Had to get my movie opinion out before the TB erupts with political bullshit from both sides.

Dreyfuss is a good actor but he doesn't come off as having an evil bone in his body (I'm sure someone will remind me of a movie where he played a bastard). And he doesn't have the voice. He's going to have to shove something very large in his rectum to pull it off.

Warwick Davis to play the first lady

3)Blonde midget whores

4)Bruce Campbell playing 14 different roles

Now there are two ways to deal with this problem. You can either kill this animal Saddam or you can cut off his food supply. We tried the latter for 15 years. Now I want you to take a long hard look at this statue. Those proportions are correct."

"I could pump some 12 gauge buckshot into him"

"No, I can't do that. But maybe if I can get him into a quail hunt I can shoot him in the face...."

I have no opinion on this Dick business. Unless it's Rob Lowe's dick, of course...

The penguins can only be in it IF they are fully armored and have rockets on their backs like Batman Returns. And they must be on steroids and have giant fangs. And if by dancing you mean attacking, then yes, we can have dancing penguins.

"Environmentalist Mafia"....classic. Since gas prices have been rising in Bush's term, does that mean he wants us to have high gas prices too? Does that make him part of the "Environmentalist Mafia" as well?

and this, coupled with the fact that i do ride my bike to work, will label me a hippie.

although pot makes me ralf.

Anyway, Tripp, the engineer from Enterprise should have played a younger Bush. He looks just like him

So we'd all just better get used to the fact that, until they decide it's time to start using alternate fuels and energy, we're going to have to bend over and yell "please sir, can I have some more" until our asses bleed from the collective raping we're going to take at the pumps.

And that won't be for a very long time, because face it, oil's infrastructure is so established and easy, that it's just a license to print money.

Bitches.

doesn't sound like you are doing any better a job at debating.

whatever. people's minds are set. a talkback slapfight sure as hell won't bring someone around.

Then everything went to hell.

Now they're telling us that Obama won't be able to change anything.

Fast forward two years and, keeping in line with the pattern, I bet the country's completely reversed course.

How does the Republican party continue to survive? Now that the corporations and big business are realizing they can do all the corrupt shit they'd like from within the liberal camp, perhaps it's the beginning of the end for the evangelicals.

It's not that liberals are any better imo. It's just that they ARE America. America is the leader of the LIBERAL Western world, of the entire world. It's idealogy is liberal. The constitution is liberal. All our founding father were liberal. The idea of 'relative' 'conservatism' within that is a joke. It was just a phantom movement propped up to hide the actions of those rich interests.

The only true conservatives are the evangelical freaks.

Please tell me in my post where I said that "no new refineries are allowed".

I said "The U.S. has also not brought on-line any new oil refineries in decades I think." I did not assign blame to anyone in particular with that sentence as to why there are no new refineries. Nor was I defending the oil companies.

Please read more carefully before calling someone a moron. I actually agree with what you said, but you can fuck off all the same.

SO CHENEY IS EVIL BECAUSE HE DOESN"T HAVE A SENSE OF THE WORTH OF A HUMAN LIFE. IMHO

Dreyfus, while an excellant actor, is SO politically wrong for the roll that I expect his Cheney to only embody what we see on TV.. Dreyfus has played the character a hundred times in other movies.. He plays a great asshole..

The problem is that with a real person like Cheney, that kind of portrayal will come off as dishonest and unbelievable. While the haters may relish in that kind of portrayal, true politically-minded people will knock it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A ir_car

Im not saying I agree with Bush's politics or not - Im just saying regardless of your own view, try to base it in something that resembles fact, and if you're going to dig up the corpse of World War II, make sure you know what actually happened. Protip: US forces battled militant uprisings for 3 years after Japan signed its surrender papers, and US military forces deployed during World War II continue to be based in and around Germany TO THIS DAY.

And what's this about Cheney? He shot someone? I HADN'T HEARD. Asswipes...

explosion-proof braided fuel storage (plus air is non-combustible duhhh)

and they are just as good for trucks as for consumers. Get some info from someone besides Rush or Billy.

