Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[bluetick]

From the IPCC: GHG emissions, by percentage, by source. Animal emissions make up a third of agricultural's 14%.

You're claim that cow flatulence is the #1 source of greenhouse gas is absurd.

[Professor Tiger]

Thanks for that IPCC graph. The IPCC also admits that there hasn't been any global warming in the past 20 years.

The Cow Flatulence Report ("Livestock's Long Shadow"), that says cow flatulence is the leading cause of greenhouse gases, is also produced an agency under the all-knowing UN.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

[bluetick]

Btw yer link is to a 2006 editorial in a UK tabloid. Thanks - the naked Venezuelan chicks are smokin' hot.

[10ac]

[img2]http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a277/ ... G_0191.jpg[/img2]

[Toemeesleather]

....the all-knowing UN


Heh, even the Pope has spoken on AGW....I guess the science and the religion is settled. Whoda thunk it?


Can creation be far behind?

[Professor Tiger]

Btw yer link is to a 2006 editorial in a UK tabloid. Thanks - the naked Venezuelan chicks are smokin' hot.

If you didn't like the last link reporting on the UN cow flatulence study (other than the naked Venezuelan chicks), here's the executive summary of the report itself:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatech ... ummary.pdf

Here's a salient quote from page xxi:

The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport...

The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of
CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropo-genic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Live-stock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems...

I note they call cow farts "anthropogenic," i.e. blaming humans for what should more accurately be called "bovinogenic."

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

And as a side note, next time my wife gets mad at me for farting, I'll say it's "enteric fermentation."

[Professor Tiger]

Here's an editorial in the notoriously AGW-denying publication, the New York Times:

http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... ange/?_r=0

The author says the study actually underestimated the impact of cow farts on greenhouse gases under pressure from the meat industry. The actual impact of cow farts on greenhouse gases is far greater than the amount acknowledged.

[Professor Tiger]

....the all-knowing UN


Heh, even the Pope has spoken on AGW....I guess the science and the religion is settled. Whoda thunk it?


Can creation be far behind?

Last time the Catholic Church proclaimed itself an authority in science, their "experts" almost put Galileo in the Iron Maiden for believing that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. I thought the popes had learned their lesson. Maybe not.

[hedge]

"I thought the popes had learned their lesson."

LMAO, that's a good one...

[Professor Tiger]

I hear that Pope Francis will release an encyclical very soon about the environment. It reportedly professes faith in one of the other big religions - the Man-Made Global Warming Religion. The leakers say it could have been ghost-written by Al Gore.

[hedge]

I wish you were a ghost...

[bluetick]

"You told me once you believed in God."

The old man waved his hand. Maybe, he said. I got not reason to think he believes in me. Oh I'd like to see him a minute if I could.

"What would you say to him?"

Well, I think I'd just tell him. I'd say - wait a minute. Wait just one minute before you start in on me. Before you say anything, there's just one thing I'd like to know. He'll say: what's that? And then I'm going to ast him: What did you have me in that crapgame down there for anyway? I couldn't put any part of it together.

(smile). "What do you think he'll say?

The ragpicker spat and wiped his mouth. I don't believe he can answer it. I don't believe there is an answer.

[Toemeesleather]

You can't make this sh!t up!!



At least some of the protesters who looted, rioted, burned buildings and overturned police cars in Ferguson, Missouri, last year were promised payment of up to $5,000 per month to join the protests.

However, when the Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), the successor group to the now-bankrupt St. Louis branch of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), stiffed the protesters, they launched a sit-in protest at the headquarters of MORE and created a Twitter page to demand their money, the Washington Times reports.

[bluetick]

Rest assured .. the Washington times can make shit up.

[Toemeesleather]

Specially stuff the Post doesn't want people to know.

[hedge]

I wish I didn't know you...

[bluetick]

Specially stuff the Post doesn't want people to know.

The Post, or 5800 other legit news organizations.

