for president in 2011. What
would be the most important factors in that decision?
NEWT GINGRICH: The first factor would be whether Calista and my daughters and son-in-laws and my
two grandchildren agreed. The second big factor would be, is it practical? Is it realistic? And the third
would be, do we have a message that unifies the co.untry and that enables you to offer an alternative
vision of a successful America?
HARRY SMITH: You know better than anybody it’s one thing to run, it’s another thing to govern.
NEWT GINGRICH: Absolutely.
HARRY SMITH: Would the running be worth it?
NEWT GINGRICH: I wouldn’t run unless I thought we could govern. I mean, I — I founded American
Solutions because I think you’ve got– there are five hundred and fourteen thousand elected officials in
America. And I think unless you can get a wave of change that the President by himself or herself can’t
effect the scale of change we need to compete with China and India.”
(BTW- Kudos to Harry Smith, he called him out on several points and allowed him to expose himself for the hypocrite he is.)

“I wouldn’t run unless I thought we could govern” Seems like they proved their inability to faithfully carry out the peoples business over the last 8 years, they even destroyed faith in the capitalist system and America’s leadership role. Now their intent is to prevent the president and the party we elected to lead us from repairing the damage
In other words, they are traitors, workng against the wishes and needs of the majority for their own selfish, personal considerations, funny how they expose themselves as that which they accused others of being, while at teh same time using fascist tactics to bring the nation into a senseless war. Through their speech, filled with keywords and mischaracterizations designed to play on the emotions of the mentaly unstable, they are in fact using terrorist tactics to incite violence and make the co.untry more difficult to govern.
Funny how that works, huh?
They are not blind to the truth or ignorant of it, they know full well what they are doing, they seek to blind the rest of us to the truth and keep us ignorant and therefore malleable. You should read O’really’s Culture Warrior book to understand the tactics they are implementing, they learned those from mid 20th century history.

In closing “Face the Nation” this weekend Harry Smith had this exchange with Newt…
“HARRY SMITH: You have said that you will decide whether or not to run for president in 2011. What
would be the most important factors in that decision?
NEWT GINGRICH: The first factor would be whether Calista and my daughters and son-in-laws and my
two grandchildren agreed. The second big factor would be, is it practical? Is it realistic? And the third
would be, do we have a message that unifies the co.untry and that enables you to offer an alternative
vision of a successful America?
HARRY SMITH: You know better than anybody it’s one thing to run, it’s another thing to govern.
NEWT GINGRICH: Absolutely.
HARRY SMITH: Would the running be worth it?
NEWT GINGRICH: I wouldn’t run unless I thought we could govern. I mean, I — I founded American
Solutions because I think you’ve got– there are five hundred and fourteen thousand elected officials in
America. And I think unless you can get a wave of change that the President by himself or herself can’t
effect the scale of change we need to compete with China and India.”

They understand the power of the president, particularly when backed by the public, but hope to prevent our democratically elected leader from governing, so that they can effect the ‘wave of change’ they want for themselves. Is that a ‘wave’ America wants? Considering how steeped in selfishness, manipulation, exploitation and hate the ultra-conservative spectrum of the Republican party seems to be these days, I hope not. By your voice you can create a wave they can’t stop. Don’t be afraid of flooding their mailboxes with messages of your displeasure. By your silence and apathy you admit defeat and allow them to accomplish their goals.

BTW-the opposite of hate, compa$sion, can also be like a drug, and like all things positive, it is 81 times more powerful and gratifying than hate.

Peace

Road Rage is terrorism. So, YES, hate crimes are terrorism.

Mr. Byrd: Is Obama a fascist?

Considering that those banks are paying us back WITH INTEREST, as will the automakers, what, again, is your question?

As has been said: The echoes from the lunatic fringe will be about domestic spending, yet, those same people didn’t say a word about spending money on an ill-advised invasion of a sovereign nation.

So, Byrd, in retrospect, you weren’t complaining about spending before, so don’t start NOW, especially when we’re making interest profit on our expenditures……

Coach,

” So, Byrd, in retrospect, you weren’t complaining about spending before, so don’t start NOW, especially when we’re making interest profit on our expenditures…… ”

So should we expect a quaterly dividend check in the mail?
I can`t wait!