Oil companies are in the game to make a profit. Don't like it? Use less gas. I just bought a house a mile from where I work and I traded in my gas guzzling SUV three years ago and now drive a smaller, much more fuel efficient vehicle. Gas could double in price and it would have zero effect on me. You are responsible for the fact that you drive a gas guzzling SUV and that you live an hour away from where you work. Oil companies didn't make those decisions. You did because oil was cheap.

Oil prices will never be what they were. Rising demand in India and China will only increase as their economies grow and we are running out of places to drill for cheap oil. Due to high taxes, Europeans and Canadians have been living with gas this expensive for 10 plus years. Stop your bitching and whining and put the blame where it belongs. On you for being a fucking idiot and making yourself so dependent on cheap gas.

Ditch your hummer and buy a small fuel efficient vehicle and sell you McMansion an hour from where you work and move no further than 15 or 20 minutes away from your place of employment. You will save a shit load of cash, add an extra hour or two of free time to your schedule, help the environment and stick it to the oil companies all at the same time. But why do something that inconveniences you and actually solves the problem when you can do nothing and blame it on others and/or cry to the government to get involved? Americans went from a self sufficient, can do population to a can't do anything but complain and ask the government for help population in 3 generations. Life is so much easier for people today compared to 100 years ago and all you people bitch like it's the end of the world when something fucking stupid like gas prices increases. Thank fucking God that you even have a car in the first place. Billions of people went their entire lives without them. You'll live. Pussies.

no shit.

The era of cheap oil is nearly coming to an end, and the only way we'll be able to offset the rising costs will be to begin switching to alternative fuels or power sources.

but we weren't, we were shortsighted and reactionary, so we need to deal with it now.

However, I work in a town that is filled with millionaires, and I can tell you that they are not affected by this increase in gas (from what I can see based upon what they are driving). The gas stations in this town have always been $0.30 - 0.40 more a gallon than the surrounding towns, so they could care less how big their car is or how high gas goes. There's a freak'n hummer dealership right across the street from where I work, though it seems those sales have dropped significantly recently.

No permanent change comes without suffering and sacrifice and that's what it's going to take to knock some sense into Americans and Chinese.

With regard to the refineries, I read somewhere recently that efficiency upgrades are being performed on our existing refineries to the point where their output is being improved enough that is it the equivalent on building a new refinery every year. So near as I can tell our output isn't the problem, its' that our consumption is WAY TOO GODDAMN MUCH, us and the Chinese and the Indians.

And stop complaining about not being allowed to drill in Alaska. Just trade in the Hummer. Cut down the dependence.

b)i know the weak dollar has to have a lot to do with it, but that doesn't change the fact that we are using more oil than we should, and fighting wars over it that we have no business fighting, and diverting tons of funds away from where it should be: reducing consumption.

its pointless to argue over who is the bad guy in this whole oil mess. fact is we've got a fucking mess to deal with. we should be dealing with it, not holding on to an archaic lifestyle that will soon go the way of the dinosaurs (oil pun).

this is a place to bitch. and then bitch at other people who bitch about what we bitch about. and chances are, those bitches don't know half as much about what they say they know about as we know about the shit we say we know about, which usually isn't half as much as we say we do.

got it?

He should.

When the voting electorate shows just how HATEFUL and VINDICTIVE the Hollywood supporters of the left wing are -- that they would even try to REWRITE HISTORY -- they are certain to reject the object of their affection, for which they have been attached and humping the leg of Barack Hussein Obama like a male dog in heat!

$135 a barrel and it's still only May. Wonder what it'll be by November ? (along of course with the knock on price hikes in almost every industry that uses Road Haulage like the Food industry.)

So, we've got to come to terms with the fact that, as oil gets more expensive because there's only so much to share with mushrooming global demand, we either drive more efficient cars and trucks, find other ways to power them, or start walking.

In the end, I have faith we'll make the right choices and come out on top, but it's going to be a painful transition, and a helluva long time before it's resolved to any degree.

http://tinyurl.com/5eqjj5

This Bush stuff will be interesting as hell.... but please don't be forgetting the 'nam flick Olly!

Oh, and I love you, Mr Stone.

Now, as bad as our economy is now, imagine how even worse it would be if we had to endure multiple terrorist attacks on the level of 9/11...imagine it with even multiple attacks not quite the scale of 9/11... now imagine it with shapeshifting invisible Terrorists and multiple Nuclear Bombs and imaginary W.M.D...NOW imagine a terrrorist under every bed ready to kill everyone you eknow AND their pets while bringing Wall Street to thier knees with Economy destroying Hypnorays. Who looks stupid now ?

