published Sunday, May 25th, 2014

Sorrow surrounds us here in the Flat Earth Society

When and why did we stop listening to scientists?

If it’s a virus from Dayton, Tenn., let’s find a vaccine.

Reporter and writer Jonathon Gatehouse recently wrote about America’s movement toward anti-intellectualism and what he calls “dumbing down” in Macleans, a weekly current affairs magazine. Science was only a part of Gatehouse’s evidence, but a convincing part, and the connection to Dayton and the Scopes Trial was clear.

“South Carolina’s state beverage is milk. Its insect is the praying mantis. There’s a designated dance — the shag — as well a sanctioned tartan, game bird, dog, flower, gem and snack food (boiled peanuts). But what Olivia McConnell noticed was missing from among her home’s 50 official symbols was a fossil. So last year, the eight-year-old science enthusiast wrote to the governor and her representatives to nominate the Columbian mammoth.”

After all, mammoth teeth were dug up by slaves on a South Carolina plantation in 1725. “Fossils tell us about our past,” the 2nd-grader wrote. But the state legislature got hung up on how the mammoth fit in with the Bible’s book of Genesis, and the bill to name a state fossil was amended to specify that the Colombian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other bests of the field.”

Gatehouse, in his Macleans article, writes: “Charles Darwin’s signature discovery — first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since — long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world. But in the United States, reconciling science and religious belief remains oddly difficult.”

Such an understatement.

We don’t even believe our own scientists — 97 percent of them — who show us in study after study that our machinery to make power and our propensity to burn things to make more things is gradually smothering our planet and warming it. We don’t even believe satellite photos and maps that show retreating glaciers and the collapsing ice shelf of Antarctica. In an Associated Press poll earlier this year, only 33 percent of Americans said they had a high degree of confidence that it global warming is “man-made.”

But climate change alone is not the only scientific fact we are choosing to ignore.

Since the winter of 2007-2008, millions of insect-eating bats in 22 states and five Canadian provinces have died from white-nose syndrome, a fungus disease that infects the skin of the muzzle, ears and wings of hibernating bats. Often the bats awake sick and hungry — but too early in the year to find food. Consequently, they starve or freeze.

So? So, bats are nature’s balance for insects. They are the night shift for birds. Without them, we can’t apply enough pesticide to save our crops — or our own skins.

Then — speaking of pesticides — there are the honey bees.

The mysterious mass die-off of honey bees has been called Colony Collapse Disorder, and bee populations are so low in the United States that it now takes 60 percent of the country’s surviving colonies just to pollinate one California crop, almonds. Never mind that bees also are used to pollinate almost all crops across the country: apples, peaches, squash and more — $30 billion worth of crops each year.

Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probable causes of bee deaths, and the results show that averting what’s been called beemageddon will take more than one fix.

Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearing parasites and poor nutrition. Actually the culprit is a witch’s brew of pesticides and fungicides, including a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids that contaminate the pollen the bees collect to feed their hives.

Europe already has banned neonicotinoids, but our scientists say that won’t be enough because it is the mix of those chemicals and other chemicals that actually is a problem.

We likely won’t take any action. It takes too long to get agreement from lawmakers who are in debt to big chemical companies and especially big agricultural chemical companies.

And besides, we don’t believe science.

Here’s more from the AP poll: 42 percent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution, and 51 percent are skeptical that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago. Another 36 percent doubt the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.

Just 53 percent of respondents were “extremely” or “very confident” that childhood vaccines are safe and effective.

Only 69 percent believe in DNA, and 18 percent still don’t believe smoking causes cancer.

The world really is still flat — at least in the United States.

74
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Easy123 said...

You just roasted 'em, Pam! Great editorial!

May 25, 2014 at 12:31 a.m.
librul said...

Thanks, Pam. Yep, ignorance is bliss until you awaken to realize that your world is falling apart and you don't know enough to do anything to fix it.

May 25, 2014 at 9:05 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

I read the other day that the media in most other places around the world don't give climate change deniers the same sort of respect that the U.S. media does. Our media is so afraid of appearing liberal that they dare not speak truth to idiocy, even when the truth smacks them in the face. America for some reason has become a nation of fools, where stupidity is allowed to run wild and free, where science is scorned and demonized, and those who use logic to the fullest are derisively called "intellectual snobs." Instead of working with laser focus, as we should, to fix the monumental problems before us (with global warming topping the list) we are wasting precious time arguing with idiots about things that don't deserve to even have a place at the table for debate - things that science settled a long time ago.

May 25, 2014 at 10:03 a.m.

So many of these anti-science types wear tri-cornered tin-foil hats and tee-shirts that read, "Don't Tread on my Scientific Ignorance" and "3 Simple Words: God-Bible-Prayer-Guns".

Science and math aren't big with these people.

May 25, 2014 at 10:09 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

It is pretty obvious why. Around here no one lets facts get in the way of dogmatic religiosity and conservative politics.

But my liberal friends who worry about climate change are also half-blind, they fall prey to the same kind of psuedo-science hoaxes, re: vaccines, GMO and organophosphates (OP). There is not one shred of factual evidence produced by conclusive scientific experiments that food products made with gmo or exposed to OP in the field harms anyone or vaccines cause autism.

May 25, 2014 at 5:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I don't suppose any thinking person that has any background in scienece/medicine falls prey to anything you just mentioned. The vast majority of folks that do, however, fall in the same group of conservative/religious/flat-earther/climate change deniers. Also known as, functionally ignorant people.

May 25, 2014 at 6:18 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Easy123, would like to think you are not being ironic, but some do, a computer scientist at MIT is a big arguer against roundup.

