For those of you who don't know, there is a website that has been created by conservatives who don't like the facts and researched data that has been presented and routinely edited on Wikipedia. Therefore, "they", (probably the creationist Jesus crowd) have created a website called Conservapedia. Conservapedia, which to me just screams of open minds, was apparently created so "they" can continue to feed their home-schooled children lies and misinformation such as Jesus and all of his pet dinosaurs. I'm not saying that every Wikipedia entry is 100% valid but it has so many hits that it would be hard to perpetrate a great deal of fraud due to the ability of it's users, both conservative and liberal, to edit incorrect content. And for disputed entries and pages without sources, Wikipedia informs the reader of this and will tell you that in may be biased or incorrect.
Although Conservapedia does give the reader the ability to edit some entries, it doesn't allow for edits on the topic of key issues such as homosexuality. This, although conservative, is basically a supression of reality since I am unable to add Jonathan and David's homosexual affair under the "Biblical Statements" section nor does it allow me to add "Famous Homosexuals" such as Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Rosie O'Donnel, etc. Since no educated person would ever use Conservapedia as a source anyway, the references often cited for Conservapedia end up being the Holy Bible or a Rush Limpballs book.
So if you ever wondered what conservatives research and think about, here it is:
Most viewed pages and seaches on Conservapedia:
Homosexuality [1,993,523]
Main Page [1,964,386]
Homosexuality and Hepatitis [518,532]
Homosexuality and Parasites [473,828]
Gay Bowel Syndrome [443,619]
Homosexuality and Promiscuity [422,769]
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence [374,619]
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [332,331]
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer [295,059]
Homosexuality and Mental Health [294,490]
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics"
Apparently Larry Craig, Mark Foley and now perhaps Trent Lott, have had some free time on their hands.
Sure, a lot of these entries are gay bashers looking for talking points when they are arguing the point that God loves everyone, except for Homo's. But if you ask me, here are all the translations of what these searches actually mean:
Homosexuality: My preacher said it was bad but if I just call it a "friendship", like Jonathan and David did in 1st Samuel 18 then God won't get mad.
Main Page: Oops, I meant to go to:"How to convince your wife and congregation that you are not gay".
Homosexuality and Hepatitis: I heard some drug users and gay men have hepatitis. Since I only smoke meth and don't share needles, what are my chances of getting this disease when I molest altar boys?
Homosexuality and Parasites: I hear there are a lot of Gay cruise ship lines but I also hear about a lot of people getting parasites on cruise ships. For the ships sailing to Thailand, how many outbreaks have there been?
Gay Bowel Syndrome:I heard this is like irritable bowel syndrome except happier. Gay = Happy.
Homosexuality and Promiscuity: Are men really that much easier than women? How much sex can I expect when I call someone such as Jeff Gannon? Are all men as ready and willing as I am?
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence: I heard gay men work out a lot and have big throbbing muscles, will this leave me at a disadvantage if I get into a spat with one since I am fat, bald and over the hill?
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea: Since AIDS was sent from God to kill the unfaithful and non-believers, the only disease I will have to worry about is gonorrhea. Since I don't believe in condoms or birth control, how do I avoid gonorrhea?
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer: I've heard of prostate cancer but my pastor told me about a new one called Anal Cancer; is it the same?
Homosexuality and Mental Health: How can you maintain a TV Gospel hour, a seat in the Senate, a wife and family and still make it out to the rest stops and airport bathrooms and not have a mental breakdown when exposed in the media?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Slam Dunk on Why We Shouldn't Trust Exxon When It Comes to Global Warming
This is a very simplified way of approaching the issue of global warming. So simple in fact that perhaps even Republicans who think the Earth is only 10k years old should be able to understand.
For me, there are a few other slam dunks on this argument:
A. No real scientist would disagree that the Earth is getting warmer. Most would not even disagree with the cause and if you say I am wrong, then please point me to one article in a scientific journal claiming otherwise. And no, I'm not talking about articles written by someone who works at the creationist museum.