Here's how your "story" plays out...I followed your 'excerpt' (you apparently don't know how to link) to the Washington Times. They're "story" about paid Ferguson protestors came directly from an article in David Horowitz's FrontPage blog entitled "Ferguson Rent-a-Mobs Exposed." And where did this rwnj blog get their info? Why, from blogger Kristinn Taylor from the St. Louis-based blogger Jim Hoft's website, Gateway Pundit, of course. She discovered a 4-to-7 person "sit-in?" at an office purportedly in St. Louis, supposedly having something to do with an argument over..money? Also, there's a twitter back-and-forth between two anonymous people about "crazy going to jail over 5k". And from that it's determined that "many" protesters were "paid five thousand dollars for protesting in Ferguson during the month of October."

To recap...rwnj blogger, to rwnj blogger, to the WT (which spread to Newsmax, therightscoup, etc). The Washington Times is a joke. Seriously, you can make this sh!t up.

[hedge]

It's gospel to 'Sleether....

[Toemeesleather]

from Snopes...

TRUE: A grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities.

another...

Now some of the "protesters" themselves are complaining that they never got paid.

In mid-May, Millennial Activists United organized a sit-in at the Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment offices. The reason: MORE owed the protesters money.

The group complained that MORE "created a joint account in which national donors from all over the world have donated over $150,000 to sustain the movement," but "the poor black people of this movement ... have seen little to none of that money."




I know this still means nothing to you, because it doesn't fit yer narrative. Maybe Brian Williams will look into it at his new job.

[Johnette's Daddy]

from Snopes...

TRUE: A grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities.

another...

Now some of the "protesters" themselves are complaining that they never got paid.

In mid-May, Millennial Activists United organized a sit-in at the Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment offices. The reason: MORE owed the protesters money.

The group complained that MORE "created a joint account in which national donors from all over the world have donated over $150,000 to sustain the movement," but "the poor black people of this movement ... have seen little to none of that money."




I know this still means nothing to you, because it doesn't fit yer narrative. Maybe Brian Williams will look into it at his new job.

Way to fudge the facts. Here's the FULL Snopes report:

MIXTURE
TRUE: A grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities.

FALSE: George Soros gave money to various groups for the express purpose of promoting Ferguson-related protests and riots.

According to various alarmist reports, Soros himself virtually single-handedly enabled and promoted protests connected with the Ferguson shooting because some of the groups involved (tangentially or otherwise) with activism-related events received some portion of their funding from the OSF network:

. . .

But taking that information and converting it into the assertion Soros himself funded Ferguson-related protests and riots is problematic for a number of reasons. Although George Soros is the founder and chairman of OSF, he quite obviously does not personally oversee and approve every single grant made by the OSF network to the multitude of
organizations and programs that the network helps to fund. As well, the $33 million figure includes just about every organization with any connection to Ferguson-related activism that received monies from the OSF network, even if their involvement was tangential (such as publishing, writing, or promoting hashtags about the issue). And that such groups may have received part of their funding from the OSF network doesn't mean those funds were given for the specific purpose of organizing Ferguson-related protests, or with the knowledge or intent they would be used thusly.

As Kenneth Zimmerman, director of OSF's U.S. Programs observed, some of the groups involved have been receiving OSF funding since long before the Ferguson shooting was a political issue, and the OSF itself did not promote or direct Ferguson-related protests:
Mr. Zimmerman said OSF has been giving to these types of groups since its inception in the early '90s, and that, although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros' grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.

"The incidents, whether in Staten Island, Cleveland or Ferguson, were spontaneous protests — we don't have the ability to control or dictate what others say or choose to say," Mr. Zimmerman said. "But these circumstances focused people's attention — and it became increasingly evident to the social justice groups involved that what a particular incident like Ferguson represents is a lack of accountability and a lack of democratic participation."
Last updated: 17 January 201

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business ... tkPMYAi.99