And you just aren’t able to grasp the fact that what you’re talking about has nothing to do with the article, your “resource” for “debunking” a 9 year old petition that wasn’t even referenced in the article is an environmentalist website blog entry with no published author, your posting is utterly irrational, unrelated to anything, and consequently pointless, and just about everything you think or say is based on fanaticism and ignorance (a wonderful combination).

If you ever tire of posting random nonsense that has no bearing on the the given topic, you are welcome to join reality, already in progress, and you’ll probably be treated more respectfully. For the record though, I have never called you any names (including “liberal”) in any of the discussions you’ve gotten involved with on this website, despite your insistence to the contrary. Perhaps you should have someone with a more level head and a clear grasp of the English language read these posts to you so you don’t get confused and fabricate delusional, non-existent insults, or entire articles for that matter, in the future.

Does the libertarian point of view need to be dispensed while attached to a ‘scientific’ report that’s already been debunked as junk science? Kiting this story just to take a few more shots at gay marriage seems desperate, to say the least.

It seems to me that the definition of Intellectual Conservative is to call people or things names without cursing…fuckers.

But never mind oil – how about building more nuclear energy plants???

Furthermore, the refutation of the 9 year old petition JonStewart has linked to is no more peer-reviewed than the original petition was, and coming from a source with no cited author, from an agenda website, shouldn’t be taken anymore seriously than any rant in any opinion blog on the internet. If that is what constitutes “science and actual facts”, then JonStewart is correct in saying that we don’t generally rely on those here.

About China’s oil exploration off of Cuba, it wasn’t mentioned in the article either. Seems to be a pattern emerging here, doesn’t there? Maybe JonStewart has some special ability whereby he can read material that doesn’t appear to the rest of us, or something. Anyway, I guess the New York Times was incorrect 2 years ago when it reported that Cuba had negotiated lease agreements with countries including China to explore and drill for oil on the Cuban side of the Florida strait? http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/09/news/cuba.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/09/america/web.0509.cuba.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09drill.html
The evil VRWC network Fox News also got on board: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193665,00.html
As did those GOP cronies at CNN: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/02/8403413/index.htm

Whether or not actual drilling is taking place at this precise moment, it appears that at least a few news organizations were duped into believing that Cuba had indeed negotiated contracts to do so. Maybe they should have checked their sources with an environmentalist blog so they could have had complete factual and scientific certainty first…

You can find out more about the junk science of this article here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

I realize science and actual facts are tough for you cons, which is how stories like China drilling for oil off Cuba’s cost get inserted in GOP talking points, even though it’s totally not true.

I also love how you roll in gay marriage as part of an article that uses fake scientific reports. To hell with the environment, some guy just married another guy!!! Nice…