May 25, 2014 at 10:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

inquiringmind,

That's one example. And let me preface this by saying I am sure we know a very different group of people. But the majority of people I've come across that believe the pseudo-science about vaccines, for example, aren't the most scientifically literate people and tend to fall in like politically with the people I've mentioned.

May 25, 2014 at 11:10 p.m.
conservative said...

If you think these Atheists are worried now just wait till they meet Him who really controls the climate.

The imaginary gloom and doom they now have will pale in comparison.

May 26, 2014 at 7:47 a.m.

conservative said... "If you think these Atheists are worried now just wait till they meet Him who really controls the climate."

You mean I'm going to meet The Grinch? Just yesterday I saw His face on my ham and cheese on rye!

Wow! Praise His Holy Great Greeness!

May 26, 2014 at 8:45 a.m.
timbo said...

It is no surprise that Sohn is so wrong because she is only a journalist (less than a hairdresser). Her degree is right up there with under water basket weaving. Since she is no scientist herself, she must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

As a scientist myself I will try to educate her even though she is ignorant and misinformed, the truth is that even if the climate change alarmists are right there are two things that can't be changed.

  1. The earth is a huge system and if we are in the midst of a major climate change, for whatever reason, there is nothing we can do about it. It can't be reversed because the momentum for a huge system is too great.

  2. Even if we could change it, which we couldn't, the largest CO2 polluters in the world won't change their habits one bit (China and India)so whatever we do ourselves is moot.

I know that this is the liberal religion right now along with smoking dope but the science is just not there. It is being controlled by people who live off of government grants or the alternate energy bunch who are an industry frantically looking for a problem.

So party on dudes or buy some ocean front property in Ashville.

May 26, 2014 at 11:59 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Well, folks, there you have it. Timbo being a "scientist" and all, we can put the debate about global warming to rest once and for all. Please tell us, sir, what exactly is your scientific field of expertise? And please tell us the extent of your research. I am intrigued at how you arrived at your intelligent and reasoned findings. Did you, like the climate scientists, devote years to intensive study and have your findings been peer reviewed and shown to be accurate? Oh, but how silly of me! Of course you would not dare to make such a fool of yourself with only cursory and unsubstantiated claims of knowledge, would you?

Hmm. Methinks you would. Fool.

Do you seriously think that the climatologists, who have devoted years and years of extensive, in-depth research to their field of study have not taken into account the differences between naturally occurring climate change and that which is caused by human activity? There is 97% consensus, worldwide, among climate scientists that the global warming we are experiencing is man-made (apart from the naturally occurring global warming). Do you honestly believe that every one of those scientists, not just here in the States but all over the world, is involved in a collective conspiracy to dispense false information, just so that they can get grant money? Seriously??

It amazes me how you deniers imagine this huge conspiracy of scientists all in it for the money, while you completely turn a blind eye to the corporations who are spending billions of dollars in their campaigns to spread their propaganda disputing the claims of the legitimate scientists. Those corporations definitely have a vested interest in refuting AGW, yet you don't even acknowledge it. The anti-global warming campaign playing out now by Big Oil and the related polluting industries is identical to that which the tobacco companies insidiously engaged in not too many years ago.

The only part of your comment that possibly has an element of truth to it is that part where you said that we can't really do anything about it. But the only reason we can't is because we have waited so long about taking action. We have wasted so much precious time debating fools like you who think your scant knowledge on the subject trumps the findings of highly specialized scientists in their field. Our world is burning all around us and instead of putting out the flames we are locked in a dead-end struggle, having to butt heads with idiot deniers like you.

May 26, 2014 at 1:15 p.m.
conservative said...

I did a page search for the 97% lie so that I wouldn't have to suffer reading Ms. Sohn's gibberish. I found:

"We don’t even believe our own scientists — 97 percent of them — who show us in study after study that our machinery to make power and our propensity to burn things to make more things is gradually smothering our planet and warming it"

She got her first sentence partly right.

We don't believe 97% of scientist say, much less have evidence that mankind is causing global warming.

No such 97% list of names exists and no statement and proof either!

May 26, 2014 at 1:19 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

I have provided that list twice in the past week, con-man. It exists! I'm not going to do it again, especially for dumb asses like you who never even respond to verifiable facts that dispute your specious claims. Go crawl back under the rock you came from.

May 26, 2014 at 1:24 p.m.

the Blue Bottle Fly Conservative said:

the SOS he always says.

Seriously. He believes in a talking serpent and donkey, Noah's flood, and a host of other BS.

Why would anyone believe anything else from such an ignorant man. By the way, he's also an atheist; just not the intelligent kind.

May 26, 2014 at 1:58 p.m.
Plato said...

The only serious way to beat back the catastrophic effects of global climate change is to make alternatives more economically feasible.

We should have a world wide effort to perfect things like hydrogen fuel cell technology, and nuclear fusion. When you can light a city like San Francisco for a year on a gallon of ocean water it will make all other forms of energy obsolete and we aren't that far away from having the ability to do it.

May 26, 2014 at 2:57 p.m.
conservative said...

People are sheep and the global warming/climate change crowd are some of the worst.

Now, there are two things you do with sheep -

1) You lead them and

2) You fleece them

Today and tomorrow at least, I will begin to expose the 97% lie.

It will be slow agony instead of quick slaughter for these sheep.

May 26, 2014 at 4:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I'm going to go ahead and call bullish!t on everything you've ever said or will say in the future, con-man.

Ignorance is your dogma. Outright lies are your proverbs. There are no greater sheep than the religious.

May 26, 2014 at 5:05 p.m.
conservative said...

Now, regarding the 97% lie, it is absurd to believe that 97% of people would agree on anything.

Do 97% of people believe the Bible is the word of God? Tragically no!