B. Venus is more than twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury. The average temperature on Mercury is 440 degrees F; the average temperature on Venus is over 800 degrees F. Some people say the Sun is responsible for global warming by either getting bigger or getting hotter but looking at Mercury with a lower average temperature than a planet more than twice the distance from the Sun shows that atmosphere plays just as important role in determining the temperature of a planet. Mercury has virtually no atmosphere or greenhouse gases. Venus, on the other hand, is 96% CO2 which coincidentally is a greenhouse gas also present on Earth and also created when fossil fuels are burned. Over the last 150 years, since the dawn of the industrial revolution when we started burning coal and oil/gas, CO2 in our atmosphere went from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. You can ask the Venusians what they think about higher CO2 concentrations creating higher atmospheric and surface temperatures but I am sure the CEO of Exxon has a better explanation.
C. Who stands to gain/loose from global warming? Police always look for a motive in a murder case; who has the most to gain by this person being dead? Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Energy Companies, Coal Mines, Agriculture etc. all sell, process, burn, mine, or need fossil fuels to power their products and all these companies could be either put out of business with a switch from fossil fuels or would incur great expenses to redesign or reinvent in order to stay in business without the use of these fossil fuels. Since they have such a vested interest in debunking global warming, listening to their "scientists" about global warming would be about as advisable as listening to Phillip Morris' doctors who said smoking was good for you. That doesn't necessarily make what they have to say wrong, but they certainly have a vested interest in saying its wrong. On the other side, you have scientists who live in Antarctica or work at a University; they don't sell products that run on hydrogen or some other non-fossil fuel. They don't stand to gain anything from global warming nor do they stand to loose anything by reporting that the Earth is warming due to mankind. So when it comes to smoking, are you going to trust your neutral doctor, who is qualified and only looking out for your best interest or are you going to trust the tobacco companies well paid "doctors"?
For me, there are a few other slam dunks on this argument:
A. No real scientist would disagree that the Earth is getting warmer. Most would not even disagree with the cause and if you say I am wrong, then please point me to one article in a scientific journal claiming otherwise. And no, I'm not talking about articles written by someone who works at the creationist museum.
B. Venus is more than twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury. The average temperature on Mercury is 440 degrees F; the average temperature on Venus is over 800 degrees F. Some people say the Sun is responsible for global warming by either getting bigger or getting hotter but looking at Mercury with a lower average temperature than a planet more than twice the distance from the Sun shows that atmosphere plays just as important role in determining the temperature of a planet. Mercury has virtually no atmosphere or greenhouse gases. Venus, on the other hand, is 96% CO2 which coincidentally is a greenhouse gas also present on Earth and also created when fossil fuels are burned. Over the last 150 years, since the dawn of the industrial revolution when we started burning coal and oil/gas, CO2 in our atmosphere went from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. You can ask the Venusians what they think about higher CO2 concentrations creating higher atmospheric and surface temperatures but I am sure the CEO of Exxon has a better explanation.
C. Who stands to gain/loose from global warming? Police always look for a motive in a murder case; who has the most to gain by this person being dead? Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Energy Companies, Coal Mines, Agriculture etc. all sell, process, burn, mine, or need fossil fuels to power their products and all these companies could be either put out of business with a switch from fossil fuels or would incur great expenses to redesign or reinvent in order to stay in business without the use of these fossil fuels. Since they have such a vested interest in debunking global warming, listening to their "scientists" about global warming would be about as advisable as listening to Phillip Morris' doctors who said smoking was good for you. That doesn't necessarily make what they have to say wrong, but they certainly have a vested interest in saying its wrong. On the other side, you have scientists who live in Antarctica or work at a University; they don't sell products that run on hydrogen or some other non-fossil fuel. They don't stand to gain anything from global warming nor do they stand to loose anything by reporting that the Earth is warming due to mankind. So when it comes to smoking, are you going to trust your neutral doctor, who is qualified and only looking out for your best interest or are you going to trust the tobacco companies well paid "doctors"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)