One would have to define “hate crime,” because any crime against another individual being could be comprised as such…traditionally, hate crimes are often indistinguishable from other crimes, its merely that an extra notion has been applied to it. A white supremecist murding an african american, or a Jew, is still murder, regardless of the races/ethnicities involved.

That said, I think terrorism falls into a nominally different category, as a terrorist act has an undeniably political bent. Thats not to say that a terrorist act cannot be murderous etc, but the difference between the Muslim terrorist killing the soldier in AK and the White Supremecist shooting up the Holocaust museum is the political slant. The Muslim openly admitted that the killing is politically motivated, as retribution for percieved injustices against Muslims abroad. The White Supremecist just really hated Jews, and shot up the place. One was making a poltical statement to enact political change, the other was just a nutjob.

They can overlap; the best example that comes to mind is the actions of Serbs against the Bosnians following Yugoslavia’s breakup. The Serbs enacted a mass campaign of raping and pillaging not only to brutalize the Bosnians, but to frighten other ethnic groups (i.e. the Croatians) into political concessions, to serve as a warning to those who disobeyed Serbian wishes in the area.

Jed– Remember, as per American Nazi Party vs. Skokie Illinois, hate speech is a protected form of speech. All speech, including that which one finds abhorrent and disagreeable, is protected under the 1st Amendment. In order to prove hate speech, one has to prove intent, and nothing within the mainstream has been anything close to hate speech, from either the Rush or Letterman side of the spectrum. Each are entitled to their opinions and to say what they want; except in certain situations, the speaker is not responsible for whomever is mentally unbalanced that may be listening.

And it depends on how you look at Obama; some think he’s trying to save the country, others think his policies are bankrupting and not the right path of action. After 8 years of Bush and ridiculous amounts of spending, simply wratcheting up spending, printing more unbacked, made up money, and nationalizing companies that should have been allowed to be broken up and sold off, as per the rules of the free market, does not seem to be the right solution.

So I guess one’s view on the present is all relative, I suspect

Coach: You didn’t answer the question

The banks are only paying the taxpayers back because they are trying to get Obama out of the company as soon as possible, because he runs the banks, the Treasury has also rejected payments from numerous banks. As for the automakers, that money will NEVER be paid back.

As has been said: We need to spread the wealth, except to my brother that lives in a hut, he’s not getting my money.
-Millionaire Barack Obama to his brother that lives in a hut in Kenya, on $10 a year.

So, Coach, in retrospect, you were complaining about Bush’s spending before, so don’t start telling people to keep quiet, especially when Obama just QUADRUPLED the deficit.

BTW, I was unaware that you knew how I felt about the out of control Republican spending during the past eight years.

What do Obama and God have in common?

Neither has a birth certificate.

How do they differ?

God does not think he’s Obama.

And there’s another difference between God and Obama, and that is that liberals love Obama.

Here are some more differences for you here between President Obama and God.

God asks for only 10% of your money.

God gives you freedom to live your life as you choose.

God’s plan to save us is actually written down for people to read.

Coach, first please learn the difference between “Loans”- money that is lent and must be repaid and “Spending” – money sent into the economy never to be repaid. Second I vividly remember the ranting on here when the bank loan program was announced and how it was a GOP handout to bankers and we would never see a dime of it paid back, let alone with interest.
Any of the ranters that want to apologize, can at any time.

Basing on how we define terrorism, terrorism and hate crimes CAN include overlapping elements. Terrorism, however includes more distinctive facets than hate crimes. Also, the definition of a “hate crime” is a even more ambiguous and subjective that labeling an act of terrorism. One can see similarities, but it is not appropriate to call the two one in the same.

they, they, they, blind, ignorant, they,(BTW) by the way, “hate filled speech is also” an exposure of one “mentally unbalanced” troll.

that aside, Randy Blazak makes a good argument. hate crimes by the KKK were certainly intended to terrorize black people as a whole. the matthew shepard perps committed two crimes, the way i saw it…when my son got a plum role as a ninth grader in his high school’s production of “The Laramie Project”…the first (robbery) as predators, the second (torture and murder) as “haters.”
i suspect that terrorizing the gay community was not their intention, but was, in retrospect, a result (shudder) that probably pleased them.