Do 97% of people agree with the Demoncrats? Thankfully no.

Do 97% of people agree that Homosexuality/sodomy is sin? No, but they should.

Do 97% of agree that pornography is evil? No, but they should.

Do 97% of Americans agree there is a God who they will stand before in judgment? No, but they should.

Get it?

May 26, 2014 at 6:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

It's not 97% of "people". 97% of climate scientists have come to this conclusion. You know, the people who have years and years of education and study regarding the subject. The scientific data, literature, studies have come to this conclusion. Experiments, testing, simulations, etc. support it. You're a fool. It's not absurd to believe facts. It's absurd to believe something based on zero evidence as you're doing, you fool. But that's what you base your whole life on, so who would expect any different?

Get it?

May 26, 2014 at 6:31 p.m.

conservative said...

The Blue-Bottle Fly Conservative wrote:

"People are sheep and the global warming/climate change crowd are some of the worst.

Now, there are two things you do with sheep -

1) You lead them and

2) You fleece them"

Of course you're not telling the truth. There's that third thing you personally do with your favorite sheep.

"Conman sired a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb,

Conman sired a little lamb, and called it Mary too!"

Thanks for doing your part to prevent global warming by wearing wool (though I'm not sure your ewe named Mary would agree).

May 26, 2014 at 6:38 p.m.
conservative said...

So, how did the 97% lie get started?

Well, it is based on a mere 75 climate scientists!

75 climate scientists, not thousands, and we are suppose to impose a carbon tax on Americans because 75 climate scientists who were paid to say mankind is causing global warming/climate change.

Here is the start to unraveling the 97% lie.

"Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

May 26, 2014 at 6:58 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Today and tomorrow at least, I will begin to expose the 97% lie. It will be slow agony instead of quick slaughter for these sheep." - conservative

Con-man...Two major flaws in your argument (and actually Easy has already pointed them out): 1)every one of the examples you cite as things that people cannot agree on are OPINIONS, not scientific evidence. 2)It is not 97% of all PEOPLE who agree on human induced global warming, but 97% of the scientists who have actually studied it and/or peer-reviewed their findings.

Is this how you expose the "lie" of global warming? With poppycock and nonsense? I will give you this much, though: it is agony indeed having to deal with the lame, unfounded, childish, opinionated comments of you deniers. It makes me sick, knowing that there are so many of you flat-earthers among us, spreading your irrationality and doing everything you can to take us backward into your world of superstition and willful ignorance.

May 26, 2014 at 7:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Wrong again, con-artist.

"In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). "

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24

"A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

May 26, 2014 at 7:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

This, too, from the Skeptical Science website: "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."

I listed 197 of those worldwide agencies the other day. That in itself is a far cry from the "mere 75 climate scientists" that this Lawrence Solomon fabricates out of thin air and whom con-man so gullibly believes.

May 26, 2014 at 7:56 p.m.
conservative said...

Continuing the slow unraveling of the 97% lie that the Liberal doomers have been fed.

The mess media began claiming around 2009 that the 2500 on the UN (Useless Notion) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that there was a consensus on climate change.

NOT SO!

"Climate scientists scarce in study"

"How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position."

"To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

Lots more to come

May 26, 2014 at 8:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

More lies from the con-man. Everything you just said has already been debunked today by myself and Rickaroo.

More debunking to come when you present your lies.

Let's discredit Lawrence Solomon personally:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lawrence_Solomon_arg.htm

May 26, 2014 at 8:33 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

you can't argue with con-man, he has made up his mind and will go to any extreme to protect his delusion.

May 27, 2014 at 6:16 a.m.
conservative said...

Continuing with the unraveling of the 97% lie.

In an online survey of 10,257 scientists in 2009 only 77 of them were singled out with their views. 75 of these thought humans were contributing to climate change.

So with a little math deception the mess media liars arrived at a 97% consensus.

But the survey was of 10,257 of which only 75 thought humans were contributing to climate change.

Do the math, 75 of 10,257 is .01 or 1%!

So, 1% became 97%!

"To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently."

"The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim."

"This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

May 27, 2014 at 7:45 a.m.
Easy123 said...

More bullsh!t from the con-man.

May 27, 2014 at 8:21 a.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo...Thanks for making my point. You are the type of climate change religious fanatic I was talking about. Unless you have a science background, I doubt you have been trained in the scientific method. Although I might not be the greatest scientist that has ever lived, I can read data. You don't have to be a "climatologist", whatever that is, to do that.

As far as scientific certainty, if you were a scientist, you would know that there is no such thing. Scientific knowledge and theory have changed over time. First, fat was bad for you, now according to Atkins and "studies" it is ok. Aspirin was great for you, now people aren't so sure. Scientists in 1500 thought the world was the center of the universe..I guess they made fun of Copernicus. He started the scientific revolution. I could go on and on and on and on....on science that has been proven wrong over time.

You guys like to compare us to people who thought the earth was flat. It is actually you guys that are "absolutists" similar to religious fanatics you regularly criticize.

The problem is that when you set out to "prove" a concept, you could manipulate your data and findings to fit what you set out to prove. Sometimes it is deliberate, sometimes it is human nature. There is too much money to be made from climate change hysteria to keep it pure.

These things need to be looked out in a logical way using the scientific method. Not by eliminating some potential sources for natural climate change while exaggerating reasons that fit your financial and political positions.

Implying that everyone else is stupid or a fool is just a liberal form of intimidation that just proves how emotional you people really are. You have just replaced your innate need for normal religion with climate change hysteria.

You are a typical liberal, you have no valid point so you insult to intimidate. I can't be intimidated.

May 27, 2014 at 9:16 a.m.
conservative said...

