President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 21, 2010 08:29 PM UTC
18 Comments
How often does Ken Buck ignore … thinking?
It’s probably a good idea to ask Buck about scientific topics he can’t explain away as attempts to distract him with “social issues” too:
How do airplanes stay up? Where are the wires?
Magic voices come out of my cell phone Explain please?
Why don’t telescopes reveal chariot that moves sun across sky? Is there a government cover-up, maybe the biggest one in history?
Your scope is too small.
How do they work?
but no faucet in sight. What gives?
Why did the rock star cross the road?
What is the difference between X and a catfish?
How often does Ken Buck ignore mainstream scientific thinking?
Buck has stated that he believes that the globe may be warming. He believes the link between the activity of man in its causation is less certain. I seem to remember some scientist who were acting not very science like in overstating the correlation.
Buck introduces Imhoff and describes Imhoff’s view and says more and more pople share that view. Instead of trying to refute that statement, you chose a subgroup of people, scientists, and then quote a partisan group, the NRDC, as if they speak for scientists.
You then confess that Buck has never said that Global warming is a hoax.
Your critcal thinking skills are as weak as your research.
Buck said global warming is a hoax.
Not manmade global warming.
Not anthropomorphic global warming.
He didn’t say “the earth is warming, but it’s probably because we’re falling into the sun.”
He said there’s no global warming (though he weasel-worded it), which even Exxon-Mobil doesn’t dispute anymore.
Who are you going to believe, Buck and Inhofe or your own lying thermometer?
Neanderthal Man was a hoax
H-man, perhaps you can tell us about what you “seem to remember?”
I’m asking because your claim is in direct contradiction to what the world’s practicing climate scientists have been saying.
2007
2001
1995
Which brings us back to 2007:
This election is not about climate change.
It’s about jobs. And women knowing their place. And gays choosing to be alcoholics. And shoes. And drill baby drill. And cutting taxes. Raising taxes. Amending the Constitution to repeal the 17th and outlaw abortion. And eliminating the NEA and the Dept of Ed. And privatizing the VA and Medicare. And repealing the death panels.
But absotively, posilutely not about climate change or energy independence. Burn more coal. Call it clean, but dig it up and burn it
Once you choose your partner, and with that choice turn yourself into a social pariah, you really have no choice but to become an alcoholic.
What is more screwed up on this post the Global Warming hoax or Salzman’s definition of main stream?
I guess he forgot all those little emails that were leaked discrediting all of the “stats.” And that is all I ever hear is how people are so tired of this Global Warming and asking each other “How is the global warming today?”
I love when far left ideologues forget that just because their small group of booger eating friends in the library all believe something that it does not make it main stream. They are nothing more than flat earthers.
The phrase of the day is “The new green is the old red!” Aint that right Comrade Salzman?
I guess someone “forgot” that one, two, three, four independent investigations exonerated all of the scientists who had email communications illegally stolen.
As for the question
Perhaps this will provide a partial answer, using just one of numerous independent lines of objective evidence using publicly available data?
Note how recent sea ice volumes are more than 2 standard deviations below the trend.
From Polar Science Center
But, if you screw your eyes sufficiently tight, and keep repeating to yourself “There’s no truth like a repeated lie” maybe it will all go away. Go nuts No2Truth.
Oh, wait, it must be high tide.
But on a serious note, I found a 3″ dead fish on the seawall, all dried out and dessicated. Not so unusual, except it is definitely one of those deep sea critters with no real tail, just body extension. And little forward fins almost like legs. It was perfectly upright, not on its side.
It’s on my kitchen windowsill next to my red Buddha.
>What is more screwed up on this post the >Global Warming hoax or Salzman’s definition >of main stream?
You don’t have the facts on your side. How do I know? Because you have to resort to personal attacks. Forget scientists for a moment. A majority of non-scientists think that global climate change is real. This matters. Inhofe, his buddy Buck and junior partner Cory Gardner are out of the mainstream. The election number one issue is jobs. A good source is clean energy jobs right here in Colorado. Buck’s extreme views on the ‘Global Warming hoax’ have given a boost to the relection chances of Rep. Betsy Markey as her views on a new energy economy are well known and more mainstream than yours. Face it, the Republicans did Michael Bennet a real favor by nominating Buck in lieu of Jane Norton.