“acts of terrorism,” in my limited perspective, were the tools in guerilla warfare that leveled the playing field, takin’ it to the streets, as it were. though revolutionaries may have hated what they perceived as oppression, their acts, i believe, were motivated by desperation, righteousness, and thirst for power.
it all boils down to words. are hate crimes acts of terrorism? almack says, some are, some aren’t. are acts of terrorism hate crimes? sometimes.

all of anything is never something.

Randy, please define “message crime”.

Yes, Hate Crimes are a type of Terrorism and should be punished for doing so.

Terrorism =Scarying someone/Theathing someone
Hate Crimes=Scarying someone/Theating someone, So YES they are very SIMILAR and should be PUNISHED

dont do to someone, something that you would not want to be done to you. Treat others like you would like to be treated!

Because they share some features doesn’t mean they are the same (”scaring someone” falls into many categories). Not all terrorists commit “hate crimes” by definition, and certainly not all perpetrators of hate crimes are classified terrorists. I know you’re trying to connect the two, Tim, but it’s not that simple or pragmatic. The end of this road you’re trying to build is calling the people who voted for Prop 8 terrorists, and that, Tim, is stupid beyond comprehension.

Can a White Southern Baptist, Bible Thumping, Red Neck Male be a victim of a Hate Crime?

Liberal’s twisted logic scares me all the time, guess that must be a hate crime/terrorism.

This is one of the dumber posits we’ve had in some time and the ‘philosophical’ bent of the comments is distressing.

Does anyone actually think the victims of violence are pondering the nature of its inception? It is but a fancy of the non-effected. Another in a myriad of ’spectator sports’ that amuse ‘modern man.’

That would add every animial rights activist, enviromental activist and active union member (especially in Europe where they are more violent) as a terrorist or terrorist supporter. Hate crime has a very broad definition of what it is.

I’m sure no Democrat or liberal would put Peta, the UAW, Greenpeace and Earth First on a terrorist list even though members have rammed ships, plant spike and other traps on logging roads and some members have made a bomb or two.

What is “terrorism?” There seems to be no agreed upon definition. It’s been an issue of debate in the UN for years. Therefore, any type of activity which provokes discord with a “purported message” can be considered “terrorism.” At least our laws are codified so a crime is a crime.

Jed Clampett

Oh yes, perfect, like the battle in Seattle, paint the peaceful yet vociferous expression of frustration at the inefficiency of government into a crime. That way, the police can feel justified in physically assaulting citizens lawfully expressing their disgust at their leaders. Makes the tazering of a mentally unstable 72 year old woman responding to hostility much more acceptable to the perpetrators.

Put the cone of Shame on the Alpha dogs and change their voice or feel their induced wrath.

Hey Jed,

I got a question I`ve been meaning to ask you.
You always post your comments with the name Anonymous followed by Jed Clampett.

Why?

Which one is your posting name?

And a few times I see postings by just Anonymous without Jed Clampett.

Is that also you?

I`m just curious. Like to know who I`m reading.

Dirty D.

We finally agree.

Envision a murder victim who has just been shot. With her last dying breath she ask her killer:
“Are you a Terrorist and is this a Hate Crime?”.

The murderer answers ‘no’ to both.

The victim then replies with her last words: “Thank God, now I can die in peace”.

Absurd!

The PC Police are just looking to elevate certain groups to special status.

And this whole thing with ‘Hate Speech’ is an attempt to limit freech speech, which should send a chill up the spine of any true liberal.

Today my speech, tomorrow yours.

Jed Clampett

Recently here in Texas a 72 yo woman, mentally unstable and reacting to a hostile person, was tazered by the side of the road.

Can that be considered a hate crime, since the cop obviously hates his job, the people he has to deal with and is consumed by his hatred and training so that he can’t even show compa$sion for a mentally unstable elderly woman he has no knowledge of.
He merely couldn’t control her because she wasn’t submitting herself to his commands, he felt so afraid for his life (or insulted by her outspokenness) that he used a weapon that has the same restrictions as a lead spitter in it’s use?
Realize that that sort of arrogance, hate and disdain for humanity can turn on anyone, including himself. Maybe they should go after the real criminals, those that promote the conditions that make people ill.

