yyz28

No, you clearly haven't read the actual poll. Yes, Fox reported it wrong, as they added somewhat likely and very likely and then reported that number as "very likely" and still had a number for "somewhat likely". Let me put it to you another way. The POLL ITSELF didn't add up to 120%. A news organization reported that it did, but the actual poll, which you can find on Rasmussen's site if you'd bother to check, is a good poll. Rasmussen has an impeccable reputation as a pollster. ...but to pretend that Fox misreporting the poll invalidates the poll or somehow makes it any less valid is... well... Ironic. ...and it amuses me. Rasmussen Reports has been following the debate closely in recent weeks. According to their research Americans are somewhat hesitant to accept the evidence behind global warming just as they see divisions within the scientific community. 52% of those polled believed that disagreements amongst scientists persist against just 25% who think they do not. 59% of the American public also feels it is at least somewhat likely that a number of scientists have falsified research data to prove their own theories and beliefs.

LOL! so the fact that they made a mistake with the graphic is what's important - ...not the fact that in the Rasmussen poll, a 59% majority believe that global warming data is manipulated and isn't real? Interesting take on the data presented.

The thread to end all threads.

...see, if Ezekiel Emanuel hadn't made the statement they did, they could dismiss this stuff as "internet scare tactics" like they do everything else that is dug our of the ACTUAL bill (which is changing by the minute, as to keep everyone confused...). ...but with Emanuel's statement, this one is pretty damning.

...did anyone else notice that they refered to the President of the United States in that article as "El Jefe"?

...yeah, we probably outta merge this thread with the Global Warming thread.

Here's your consensus - Environmentalists’ mythical “scientific consensus” has served as a shroud behind which they have sought to maintain an air of infallibility. By falsely claiming a closed consensus and excoriating anyone who speaks out against their flawed orthodoxy, environmental extremists seek to prevent any objective, scientific debate that might inhibit their political agenda. That shroud, however, was further torn in 2008 by a 31,000-strong petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the OISM’s board of scientists, “a review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature.” To the contrary, the OISM notes that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have actually increased plant growth rates, among other positive effects. On this basis, the OISM concludes that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” " The petition reads: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The petition itself appears alongside a letter from the late Frederick Seitz, a former President of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Seitz stated that “the United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other organic compounds.” He therefore warned that, “this treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research into data on climate change does not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” ...but I'm sure these people wouldn't know anything about it. Scientists measuring the dynamic changes that happen with our without us in the climate and then jumping to the conclusion that changes must be as a result of our activity (despite geological evidence that the planet warms and cools in cycles and did so for millions of years before we started building cars and factories) aren't very good scientists. These e-mails are the smoking gun - the "scientists" from which many accept the consensus are actively trying to hide the truth so they can continue to push their agenda.

He may have another motive like you say, but he's right none the less. The President nor the EPA can take action like this on the behalf of the country without congresses approval. Politically motivated or not, his opposition is supported in the constitution.

Jim, not Max... had two people mixed up in my brain. ...so many congressmen, only so much brain space. To answer your question, I don't know what evidence they may have, but short of showing how global warming is actually man made and being able to show that our behaivior could actually reverse the course of the climate, and then show how people are actually in danger right now, it's going to be hard to show how their power grab would be held up as constitutional. ...and the EPA's track record isn't very good. EPA policy has killed far more than it has saved.

...you know, if you guys could actually come up with something original instead of the same hijack over, and over, and over... (...and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...) ...again, it MIGHT be funny. ...at this point it's more of a... ...thing. Just sayin'.

may hit the Alamo bowls with a few of my Tech friends...

I have to give Senator Max Webb (D, Virginia) a BUNCH of credit on this one. He has dispatched a letter objecting to the administration or a bureaucracy regulating such matters, and warns the President not to attempt to lock the country into something politically in Copenhagen as it wouldn't be binding without Senate support. This power grab by the President and the EPA is pissing off even Democrats in congress who feels their power is being subverted. It will be interesting to see how this holds up. The burden of proof is on the EPA to prove in court that their power grab is in the best interest of the people, and I'd be surprised if they could do that in a court of law today.

TCU v. Boise certainly isn't a MORE legitimate National Title game as the Bama v Texas game is, but it is AS legitimate. ...which is the whole darn point. We could solve this problem with a playoff. ...but I knew Cincy would sling shot TCU, which is exactly why I was pulling for Texas and will be pulling for them in the title game. Here is your conspiracy Rick. This match up is the real conspiracy here. The powers that be in the BCS made darn sure that none of the BCS schools had to be embarrassed by TCU or Boise here. The silver lining is the state of Texas may win two of the big games in one year, which is a statement in and of itself. TCU and Texas will be my teams this post season. Go Frogs!!! HOOK 'EM HORNS!

I just don't see it this way. ...pass interference is so inconsistantly called throughout football (at all levels) that it is hard to pinpoint calls we may not agree with as conspiracies. ...the horsecollar tackle was clear, I'm not sure how that's a BS call. All that being said, I don't believe that a Texas loss would have accomplished the goal of having a non BCS in the title. Most computer simulations showing a Texas loss shot Cincy, a BCS school up past TCU due to strength of schedule... ...so the fix was in. Even with a Texas Loss, Cincy was going to get the bid before TCU or Boise. The best thing TCU can do for itself is to rape Iowa, I mean beat 'em like a red headed step-child. ...then they get a good rank next year and run the table.

It's 4:30, and I know where my favorite website is...

I didn't know soccer was still being played. ...had to give you crap, Kram! Enjoy the games!

I've never seen more personal shots on this board than I have in the days since Dodge's return has been announced. Its getting old quick. ...get over yourself. Kram is one of the most ardent supporters of this program, and he doesn't do it to be self-serving. Be a fan the way you want to be and quit dumping on the fans who want to do it their way.

Jeeez. That was clearly called for...

Well... All I can say is that I hope RV is right.

No, I agree totally. I was referring to retaining Dodge only. I don't think all of his assistants should be retained. That's a mistake, and not a decision I'm defending. I'm talking about head coach only.

Oh, Jesus... ...still don't believe in the stadium huh? ...I s'pose you think the moon landing was a hoax too, right?

Well good for them.

Its really the best choice he had... ...in 2011 we open a new stadium. One of two things happen going into that first game - 1. We had a winning season in 2010 under Dodge, he has turned it around and the anticipation for a huge year in our new stadium is high... or... 2. We had a dismal season in 2010 under Dodge, he has been fired and replaced with a coach with a resume everyone is excited about and the anticipation is huge to see the turnaround. Either way he has the fan base revved up and all in for the first campaign in the new stadium.

Yup... you've got it all figured out. Might as well close the forums and the discussions, everyone. emmitt has the future actions of the folks who make up our football program figured out. Let's roll up the sidewalk and cut the T1 lines.

dumbest thread ever. Without information on how we recruit this year, what coaching and preparation changes are made, and some information on how those schools look going into next season, it is impossible to make a prediction. ...but I think the Cowboys win the Superbowl in 2032.