In the face if such an imaginary threat we need a President who has an imaginary capacity to lead and definitely not a Lame Duck or an older rerun of the incredibly successfull Bush Doctrine, which remember, might plunge us all suddenly into Terrorist Doom if we don't keep doing more of the same.

Expect this unparralleled "Mission Accomplished" to end if Democrats Embolden the Enemy by electing a weak spineless President who foolish enough not to keep sending good money and troops endlessly after bad for 100 years into this Quagmire in Vitna... sorry Iraq.

Many people who don't approve of Bush are likely to avoid it, partly because Stone's political movies are so superficial and flaky and partly because Stone is a wildly inconsistent film-maker anyway.

The chances of this being an insightful character study or a serious cinematic exercise seem to be close to zero.

Not to pre-judge or anything ...

The all time record Nixon beating 71% Bush disapproval on the other hand, is of course peanuts. A teeny tiny number. Easily forgotten by the American people just like the rest of the last 8 years.

That must be why the Dems are printing millions of leaflets with McCain giving Bush a cuddle because they know this Presidency and this Economy and this War are so very, VERY popular.

Will the Movie have the guts to portray Bush Golfing though ? As we now know that sort of thing Emboldens the Terrorists and is in fact the only thing capable of upsetting War Veterans and the families of troops who have died.

Which is why Dubya Heroically gave up his Golf for his country. A mighty selfless sacrifice in a time of war from a True Patriot and inspirational Hero. (with 71% disapproval ratings for some reason)

Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution don't exactly fit the fascist profile. Thousands of congressmen, judges and journalists who have supported freedom of speech for hundreds of years can't be equated to Nazis.

That's just as crazy. Freedom of speech wasn't invented by the current administration.

Who are these "elites"? Did "they" attack people who criticized Clinton for his dishonesty about his puerile antics with Lewinski?

The whole point about freedom of speech is that you're allowed to call your unfavourite President bad names. You're allowed, even encouraged, to vent - even if you make a goose of yourself. It's a GOOD thing. You can't do that in quite a few countries.

2for2true would be proud.

Party's over. Time to clean up.

"Well, why don't you stick your head in there!"

Plus another favorite line "What are you? Some kind of half-assed astronaut??!?!"

He's just rambling now. Amusement personified.

"Liar" = the last defense of the truly beaten and absurd. You need a new schtick. One that you can back up.

No one to blame but "freedom hating Liberals", eh? How pathetic can you possibly get, Brane?! It's like a bottomless pit with you.

Any of you repetitive political asshats going to weigh in on the movie? The old is dead and the new is old; no one has the balls to actually beat the shit out of each other Battle Royale style so what next? Watching you guys go back and forth is like watching retards play tennis with no ball. Occasionally it's fucking hilarious (hence why I read em)...but later on you just feel bad for laughing at a bunch of screaming retards.

Like anything Branedead does, he fails at this. The only way this is effective is if your altered passage rings true. And nothing Brane has come up with even remotely resembles the truth. Just clearly the desperate rambling of a wingnut who, despite thousands of words blathered on, remains ultimately pointless and quite an insult to the notion of rationality.

Because it's a moronic childish sweepish generalisation. No mattter how you try and slice it or pretend irony or fascetiousness.

So far so simple and easy to follow, yes ?

Brane on the other hand Worships Convicted WarCriminal Scum whom he prefers to refer to by the endearing nickname "Slobo" (how sweet) and dismisses the Genocide he perpetrated as breaking a few eggs or somehow justifiable. That's when he isn't making excuses for the K.K.K. (it's so easy to cash their cheques you see, so why wouldn't you ?).

Those are REASONS for using a few if not all of those Labels being flung about so glibly. Not just because someone is a Democrat or a Republican but because of what they say or do.

BTW I presume whatzit was being ironic when he said "Thanks, Yabba, for some constructive insight sans name-calling." and headed his post "Clintons, closet racists"

I DO however look forward to hearing why Crrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaazzy Ted Hagee the Pastor isn't a Racist/Bigot/sexist/Homophobe, particularly in light of his now infamous suggestion that Hitler was doing Gods Work.