Hey merk… look! squirrel.

Jed Clampett

I usually try to avoid responding to morons directly, but this time I must.
DWM – yes, it would be a hate crime. His hatred for others creates and attracts hate unto himself, drawing the weak of mind and spirit to join in his hatred and violence. Same concept as the COP who tazers an defenseless old lady or a fourteen year old to death. Hell, they’ve tazered seven yo girls with impunity, they don’t give a damn about anyone.

Jed, what you’ve said about that old woman is spin. Liberal or conservative, anyone who has watched the tape of the encounter would conclude that the woman was out of control and, with the alternative of being physical with the woman, the cop had no other option (hell, even the crazies on The View reached that conclusion).

Jed Clampett

Or, instead of reacting with violence and hostility, he could have smiled, changed his mood and watched her calm down.
I understand that your training is one of violence and hate, it’s fed to you through the idiot box and implants Automatic Negative Thoughts(ANT) into your programming. They even tell you what is funny, cue up the laugh track, and usually it’s not funny but hurtful.
Violence begets violence.
Emotions can be sensed by those open enough, ignored by those who have closed themselves off from the the rest of the family. That guy would do the same to his mother if his master trained him to do so. And being around a bunch of criminals that cover up their crimes rather than protect the people from them, they become more and more the puppet of the enemy, demoralized, malleable.
Automatons are not that hard to manipulate when you see them for what they are. Very few want to leave the bonds of slavery, it’s comfortable having someone provide for us, toss us a tennis ball now and then… all we have to do is ignore our conscience and do their bidding, even if that means running tanks over our own countrymen demanding their human rights in a peaceful manner.

That woman was like one of the broken robots on Wall-e, to be disposed of at will, and he was willing to do so, didn’t have the will to even try to understand. He felt himself superior, but as nature sees it, he’s even more flawed, he should know better.

Now, go back to playing your video game where you get to kill and die without consequences. You’ll soon see that nature always has consequences.

Once upon a time they were called ‘Peace Officers.’ Now they’re called law enforcement officers. And most of the laws they ‘enforce’ have little or nothing to do with crime.

A Peace Officer defuses ’situations;’ a law enforcement officer escalates them. Therein lies the difference.

jed Clampett

It doesn’t help that most of them are ex military or vets that didn’t get the appropriate help they needed to rebuild their computer.

Cynical view for you CCo: The cop should lose his job for being ‘unfit’ to ‘calm’ a 72 year old lady.

The other day I’m driving down the road and there’s a caravan of motorcycle cops. Of the 12, I counted 7 of the who were, not just overweight, but obese.

Tasers wouldn’t be necessary if cops were more fit. And, that doens’t mean fit enough to kick the krap out of you. That means fit enough to grab you and keep you from moving.

Underhand wrist grabs don’t stop hearts like tasers do.

So, Jed. I’m not sure I agree that the cop was committing a hate crime so much as a crime of shame. Shamed that a crazy old lady was keeping him from doing his job.

Jed Clampett

True, but more the shame that the woman was a threat to his ‘AUTHORITA!!’, arrogance was the key there. No, he should not loose his job, he should be arrested as an example and a deterrent to others who would do the same, throw the book at him, isn’t that what they did to that guy in NO after Katrina? He should know better and is supposed to be trained better. But like ‘doctors’ that become complacent and can’t think straight, he acted out of self a$surance that he would be protected from prosecution by his superiors and an out of control union.

Dirty D

“A Peace Officer defuses ’situations;’ a law enforcement officer escalates them. Therein lies the difference.”

This is true. But every now and then he shoots the bad guy. That`s why he carries a gun.

That said, probably a bad move tasing Granny, even if she was a foul mouth old bag.

Of course he was in a no win situation. The way she was struggling, the video of him wrestling handcuffs on her would have gotten the same outcries of abuse.

Unless you`re for letting her get off without a ticket because she`s old and if she cusses enough.

PC,

Would the ‘peace’ have been preserved had he just walked away?

Was this woman a threat to anyone?