Fear is the life of Atheists/Liberals. They have rejected God their creator so they are left to their own thinking and the thinking of other likeminded Atheists and Liberals and that is not a good thing.

They are therefore easily manipulated like sheep.

Ms. Sohn is on a scare campaign. She often stirs up fear about nuclear power while hypocritically using the stuff. Why doesn't she move out of the area and thus out of range of our nuclear plants? She of course doesn't really believe her own propaganda.

She just recently and in this piece engenders fear in the minds of her sheep over global warming/climate change.

She has even advised her sheep to get a rowboat and emergency supplies!

If you should follow her advice please shop Walmart.

She uses and enjoys the benefits of fossil fuels yet rants about them. You could bet your last air conditioner that she will continue to hypocritically use hers for her personal comfort.

May 27, 2014 at 10:25 a.m.
conservative said...

I have been telling people for quite some time that this global warming/climate change scare is nothing more than a scheme to impose a carbon tax.

Ms. Sohn in her piece last week titled "The cost of pollution: Raise the levee and man the rowboats" wrote this:

"For now, our alternative is to raise the levee and man the rowboats, because neither the public nor Congress seems intent on changing how we tax carbon emissions -- the pollution we put in the air that fuels the pace of climate change"

May 27, 2014 at 10:47 a.m.
timbo said...

conservative....It just fits in a kind of "know it all" and "everyone who doesn't agree with us is stupid" that liberals espouse. They try to belittle in order to elevate their illogical opinions. Then they shout down any opposition. Climate change is so complicated, it is beyond me how they can be SO SURE. Again, it is like a religious fervor the if that sureness was Christian they would think you were ignorant. Tolerance to the left is a one way street.

Religion is the only comparison that is valid. Just read 123 and Rickaroo and tell me if they don't have the same tone as a radical Muslim.

They don't tolerate anyone disagreeing with their dogma. They do a climate change fatwa against you for giving your opinion. They ignore any other data. In the climate change click, there are even violent acts done in the name of mother earth.

What they don't realize is that their tactics drive people the other way because nothing is as sure as they try to make man-made climate change.

May 27, 2014 at 11:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Nothing you said deserves consideration, timboner. Aligning yourself with conservative and calling others intolerant while labeling yourself a "scientist". The epitome of irony! All you know is ignorance, lies, falsehoods, misinformation and nonsensical idiocy.

You're the typical Right-WingNut dumbass, thus, you will be treated as such.

May 27, 2014 at 12:02 p.m.

Timbo, You have the accolades of THEJackDennis and Conservative. You've offered no proof of "science" credentials, and you seem to not understand climate change and the process of science.

Are these the positions of your "anointed one", Rhoda Thurman? As you appear to be her champion, political and philosophical spokesman, is this what is to be expected by a write-in victory for Ms. Thurman?

I don't have any love for any politicians, but certainly none for these crazed-Christian Fundies. Is that what Ms. Thurman is?

I have supported Ms. Thurman in the past. But if she's just another crazed fundy I have no votes and no support for a return to such foolishness.

May 27, 2014 at 12:07 p.m.
timbo said...

123 and allah.. Thanks for proving my point. I was not saying that other religious fanatics were right. I was saying that your attitude was similar. Sometimes religious people are right, sometimes atheists are right. In this case, you should judge any politician on their policies and voting records, not religion.

It is so good to have you guys fitting my description of you so well. Thanks.

May 27, 2014 at 12:21 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, you're always good for a chuckle because you say the most asinine things yet you take yourself so friggin' seriously. If I'm guilty of being "absolutist" or emotional or fanatical in my opinions about climate change, well, dude, you're just as guilty, only coming from the opposite angle. I almost laugh out loud at how serious you take yourself about being a scientist, "trained in the scientific method" and how you are better able to "read data."

Now, Mr. T, you might be able to read data better than I do (or maybe not), but what makes you think that you read data any better than the very scientists who have been studying climate change more intently than any other scientist or group of scientists, including and especially YOU? They have been peer reviewing their data for years and continually confirming and reconfirming it. Oh, but I forget....they are all liars, aren't they? The entire lot of them, all across the globe, they don't give a hoot about the science, their only intention is to keep the gravy train of grant money flowing, right? Do you really have no clue how absurd it is to embrace such a far-fetched and unlikely conspiracy theory? Of all people less likely to be swayed by the lure of money it is scientists. Most of them are far more interested in attaining the respect of their peers within the scientific community and that is accomplished by only one thing: being known for the integrity and accuracy of their work - in other words, getting the science right.

And all the while you deniers are crying "liberal hoax" you turn a blind eye to the millions and billions of dollars spent by Big Oil and the various other polluting industries in their propaganda campaign to make us believe that global warming is not real, or at least that our spewing trillions upon trillion of tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere for the past 100 years has nothing to do with it. If anyone has a vested interest in not letting the truth come out, it is those guys! And yet, you NEVER even acknowledge that there just might be at least a small chance that they are the ones perpetuating a lie. The propaganda campaign being waged against the science of AGW is almost identical to that which the tobacco companies waged against the science linking smoking and cancer. But you deniers prefer instead to believe that the scientists - every last one of them all across the globe - are the ones who are in it solely for the money. Incredible.

May 27, 2014 at 12:34 p.m.
conservative said...

Timbo, I agree with your 11:33 assessment.

I only engage a couple of the least strident Atheists/Liberals. Nearly all, like the names you see here are so full of hate and Liberalism that there is no need to engage as they literally self destruct.

About 3-4 years ago I had a one and only encounter with rickaroo.

I have never read him or responded to him since, likewise many others who frequent here as well. I can't help but see the word "conservative" sometimes in their first sentence but that is all.