Just how far and how fast can McCain run despite his advancing years ? We'll soon find out as he sprints away from his previous Warm acceptance of Hagees endorsement.

Now only Hillary is lacking a crazy Preacher type. She must act soon and close this Pastor Gap or McCain might name his Veep and become unbeatable in the eccentric religious nutballs sweepstakes easily.

Thank you whatzit. Hillary is STILL in the race ! It may be the religious eccentric race but it's a race all the same ! I need to hear more from this Rev Whitewater and Hillary needs to disown him if she's to be taken seriously in this exciting Religious crazy-off.

The extremist rejects the overwhelming consensus of impartial expert evidence in favour of the opinions of a tiny discredited minority.

Facts are ignored because they contradict ideology. Just like the Tobacco Industry, funding specious arguments denying the causal link between smoking and disease, the Energy Industry funds a public relations machine which attempts to conceal the true position.

The true position - set out in the 2007 IPCC report and supported by 30 Academies of Science (representing literally tens of thousands of scientists of all political beliefs) - is this: the world climate is changing rapidly as a result of carbon dioxide generated by human activities. The current average rate of heating departs dramatically from patterns which have been established from ice cores and mineralogical evidence spanning 650 million years.

And it doesn't end there ! apparently McCain is having an old Reagan council interview and choose between these 3 for his VEEP choice at his ranch this weekend.

Mitt Romney and Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. ROMNEY! he could win the Religious trifecta for McCain with him on the ticket. The other 2 course need no introduction being household names.

Parsely as well as having fruitbat proclivities is sadly also of the same kind of stripe as Branestructure, hence McCains rapid repudiation of this Zealot who described all of Islam as a "conspiracy of spiritual evil" and called for its destruction.

You could help this sad religious reject out Brane since you too have the same rabid views but were sadly somewhat "vague" about exactly HOW you would "eradicate" and "wipe out" Islam Brane ? Would it involve Pogroms ? Ethnic Cleansing ? Camps of some sort ? an Inquisition ? Help us out here as you seem to be calling for the wholesale destruction of anyone holding this faith ? How would you destroy a religion without wiping out it's adherants animalBrane ? Hypnorays ? Or is your position fairly obvious since you have already said "All those shitbag Arabs can blow each other up for all I care," and "Islam is a scourge that must be purged."

Ahhhh.... so it's a PURGING is it. Which Genocidal Scumbag Madman Dictator would you model your PURGING on then Brane ?

See most people would say that earns you a Klan hood and a Race Hate Badge but no doubt you'll try and weasel out of it semanticaly because you seem to think you aren't quite directly calling for hundreds of Millions to be eradicated... just very obviously implying it as much as you dare.

I'd ask, but I've never gotten a truthful reply from him ever, so you might have better luck.

Your real position is that climate change is a political issue. It's not, it's a question of fact.

The political issue is that the Energy Industry has donated $156M to the Republican party to "encourage" the administration not to introduce legislation which would inevitably reduce profits. This has encouraged toadies in the right wing media, and PR flack to produce specious responses to the warnings of scientists. You're vomiting up the glib ripostes of these jerks. Have you noticed you've been conned by experts?

You pretend the fact of anthropogenic climate change is based on an "appeal to authority". Nice try, but wrong. It's based on a firmly stated consensus in the 2007 IPCC report. In science, consensus ultimately rules. Consensus now exists. Every "argument" you've parrotted has been demolished.

As you're perfectly well aware, the IPCC report is based primarily on the work of climate scientists, mainly meteorologists, including the US National Climatic Data Service (any reason why they should be lying, by the way?). The 30 concurring Academies of Science speak for tens of thousands of scientists, of all disciplines. That's overwhelming force in a scientific argument.

You'd be lucky to find 20 climate scientist of any standing who assert that current global warming is not primarily due to human activity. You've failed to name any.

You imply that significant numbers of scientists "took their name [sic] off the IPCC Report once they saw what was in it". You're bluffing on that one, you know it and I'm calling you on it. You can't establish that a significant number of climate scientists of any standing "took their names off the report". Just try and you'll be cut to shreds.