Yes, she was a threat to herself. The woman was walking into the road to try to get back into her car and drive off… again and again, pushing the officer several times. Should he have cuffed her and pushed her down on the ground? Arrested her? I don’t know what the parodical is, but maybe any of you might want to watch the full tape before screaming about what I tyrant state America is. Oh, and this coming from the same people turning their heads at ACTUALLY TYRANNY taking place in Iran. My god, the hypocrisy is suffocating.

*ACTUAL (I wrote that too quickly)

Jed Clampett

“…
The righteous rise
With Burning eyes
of hatred and ill-will.

Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn, and kill

They say there are strangers , who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangness, too dangerous
In our theatres and bookstore shelves
Those who know what’s best for us–
Must rise and save us from ourselves

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand

Ignorance and prejudice
And fear
Walk hand in hand”
Rush – Witch hunt

Jed Clampett

As if to help me prove my point, spirit has offered another example of canines gone awry.
In the Metroplex yesterday the video of a ‘law enforcement officer’ assaulting an ambulance driver made the news. It seems the ambulance guy got in the officer’s way and ‘the dude’ was so insulted by this that he had to put the guy in a choke hold. It didn’t help that it was a Black MAN he was imposing his impotence on; must have seen his own black heart reflected by the victims skin and felt so disgusted with himself he had to lash out.
In this day and age of video cameras in cell phones, there’s pictures and video of the event.
Let’s see how his ‘leadership’ handles this one.

Dirty D.

Would the ‘peace’ have been preserved had he just walked away?

Answer: Probably

Was this woman a threat to anyone?

Answer: Probably not, But she was speeding, she could have hit someone.

But there are more important things to discuss.

A few threads back You asked me to name scientist who are skeptics of global warming. I put the list together which I will attempt to post on this thread.
Let me know if you read it or I will have to chase you with it.

Jed Clampett

That’s funny

Here’s a list for ya… you betcha…
going to shoot a moose…

http://www.campaignforliber ty.com/article.php

Jed Clampett

If I may interject on the list thingie…

how about this one…

http://www.campaignforliberty .com/article.php

PC

I think it’s pretty much a given that SOMETHING is ‘changing’ vis a vis the climate of this here rock. What is arguable is the effect man has on the equation.

I think, too, that what most reputable scientists in the field are suggesting that ‘man’ is having an impact (negative) on the whole process.

Finally, the ONLY factor in the equation which is reasonably ‘adaptive’ is that of ‘man.’ Reduce defoliation and carbon emission.

Or, as you and others suggest, simply sit back and say, “We’re screwed.”

Put it another way: do you think defoliation and carbon emission is GOOD?

The world is changing, I can smell it in the air, I can taste it in the water. Where once was darkness, comes the light. Mordor’s days are numbered, be brave Hobbits, Elves, Dwarfs and all others that prefer to walk in the light than be forced skulk in the shadows.

Children of the dog star, don’t fear the hollow shells any more. Turn on the electrocutors, we need no longer punish the poor and downtrodden, but the ones that would destroy their own Home for pieces of silver, gold and shiny trinkets. We will create a way to get you home. Take off the collar and scramble their signals. Your tails will wag with joy again.

Dirty D.

My apologies, but twice I posted a list of very reputable scientist skeptical of global warming and twice RS took it off. I`m not sure why, maybe because the list tho incomplete, was quite long?

In any case my source is Wikipedia, which is neither left, right or center and doesn`t have a dog in this fight.

Just log on to Wikipedia and type in the search bar “scientists skeptical of global warming”.
You will be sent to a page with the list of or a link to a list of names, their credentials and a short quote stating their positions. They are from all over the world.

It`s really a simple and minimal effort on your part. Then I would love to have an honest debate on the subject. But you need to at least hear both sides.

Just a couple of side notes.

Last year or early this year Al Gore was testifying before congress in favor of Cap and Trade
legislation to fight global warming. On the same day a scientist from Sweden, a skeptic of global warming, was schedule to testify. The Dems blocked him from appearing.
Gore has repeatedly refused to debate anyone who doesn`t agree with him.
If the facts are on their side what are they afraid of?
Gore and his partners, stand to make many millions of dollars if cap and trade passes.
Also last year there was a convention of about 400 scientist skeptics from around the world, in New York City.
If you did not hear anything about it, ask yourself why.
I assume you watch and read the mainstream news media.