You see, when you know the character of the beast you can predict the conduct of the beast i.e. what they saying.

Rickaroo often writes long rants and so I sometimes comment that I hope someone reads what he was ranting about. He doesn't have a clue that I don't know what he is writing but it keeps him reading me.

You see the object is get your point of view across. Trust me on this, everyone reads me.

May 27, 2014 at 12:40 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Not done yet...

And what really boggles my mind is that you and all the other deniers don't just DOUBT or QUESTION the science, you stomp your feet and exclaim to the heavens, without so much as a shadow of doubt, that human caused climate change is NOT real, that it is NOT happening, that it is all just a LIBERAL HOAX. Now, sir, THAT is fanaticism, to the Nth degree. So shut up already about me being the fanatical one. You deniers are so hung up on your anti-government fixation that you won't allow yourself for one second to be objective about the science.

I admit that I do not KNOW beyond a doubt that AGW is for real, but I have chosen to believe the specialists in their field who are the most likely to know what they're talking about. You deniers, on the other hand, choose to ridicule them and cling to the statements of anyone BUT the very scientists who have done the most research.

But then, I forget that you yourself are a scientist, "trained in the scientific method," and such an expert at "reading data." So obviously you know what you're talking about, certainly more than dumb fanatical liberals like me, and more than the climate scientists who have devoted years of their lives to their research. So we should all just bow down and give ear to timbo - entrepreneur, scientist, and all-around Renaissance Man. Yeah right.

May 27, 2014 at 12:47 p.m.

Timbo, Science is a process that works on evidence and probability, not absolute certainty or absolute truth. That is the method of scientific inquiry.

Current science says there is climate change. Current science says that mankind has made contributions to that change.

Can the current explanations be incorrect? Certainly, but current evidence and probability says otherwise.

That's the difference between religious fundamentalism that never changes and the process of science that does.

Religious fundamentalism in the Abrahamic traditions attempt to prove that nothing changes. The process of science says everything changes in that a better explanation replaces less accurate explanations.

It was true of Thales, Ptolemy, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Lister, Pasteur, Einstein, Bohr, and all scientists. Better, more encompassing explanations come along that get closer to the truth without being the final, absolute truth.

Science doesn't care if you're liberal, conservative, religious, agnostic, libertarian, Chinese, American, Buddhist or Baptist.

The process of science works; religious fundamentalism as explanation does not.

May 27, 2014 at 12:51 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Go crawl back under your rock, con-man. You're a menace to society - a sick perverted brain-dead little f#ck. No long-winded rants here, just the truth. Short and to the point.

May 27, 2014 at 12:59 p.m.
conservative said...

Timbo

My observations on arguing with Liberals/Atheists/Demoncrats/ Socialists:

1) They resort to name calling and personal attacks when they lose, as you noted

2) They outright lie or misrepresent your words or position (Mr. Anthony Provancher, alprova on the toon site often does this).

3) They create a straw man

4) They seek to change the subject

May 27, 2014 at 1:12 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"It just fits in a kind of 'know it all' and 'everyone who doesn't agree with us is stupid' that liberals espouse." - timbo

Sir, in your comments you are every bit as opinionated and "know-it-all" as any liberal you are accusing. We all have our opinions and obviously we feel strongly about them, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here. I give you your opinions and your right to them, and I realize that what I am expressing is, in the end, just an opinion, too. And all we can do is hope and trust that our opinions have at least a smattering of truth to them. But for you to imply that you are less opinionated, less attached to your opinions, and more objective than the next guy is preposterous.

May 27, 2014 at 1:21 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

ConMan, you are guilty of all four of the bullet points from your "observations". I guess that makes you a "Liberal/Atheist/Demoncrat/Socialist".

May 27, 2014 at 1:46 p.m.
conservative said...

People have got to wake up and start using their heads.

If you really believed that the burning of fossil fuels will cause and is causing destruction of the earth and the decimation of mankind wouldn't you call for the elimination of it's use and not just a tax on it's use?

May 27, 2014 at 1:56 p.m.
timbo said...

Allah....That was a very well thought out reply. You seem like a reasonable person. We especially agree that the current climate change theory is based on current science. We don't agree that this science has reached the correct conclusion based on the data.

My point was that some people on this string treat science the way some people treat religion. They think there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that they can be wrong. You obviously don't feel that way.

I think the first point I made is logical...even if man-made climate change is occurring, the momentum of our huge system, the Earth, will not be changed back by human behavior until it has run it's course. Especially when China and India are going to do nothing about it.

By the way, I support Rhonda Thurman for three reasons. 1. She is honest. Probably the only honest politician I know. 2. She is right on the issues. Low taxes, less government interference, and keeping cost down. She has been lambasted by people who don't want those things. 3. She has the courage to stand up to the powers that be on both sides of the aisle.

She will win the write-in campaign.

May 27, 2014 at 3:11 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo...I only say that I have a different conclusion based on the data, experience and my common sense. Could human caused climate change be real, of course. I just think that according to my reading, and the reading of scientists I know, that fact has very little chance of being valid. You disagree, but do not have a science background. You are taking the word of people who are qualified to interpret the data but in my opinion have come up with the wrong conclusion. You are once removed and it fits your political and economic model of what is right. I don't agree.

Also, you are damn right, I am very opinionated. The problem is this thing is not "opinion" it is an interpretation of data. The fact that you think it is "opinion" shows you don't understand what you are discussing.

May 27, 2014 at 3:18 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Science is science and facts are facts. But when your interpretation of the data is antithetical to the climatologists' interpretation, or if not antithetical at least vastly different, then you have entered the realm of forming your OPINIION of what that data says. You, sir, just think that your interpretation is the correct one, while theirs, you imply, is false. And yet, you make such a statement despite the fact that their data has been peer reviewed over and over and over again. How often and by how many scientific agencies has your data been peer-reviewed? That is the epitome of hubris on your part. Your hubris in fact blinds you to the realization that your interpretation is just your OPINION of it, not a FACT.