You imply that "carbon dioxide levels rise after the temperatures rise". That's a risible solecism you've presumably cut'n'pasted that from a blog, not a scientific source. Carbon dioxide levels have been steadily rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Temperatures have fluctuated, but the average yearly temperature rise on land and in the oceans has been inexorable - now at about .32 deg per dec for the last three decades.

Yes, sport, I do realize that the hottest recorded temperatures on Earth were recorded before the Industrial Revolution. During the Hadean and Archaean eons, to be precise. Between 4 and 2.5 billion years ago. And hot periods have occurred since. But always in accordance with patterns now reasonably well understood, arising from astronomical phenomena - orbit change, tilt change and axis progression - or from impacts and vulcanism. None of those facts is remotely relevant to the current issue.

Your implication that over 95% of global warming is caused by "water vapour from the oceans" is another ridiculous thermodynamic solecism. Your ignorance of basic science is showing. Educate yourself with this - it's politically neutral and in non-technical language http://tinyurl.com/4wlq4y.

Your implication that "little puny humans" contribute "2% to the atmosphere" is a meaningless rhetorical bluff. 2% of what? We're not talking about farting and breathing, were talking about the combined CO2 output of all world industries, forest clearing, transport and other carbon producing activities. There's nothing puny about it. It's steadily causing the temperature to rise on land and sea.

What do I propose? I propose that the US administration stops pretending that this is a non-issue and starts to adopt a CO2 reduction regime and that it enters the Carbon Trading economy. Or do you say that all the other advanced nations adopting this policy are part of a vast "Left Wing Conspiracy"? Yes, BraneRobot, I'm well acquainted with the energy costs of manufacturing hybrid cars and the even worse energy equation for Hydrogen fuel cars. The scientific literature is readily available. Unlike you, I've read a lot of it. Hybrid cars are still far more energy efficient and non-polluting that conventional vehicles. But, what's that got to do with whether or not there is anthropogenic climate change - the proposition you summarily reject? Why have the last two hurricane seasons in the US been tame? Easy, because the year to year consequence of the heat build-up in the Gulf of Mexico varies: however, the overall trend is inexorable. As the years go by, the hurricanes will become, ON AVERAGE, stronger and more destructive. This issue is all about long-term trends, not about whether it was hot last week.

Do I know what El Nino is? Yes I do, BraneRobot. I also know what La Nina is - an equally important aspect of the trans-Pacific weather oscillation. Do you? I notice you added your conventional ad hominem attacks to your post: Mr Expert on weak rhetorical devices.

I'll just point out a few curiously revealing features of your posts:

1. You choose to troll your extreme political views on this frivolous (and anonymous) film board. You rarely appear to post anything about movies. This strongly suggests you haven't got the guts to post on one of the many serious political discussion boards on the Web. Judging by your posts, you lack the intellectual firepower or knowledge to post on a board with powerful debaters. Film geeks don't fight as hard about off-topic trolling as they do about movies. You've presumably been banned for intemperate hate-mail on other sites. Even in this relaxed environment, you've had to change your pseudonym several times. DocPazuzzo has recently listed some of your most fascist postings. You didn't deny any of them. 2. You're very big on Tough Talk. Much more so than most posters. This strongly suggests that you're an isolated, rage-filled, middle-aged eunuch, impotently posting electronic hate-mail to anonymous "enemies" because (despite your intellectual showiness) you have an undemanding and rather menial job. That is to say, you constantly advertise your self-doubt by grandiose displays of mock confidence. 3. You seem to despise most of your fellow Americans. Democrats are (in your cliched neo-con cant) indecisive weaklings. All 100 million or so of them. George Bush Snr and George Bush Jr are crypto-liberals - and presumably you despise all of their supporters, another vast slab of the population. If you hate America so much, emigrate. May I commend Zimbabwe, Belarus, North Korea and Iran. They run their governments without any namby-pamby nonsense about civil rights, judicial independence and the freedom of belief that you find so uncongenial. Alternatively, get off your ass and enlist. Fight real enemies - like Al Quaeda and the Taliban- rather than an imaginary group of malevolent and destructive "liberals". If you can pass the psych test.

To be perfectly frank, I piss on your puny insults, you pathetic weakling. As for your puny irony, I piss on it.

But I will edit my final taunt: "I also piss on your puerile attempts at irony, you narcissistic twerp."