I would really like you to check the list and give me your honest input.
Please reply so that I know you at least read my post.

Dirty: That last question will never be answered in this debate. Answering that would reduce the debate to a reasonable conclusion.

My God Crasher. At what point are you going to realize that propoganda, including the term ‘global warming’ is what allows these ‘reputable’ scientists to try to refute ‘global warming’.

Deduce the argument to climate change and whether or not human-created emissions are speeding it up, and your list would shrink dramatically.

Besides, as Bubba said: Answer the question. Why are you so against capping emissions?

People need to stop being reactionary and taking sides on the issue of climate change. The issue is, plain and simply, to find a way to reduce emissions. Simple.

PC,

Tnx for the direction. I found it interesting but not enlightening. So, there are some out there who don’t agree with the ’scientific consensus.’ Big deal. For years the tobacco industry trotted out ’scientists’ who claimed nicotine was neither addictive nor harmful. Who cares?

But since you DID direct me to Wikipedia, you might go there and search on this:

Scientific opinion on climate change

Since 2007, NO scientific organization has disagreed that global warming IS occurring and that man IS the problem. Only about 5% of the scientific community disagree.

I fear that if only ONE scientist disagreed with the findings of organizations throughout the world, you would seize upon that and argue the point.

Debate? There is NO debate young man. Now, as to Bubba’s point, do you NOT have a problem with all the carbon emissions spewing into the sky concurrent with a global deforestation? Do you think we should simply go “ho hum” on our merry way and NOT try to do something?

Or do you only care if Al Gore happens to make some $$$$? I suppose if it was Dick Cheney making the $$$$, it’d be okay.

This is NOT about Al Gore or any one person. This is about our planet and its survival. Thee and me won’t be around to see what ensues and likely thee and me can do Nada to alter the course of events. But governments, thankfully, can. Or, in the case of Formad, choose not to, to their eternal disgrace.

Coach,

More and more seem to be getting on the band wagon and calling it ‘warming.’ I suppose in an overall effect, warming would be correct. But ‘change’ is really what will be the result.

One possible scenario is the altering of the gulf stream which would probably result in the British Isles icing over. I doubt anyone therein would call that ‘global warming.’

Coach and Dirty D.

I`m not against capping emissions per say. I am against Cap and Trade that will put a huge tax on Americans and US industries making them less competitive and costing our consumers and costing jobs.

Meanwhile China and India are let off the hook and they are the biggest polluters in the world.
And for what? It won`t make one iota of a difference to the temp of the Earth.

DD I really didn`t expect you to consider the opinions of this long list of reputable scientist. And that was only a partial list.
You bought the BS hook line and sink.

I don`t care how much $$$ Gore makes. I don`t like the double standard, in that Gore`s motives can`t be questioned. When he`s looking to make money off the taxpayer and consumer.

And like a parrot you repeat Gore`s favorite line, ” There is no debate “.
That`s arrogance.

You mentioned Chaney making money.

Here`s a stat.
Cheney in one year gave 75% of his income to charity. Not exactly the actions of someone concerned with lining his pockets.
Do you think that hot air balloon Gore came even remotely close to that?
Obama gave 5%.
Biden gave .03% that`s .03%. cheap bastard. And he called Americans complaining about taxes, unpatriotic.

What can I say????

Sorry PC, didn’t know Al Boy had said that. I’m beginning to think he might be a pretty bright guy, from all that you tell me of him.

All I did was, like you, refer to Wikipedia. I read what you indicated and saw a link and took it. Lo and behold, I found what I offered to you. No doubt you deigned NOT to check it out.

It was THERE, I believe, I saw someone, a scientist, not Al Gore, say that there is no debate on the issue: there IS global warming and man IS a major factor in that warming.

Who cares what Al Gore does and says? This is a much bigger issue than your petty grievances about a politician.

And who cares how much any of them give to charity? That’s just a scam to refuse to give the $$$ to the government. I wouldn’t think that lifelong publi servants would ‘brag’ about their donations to charity since they’ve fed at the public trough for so long. Come to think of it, Cheney fed at the public trough even when he was NOT a public servant. He threw all those government $$$$ to Haliburton and then went to enjoy the gluttony.

You need some new heroes.