Look, we are not going to come to an agreement on this or on a variety of other issues. You can pretend to talk civil and reasonable to ayb but I know you're as opinionated, unreasonable, obnoxious, and arrogant as anyone on here. I really don't care to attempt to be civil with you. I am going to say what I believe to be true and if we miraculously agree on anything, well, fine. But I have a thing about obnoxious a-holes, and that's what I find you to be.

May 27, 2014 at 3:52 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo.. You seem to prefer discussing things with name-calling and vitriol. That is your style. It is counterproductive.

My interpretation of the data comes from a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the majority and also my own data interpretation. The fact that a larger number of scientists have a certain theory is not relevant. Science is not a democracy. You are right, some data has been peer reviewed by scientists but they agreed with man-made climate change and might have a political or financial interest in it being a "problem."

If you want me to call you a name, you are barking up the wrong tree. I really don't care about your opinion of me. That is insignificant.

May 27, 2014 at 5:17 p.m.
Plato said...

Timbo - Is your definition of "a significant number of climate scientists" one? From Scientific American:

". . . .I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one.

It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year.. . ."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

I might suggest you try to broaden your horizons by getting your info from more reliable sources such as NASA, NOAA, Scientific American etc.

May 27, 2014 at 6:03 p.m.
conservative said...

I grew up in Florida without one day of air conditioning. I also spent 14 months in an oven called Vietnam without air conditioning. Most of the world does not have air conditioning.

I am going to continue to taunt and even ridicule those hypocrites who claim mankind is causing global warming/climate change but will not give up their air conditioning.

It is a fact, air conditioning uses a lot of fossil fuels.

I would bet a Coke Ms. Sohn would not give up her air conditioning.

Hey, I would buy her a coke if she would remove air conditioning from her place of residence, he-he.

May 27, 2014 at 6:13 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, you haven't been on this forum for a while but I remember you well from some of your past comments. You can pretend to take the high road about name calling but I distinctly recall your admitted disdain (to put it mildly) for liberals and plenty of name calling of your own that you freely indulged in. As for my name calling being counter-productive...counter-productive of what, pray tell? The chasm between lefties and righties today is pretty much unbridgeable. We are never going to see eye to eye, so I have no desire to sit down with you over a beer and make nice, as if civil dialogue is going to make any difference. You conservatives have your distinct view of how this country ought to be and we libs have ours. There is no way that the two views can ever co-exist because they are diametrically opposed. I don't come on this forum with the presumption that I am going to change any right-winger's mind about anything, so why should I care one jot about whether we are civil or not in our disagreements? I prefer to tell it like it is and call a spade a spade. I don't like you. I think you are a pompous, arrogant ass (not necessarily name calling, just telling you what I think). Why should I pretend otherwise, just for the sake of playing nice?

BTW, I admit to my share of name calling but I almost always back up my name calling with good and thorough explanations of why I am calling someone by whatever name. Nothing wrong with good old name calling. The politics of our forefathers were in many ways even dirtier than the politics today, and they didn't hesitate to give their opponents a good dressing down now and then. Just because someone claims to be "above" name calling doesn't necessarily make their argument any more sensible or worth listening to. Sometimes name calling is well deserved.

May 27, 2014 at 6:37 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo..I don't expect you to play nice or even care if you do. The facts are the facts. Your philosophy on name-calling fits your political leanings. That is the tactic of the left. I doubt I will lie awake at night worrying about whether you like me or not. You are also right about changing any right-wingers minds. One of my good friends is John Wolfe. He is as liberal as it gets but he wasn't unpleasant. Most of his opinions and analysis were wrong but he made a well thought, logical argument. My father was a life long democrat who had the same type of personality and political arguments. What we did agree on though was honesty and integrity. Without those none of the other liberal or conservative concepts mean anything.

That is why your method is counter-productive. The last time I was on here, I quit for two reasons. One was the fact that no one signs there name. An opinion means nothing without a name. The other was because it was just an insultfest. I was drawn into it and was just as guilty as you are. I still am pretty hard on some of the columnists because I feel they are not fulfilling their duties as journalists and have this huge soap box on which to yell at the rest of us. They also have and agenda. Bennett is your kind of guy. All he does is insult the other side.

I won't get into the personal insult contest again and the only reason I am on here now is to support Rhonda Thurman. After that I will go away.

Comparing your daily diatribes to the founding fathers is a little narcissistic. Politics is not bean ball and never has been but using this forum to call people child molesters and the like is pretty extreme. Problem solved...

May 28, 2014 at 8:29 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

You complain about no one signing there name here. I don't see you signing your name either, other than timbo. It's so typical of you to whine about something that you yourself are guilty of. I have actually given out my full name (Rick Armstrong) a few times before and in fact did so just the other day. If that makes you feel better, well, there you go, timbo. Happy to accommodate.

Thank you for a hearty laugh just now. For you to call anyone "narcissistic" really cracks me up. You are so friggin' full of yourself you can't see how egotistical you really are. I don't think you've mentioned your being a business owner in your recent posts, but I know well from many of your past comments that you think because you own a business you have all the answers regarding economics, and that anybody who doesn't own a business doesn't even have a place at the table to talk about the economy. And you think because you're a "scientist" (you have never revealed your scientific credentials by the way) you know more than any of the rest of, especially about climate change, and you even claim to know more than the climatologists themselves. Sir, you may not indulge in name calling, or you haven't lately at least, but your very tone and demeanor reek of such disgusting egocentricity that your every utterance is an insult to those who disagree with you.