Got it?

http://tinyurl.com/3tzka8

Leftist talking points? You wish, Jellyfish!

Scientific repudiation of your inane political cant, in fact.

You're calling someone a Blowhard? Kettle, meet pot!

You're the one who talking about psychoanalysis, not me. I'm pointing out glaringly obvious personal problems you're disclosing to us with every bizarre post. Why exactly are you posting hate-mail on a film TB while being humiliated by mere film buffs? Is that working for you?

Please identify any cut'n'paste material in my demolition of your argument. You can't because there's none, you lying wimp.

I'm a Leftist? Crap. I'm politically neutral and simply interested in facts.

Golden Calf? What the hell are you raving about? So now you concede Global warming is occurring but think it should be ignored because "Socialists" will use it to enslave populations? Brilliant!

Hypocrite? Oooh, ouch, your hate-filled electrons are like, so traumatic. Grow up, you fool.

No BraneRobot, I don't drive a car. I sold my cars four years ago. I walk, take public transport, ride a bike. No, I don't use air conditioning either. Sorry to spoil your fun.

You don't seriously believe that the US Energy Industry is not at risk of reduced profits from legislation imposing carbon emission statements, so why make a fool of yourself by advancing such a naive argument.

Your hatred of Al Gore (and anybody else who disagrees with you) is utterly irrelevant to the factual question: is global climate change anthropogenic. A vast number of scientists has now answered that question: Yes.

Your fall back argument is this: the scientists are lying so they can get funding. Logic is your weak suit. In fact, in the US, scientists are under funding pressure to deny global warming. No need to take my word for it: Google it.

"Expert critics of global warming hysteria [are] being systematically silenced." Oh really? Where, who, when? That would be from the vast left wing conspiracy of "liberals" suppressing the facts I guess. You're bluffing again, and I'm calling you on it.

Scientific consensus NEVER said "eugenics was god". IN fact, the Nazis asserted that eugenics was justified. Not the scientific community. That's another desperate bluff by you, and you can't back it up.

Pre-Copernican philosophers and the Catholic church asserted (not surprisingly) that the earth was flat and that the sun rotated about it. Scientists asserted - at risk to their health from the religious consensus - that the evidence proved otherwise. You lose that point, you cheat!

Science is not "a question" you half-wit, it's a careful process of finding out the facts. The process has been adopted by the Courts of law to determine disputed questions of fact. Assertion must be proved and exposed to contradiction. Ultimately, the consensus of the informed (the scientific community or the jury at trial) determines the most probable truth. Educate yourself about elementary fact finding before you pontificate.

"Typical Liberal": again you fall back on mindless cant. I'm no Liberal, you unimaginative little tosser. Where I come from, the Liberals were thrown out of office for slavishly, supinely following US foreign Policy. I'm just interested in facts, regardless of what political parties find convenient.

Got the picture, ignoramus?

Irritable, did you go to NYU? You sound like you did. Unlike Brane, who only pretends that he did.

Kudos, gentlemen!

http://tinyurl.com/4qsa2z

On the other hand, it was an important opening salvo in an important debate which occurred late in the US and has moved on in the intervening period.

The simplifications of some of the complicated arguments were what you see in many popular science programs. It's meant to be accessible to the scientifically illiterate.

Like most lobby groups, the environmental lobby covers a spectrum from naive, uninformed idealists to hard-bitten rationalists. The function of the relevant parts of the US civil service is to carefully separate the naive bullshit from the hard facts.

Governments in Western Europe are now grappling with the issue you describe: how to adjust economic policy to accomodate the exigencies created by the gradual rising of sea levels and agricultural productivity changes which are forecast as the probable long-term results of temperature rises.

No-body pretends that this is straightforward or easy. However, pretending that it's not happening is no longer a rational policy.

The only reason I'm here is to relax in an idiot's playground of Cheese-film gossip while recuperating from the flu. However, I somehow go little annoyed at the disingenuous interventions of that sleazy pissant.

I just wanted to correct some grotesquely inaccurate information foisted on film buffs by a malevolent nut.

Irritable: Good to meet ya. What a breath of fresh air you've let in. Thanks.

A sick, evil fuck.

"The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous."