As for the term "child molester," I have NEVER used that against anyone. I don't have a clue about the personal lives of any of the commenters here. All I know is what they share on this forum and I keep my responses targeted at the specific things they share here, and that is almost always of a political nature. You are making a huge leap to include my name-calling among such attacks as personal as that.

And finally, regarding your comment about Bennett being my kind of guy insofar as "All he does is insult the other side"...HELLO...Earth to timbo...that is what political cartoonists do! You honestly do not think that other political cartoonists, both liberal and conservative, are every bit as insulting?? My god, man, you are somethin' else.

I've had my say and given you much more of my time and attention than you are worth. Whether you add another response of your own to this is up to you, but I've had enough.

May 28, 2014 at 2:55 p.m.
timbo said...

Rickaroo...I have done it several times, here it is TIM PRICE

May 28, 2014 at 3:28 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

timbo, you need to do some further scientific reading. "As far as scientific certainty, if you were a scientist, you would know that there is no such thing. " Well, it is a certainty the sun (sol) will turn into a red giant in about 4 billion years, consuming everything inside the orbit of the earth.

To argue that others will continue to pollute even if we stop presumes an outcome before the experiment begins. One would still do the test to find out if the null hypothesis is true, that is, no one else will control CO2 emission (and the gases in hair spray) or the climatic changes cannot be reversed by controlling emissions.

Your science is weak.

May 28, 2014 at 10:08 p.m.
timbo said...

inquiringmind....What you just stated is not a certainty, it is a theory based on data. No one knows exactly how long the sun will last. Again, to non-scientists your comment might make sense. I am a chemist. Even though there is empirical data out the ass on chemical reactions, no one has ever seen electrons moving around. It is all theory based on data. Even in a "settled" science like chemistry new theories are being made all the time.

There are all sorts of natural causes associated with CO2 increases. Also, over time, the Earth has done a pretty good job in adjusting to changing parameters. More CO2, more vegetation, more plankton, etc. etc. (Plants use CO2 to make oxygen). Also there have been climatic changes since the beginning of time, some good, some bad. The problem here is that none of the apocalyptic changes predicted by climate change religious fanatics have come true. New York is not underwater as Al Gore predicted (Another non-scientist), etc.

What your attitude tells me is that you are exhibiting an arrogance that humans can control nature instead of nature controlling humans. Realizing the truth about China, India, and the third world ignoring climate change is mature and realistic. It has to be part of the equation if you believe this climate change bunk.

I have been a scientist for 35 years. Your estimation of the weakness or strength of my judgement is irrelevant to me. You aren't qualified to judge my or any other scientists competence.

Why don't you guys worry about something real like the huge deficit this country faces? That is something to worry about because if we don't do something about that then we won't have any money to affect any thing else.

May 29, 2014 at 9:43 a.m.
librul said...

Tim, Tim, Tim.

You say that Earth has done a good job of adjusting to changing parameters in the past but deny that the new parameters we are seeing could possibly be as a result of human activity. I call flawed reasoning - or maybe just intentional blindness, a fatal flaw for a "scientist".

The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are surpassing any for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans are exposing, mining, extracting and burning fossil fuels which would otherwise have remained in a stable state while at the same time cutting forests all over the globe which could absorb or sequester released carbon and thus exposing huge swaths of bare soil to the hot sun and interrupting the water cycle. This is promoting acidification of the oceans which is affecting the viability of plankton and its ability to perform its task. Warming is threatening to release huge quantities of methane from permafrost which will accelerate the process exponentially. These and many other "new parameters" and the gross upset in equilibrium of the CO2 cycle conform well to the time period following the industrial revolution - get your head out of the sand and check it out.

While the projected "apocalyptic" changes are not any more immediate than other processes on a planetary scale, the triggers for them have been and are still being pulled and your cavalier attitude about them will doubtless be a source of great anger for the generations to come who WILL have to live with the results of your aforementioned flawed reasoning.

For someone who recognizes chemical reactions which are predictable and follow natural laws, your arrogant climate change denialism would be comic if not so tragic.

May 29, 2014 at 10:39 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Tim Price is not a scientist. That much is clear. Notice he hasn't given a single credential to support his claims, yet he calls others "non-scientists". Then had the audacity to call others "arrogant".

He is attempting to make an argument from authority, but his "authority" is made up, fake, contrived.

May 29, 2014 at 11:16 a.m.
timbo said...

Easy123....I own a chemical company. How in the word could you know my credentials? You just told a huge lie. There are people who know me and because I use my name on these insane posts. This is why you people have no credibility whatsoever. I won't answer you again.

By conversing with you, I am just enabling your mental illness. Giving you a platform for your insults and weirdness.

May 29, 2014 at 1:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I never claimed to know them. However, it is very telling that you don't divulge them. Owning a chemical company does not a "scientist" make, liar. I bet you won't divulge your credentials either. You're careful not to do that because you know you're just talking sh!t.

Again, you are not a scientist. None of the "science" beliefs you subscribe to are scientific. I've never met a real "scientist" that puts trust in bunk science while making the claim that there are no "certainties" in science.

The mental illness lies with you, liar. You believe in lies, misinformation and psuedo-science all the while making unfounded claims about yourself. These are not insults. These are facts and you know it.

May 29, 2014 at 1:47 p.m.
timbo said...

librul...Same old, same old.... Ain't happening...it is like the people who say they found Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat but can't seem to ever pinpoint it. It was too windy for the helicopter, too much snow, too much fog, to dangerous because of landslides, yadda, yadda, yadda..

You data is rehashed environmental propaganda with no substance. You people don't want to believe I am a "scientist" but you swallow whole hog that some of these crackpots like Al Gore are dead right. What are his scientific credentials by the way?

When an erroneous theory gets momentum it is hard to stop, especially when some of you adherents to the liberal religion start down the path of "we know it all." Nothing can be known for sure. Just remember, you guys are just as sure of man-made climate change as the religious people are sure of God's existence. There is just as much "proof" of both and you have no tolerance for religion other than your own. Just like them you think that there is no chance you are wrong, you doubt the motivation of the other side, and you worship at the altar of "truth". How can you criticize conservative now?

May 29, 2014 at 1:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Nothing you're saying is factual or rational. There is no reason to discuss anything with you because of your psychosis. Debating a fool like you is, at the very least, insane. You offer nothing of substance; only lies and ignorance.

It's all a psychological projection with you, "scientist" timboner. You are an ignorant fool, a liar, and an arrogant prick.

It's truly that simple. Call them insults. Any other thinking person that recognizes your bullsh!t would just call them accurate characterizations.

May 29, 2014 at 1:57 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Timbo, you are quite wrong, we have very detailed information and accurate models of how the sun consumes its hydrogen/helium and ultimately its heavier elements, and we also have quite detailed models that explain how solar mass plays a role in the evolution of a star. You are being pedantic.

Light a match in a flask of hydrogen and oxygen, you are a chemist you say, what happens? Is that just a theory??

BTW: "I have been a scientist for 35 years. Your estimation of the weakness or strength of my judgement is irrelevant to me. You aren't qualified to judge my or any other scientists competence." Neither age or experience makes a good chemist, only a good mind.

From an atmospheric science perspective and your desire to claim all scientific hypotheses are based on unproven theory and are "possible"outcomes not "probable outcomes," consider that if a scientist offers the hypothesis: "If I burn a large enough mass of carbon I will raise the CO2 level so high the surface temperature of the earth will rise to the extent it will alter icecaps and ice cover, rainfall and drought, and create heating by a "momentum impulse" on the carbon cycle that will take 10^4 -10^5 years to correct," no funding organization would allow you to undertake the experiment because the possible negative outcome falls in the range of dangerous and makes it unethical to perform. So why are we doing it now "for free?"

An alternative experiment however could be conducted and tested quite easily: "If the major industrial nations curtail CO2 emission, smaller countries will follow and the 'momentum impulse' will diminish." Of course we still have to determine how long it would take to reverse the current consequjences, assuming that we have not so perturbed the system as to move away from a saddle point in system free energy making return to the original state impossible..

May 29, 2014 at 3:06 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Easy, if timbo is the same tim price, he is also reported (Chattanoogan.com 9/11/2007)) as saying the KKK was a great service organization. go figure.

May 29, 2014 at 3:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Sounds about right, inquiringmind.

Great posts, btw. It's refreshing to have posters like you here.

May 29, 2014 at 4:14 p.m.
librul said...

We have met the enemy and he is CAPITALISM.....

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/29/capitalism-and-climate-change/

May 29, 2014 at 8:35 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

librul,

It makes a good-sounding argument but think of it a little differently, though you might accuse me of cutting the cloth a little finely. The 200+ year old Industrial Revolution certainly is the more highly probable cause of the current CO2 dilemma. It is certainly true that industrialization allowed a lot of folks to profit greatly and run factories with little regard for human life and safety of their employees. The industrial Revolution also resulted in many advances in the quality of human life (and efficiency or war).

The consequence of burning carbon amidst all this money-making was not appreciated or recognized until quite late in that "revolution." The forces of opposition to controlling CO2 emission within industry (and political allies) are not primarily motivated by capitalism, per se, but by good old-fashioned GREED. I will leave it to you all to debate whether or not it is possible to have a capitalist society that is altruistic and not exploitive.

May 29, 2014 at 11:56 p.m.
timbo said...

inquiringmind...you are a bald faced liar. If I said that, find the quote. That is something that Stuart James said I said but had no quote either. He was a liberal liar just like you. Making false statements to shut someone up by intimation. That won't work with me.

Your damn right I think that Nathan Bedford Forest was a great general. His military tactics are studied to this day. He was the father of modern motorized military and tank tactics although he used cavalry to do it. That great democrat Robert Byrd was a KKK member.

Forest was a controversial figure and the truth about his membership in the KKK and Fort Pillow is still debated. In the Fort Pillow incident he was cleared by no other than U.S. Grant. He was also investigated by congress for his involvement in the KKK and was exonerated again.

He was a Saint compared to Sherman. Sherman would have been tried for war crimes today. He burned, pillaged, raped, stole, etc. etc. He burned Columbia, SC to "punish" South Carolinians. He should have been hung.

May 30, 2014 at 11:54 a.m.
timbo said...

This is Forest's address to black Southerners in 1877 in New York. It sounds like it was given by Martin Luther King.

"....I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt - that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don't believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand." (Prolonged applause.):"

You liberals are without any scruples whatsoever.

May 30, 2014 at 11:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Timboner aka Tim Price,

You're an ignorant, lying, racist son of a bitch. End of story. Go get your bed sheet and hood ready, fatass.

May 30, 2014 at 8:37 p.m.
timbo said...

Easy123....Typical comment by a typical liberal. You and the rest of your compatriots on this site are why we can never..never..let down our guard. Would you name one lie that I said...one racist comment...? Don't let the facts get in the way..just insult.

As for my ass, it is not fat. My stomach is fat so maybe you should call me fatstomach instead or say that my momma wears Army boots...or some other dumb, immature comment.

Why don't you put your name in here? That is why your "opinion" doesn't mean anything because you are a coward. I would just love for you to say that in person.

June 2, 2014 at 6:36 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.