It also sums up Branes sad situation, but I give no one credit for pretending entire branches of Science have somehow been subverted by a shadowy worldwide conspiracy. THat's Tin-Foil hat territory. Where are these climate scientist Millioinaires BTW ? Because I don't have to look very hard to find the Incredible Oil profits and nor does anyone filling up with Gas. Besides anyone says "Islam should be purged" is clearly a spittle flying loon. End of story.

There are reasonable people out there who needn't fall into one of Branes little Liberal or Leftist boxes who would no doubt be horrified at Branes antics and they would distance themselves as far as possible from him even if some of their viewpoints unhappily co-incided with his rants.

He is causing vast amusement though and that Waco talkback is yet more proof. Along with his Comprehensive Demolition here by irritable who knows about the Science and not just far right talking points.

Your pathetic new evasion: "Guy" the argument - misrepresent what was said and knock down the sham version of my argument. Forget that kindergarten stuff you weasel.

Anthropogenic warming is proved: period. Deal with it. Don't bullshit me about "religious-like [sic] convictions" you fraudulent little tit.

You know perfectly well I didn't accuse you of denying evolution. I carefully put you in the same bag as the ID wankers - a delusional extremist.

Run away, scared little boy, run away. Try and find the guts to post on a real political web-site instead of stinking up this TB. Let the grown-ups get back to their movie talk.

The Scientific American has been covering this in detail for a few years now. Check out sciam.com for further leads.

The truth is out there. Nobody pretends precision is possible. Ultimately, you have to make an informed value judgment.

And I know Dr. Chris Landsea withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report over his conflict around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". But he's still ONE scientist with justifiable concerns about ONE other Scientists personal extrapolation of Global Warmings effects in a report that has been accepted by a prestigious Peer reviewed journal as at the very least usefull in that it's preponderance of evidence has shifted the debate away from the hysterical voices in the wilderness who will deny the science no matter what the Scientific community and evidence says.

BTW I already apologised for perhaps misinterpreting your earlier post and in fact stated that you might be sending up the blanket steatements made by some, to which you replied sorry for trying to be humerous. Well looking at your Fuck you reply and befriending of Brane why on earth would anyone think you lacked a sense of humour ? It's pretty clear to me.

Though she recently seemed to raise the spectre of assassination by crassly telling listeners that JFK hadn't been assassinated in the Democratic nomination cycle by this time when he was running. OOOPS!!! (And people think Bill has been a bit Gaff prone this time around)

But I WAS genuine in my inquiry in case she DID have some eecentric religious nutball in hiding somewhere since they are now popping up all over the place she might have been feeling left out. (yet again)

After all it would be a massive surprise if a film that featured Cheney heavily would slip over that amazing chapter of his "illustrious" Bush VEEPness.

Who wouln't want to hear the historic phone call between Dick and Dubya ?

"What have you done now Dick ?", "Well George I was huntin Quail ya see...." Instant comedy!

Actually I don't know why chuck or irratable are even giving this deliberate obtuseness and tilting at windmills credence.

This isn't about the Science it's about a Libertarian trying (but failing) to turn the clock back on what is now overwhelming Scientific Consensus.

Tell you what, which of these Scientific Bodies are in error for issuing this joint statement.

THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 21001. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.

and WHY should they have to convince a Libertarian whose only concern is an unrestricted market with zero taxes ?

Are they ALL aL Gore's bitches Stevie ? Because it looks to me like those are some pretty authorative Scientific Bodies who might actually have more than a passing aquaintance with peer reviewed papers than you do. And hard though it may be for you to accept, they probably know quite a bit more about than you and I do about how science operates.

And since you are so well versed on the detailed scientific papers surrounding this incredibly complex subject when you say "I have yet to see a global climate model that holds up convincingly." Why not show us the ones that DON'T convince you ? Or quote some peer reviewed papers that back your fringe argument up ? Because like chuck said there's no shortage of Papers agreeing with the IPCC Position and not just on Wikipedia.

This is all amusingly irrelevant anyway. The world's moved on. (even Dubya the Oil-man has moved on) and Politicians ,Scientists, Corporations, yes EVEN Economists are now working to MITIGATE the effects of Global Warming since this supertanker cannot be turned immediatly. They are working on strategies that involve Agriculture, Flood defenses, emergency planning, housing and industrial site flood plain forecasts, new insurance models both Corporate scale and Domestic, National Security planning, new water capture & desalination technologies, and a raft of Tidal & Wind technolgies are currently being upscaled to more than just a small alternative sector to name just some of the immense efforts now being undertaken because, THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON. Nobody is listening to the science deniers anymore.

BTW when you say "leave the subject alone" you DO know that it makes you sound like a pompous pretentious Douchebag don't you son ? Being well versed in aspects of Economic Theory sadly doesn't bestow automatic Godhood of the forums upon you.

I have no problem listening to other viewpoints and admit when they are clearly better informed than I or others are.

irritable has schooled you and Brane in the subject Stevie, that's the plain fact of the matter.

If it's a Good Movie then lots of people will go and see it and it might have said something new.

If it's just meh and does nothing more than a fairly predictable Biopic and potted History then it will quickly fade into the background.

But it's REALLY not going to corrupt Millions of people or make Republicans suddenly turn Democrat or skew the Election.

People will cast their Vote the way they always have. On the basis of the things that matter the most to them personally at the time of the vote.

Movies are not the pinnacle of Propaganda certainly not these days when everyone is so jaded.

Besides, FOX TV pumps it's "message" out 24 hours a day EVERY day. Religious Leaders have a massive public platform and The Government and Executive has vast powers of persuasion and pressure to utilise when it wishes to.

Movies, despite the Hysteria about Hollywood, are rarely life changing. True, the Great Movies stay with you but that is because great movies are never simple propaganda pieces. Most Movies are simply enjoyable diversions or annoyances for the hour or two you watch em. Giving them & their Directors mythical Power and status is amusing but the sadly still one-sided Crud/Gold percentage tells you that most of the time Hollywood and it's Movies are consumed with little or no lasting effect. Like a bland box of Popcorn.

You could also correct them on their stats/methodolgy like chuck invited you to. And I'll levave the Irony of someone who claims to specialise in Economics asking for detailed predictions hanging... Ouch! How IS the Economy doing ? Yeah it's not like trying to Model an entire PLANET is it ? Jeeeeesus!

Who am I going to believe ? One of the most prestigious Scientific Journals or some drunk kid who thinks Economics (that oh so SOFT Science) and Libertarianism (too nutty even for the NeoCons) are the answer to everything ?

Dear me but that IS a tough one.

Take your peurile insults and shove them up your reality & science denying Libertarian pompous little ass. And shove them up your new fuckbuddy Branes too while you're at it. Watch out though, get too close and he'll be asking you to calculate the most cost effective way to "Purge all Muslims".

But PLEASE keep it up. With people like you and Brane on their side it's no wonder the Libertarians are always nothing but a punchline in any election. That is when anyone actually remembers they exist.

Most people had assumed Global Warming Deniers had crawled back into their bunkers after being slapped down hard by real Science and real Scientists. Good to see some who aren't afraid of the ridicule they always engender.

G100 and Irritable FTW

True enough though. Stevie doesn't seem to have any ethnic cleansing tendancies but denying the sober fact about Anthropogenic Global Warming as presented by Nature, the hundreds of Scientific Bodies who endorsed the study and the thousands of Scientists who took part in the IPCC Report does not speak highly of someone with a real firm grip on reality.

Stevie is an odd duck. I think he's less of a Libertarian in the sense of advocating individual rights than he does corporate rights. He will defend corporations not for what they can do for the people and country (providing jobs, valuable goods and services, contributing taxes) but for their right to profit, even at the expense of people's health and the environment, of which Halliburton incidentally is a shining example.

Foolishly I had thought that using a Worldwide list might have been more appropriate to conveying the worldwide acceptance of the Report.

US National Research Council. American Meteorological Society. Federal Climate Change Science Program. American Geophysical Union. American Institute of Physics. National Academy of Sciences.

One could I suppose divide them into the Individualists who follow the Idaho style Live Free or Die/get the state out of my goddamn house model of almost semi-cultish Guns and Bunkers survivalism, and the more Corporate Flat Taxing Deregulaters who would happily let the Markets and Corporations Rule everything with no state interference and no welfare or safety nets.

I tend to group them together sure because they are equally Politically irrelevant TBH since the best both groups can hope for is scraps from the Republican table.