Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows

John Kerry and DirectTV

Dscn0434_tiny by RangerMack on

Maybe I should of voted for Kerry after all.  Kerry is coming to our defense on the whole Extra Innings package.  Article

...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................

0 recs | Comment 94 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Go Kerry!
Now he needs to go on a crusade against the RIAA and TV companies.

by zywica on Feb 1, 2007 2:40 PM CST   0 recs

well that was nasty...
but i'll go there...

Fuck you too.

1. Cut a hole in a box. 2. Put yo' junk in that box. 3. Make her open the box. And that's the way you do it; it's my dick in a box!

by cmkelly29 on Feb 1, 2007 3:18 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Asking Democrats
To go after the mega-corporate hollywood filth-pushers who bankroll their campaigns..probably not gonna happen.
Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 3:43 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Democrats?????
I knew you were crazy, but I didn't think (until now) that you were stupid!!!

by tklawless on Feb 1, 2007 3:45 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I know his statement
was a little colorful...
but what is stupid about pointing out the fact that the entertainment industries primarily support Democrats?
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 1, 2007 3:55 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Not just his statement.........
about Hollywood (he's always spouting that shit) but this is still an anti-trust issue...and that has become a do-do bird since the "re"pubs gained power....there is no such thing as anti-trust anymore.

As for that Hollywood crap.....the actors may be liberal, but the ones paying 'em ain't (like Chris Rock said "Shaq's rich, but the guy payin' him is WEALTHY...Bill Gates would jump out a window if he had Oprah's money)....and they're the ones who are the "Mega-Corporation's" (as he calls them) distributing whatever "filth" offends Sharkey's delicate sensibilities. But from most of his posts, I'd garner it'd have to be pretty damn "filthy" on an average scale to offend him......so basically I'm calling bullshit on Sharky and should have been more clear.....I didn't have time to start a long discussion with him on it (what's the point? neither he nor I are gonna change our mind/position), but since you asked, I thought I'd try to clarify.

by tklawless on Feb 1, 2007 4:09 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Thanks...
I can appreciate your response.  A moral objection to most of what Hollywood puts out obviously varies between people, and there is no real point in arguing it.

Studio heads obviously are the ones that approve the "filth" and they're not that vocal, but I'd bet they're still mostly liberal (if for nothing else, they probably have trouble relating to republicans and conservatives who they think are more focused on shoving morality down their throats).

As far as the anti-trust issue is concerned: real conservatives are going to find a balance between allowing market forces to determine which companies excel in an industry and stepping in when corporate corruption is hindering competition.

To articulate one of my points from before I would show discretion, in allowing the demand-side to punish companies that take over an industry and set high prices.

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 1, 2007 4:57 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Filth-pushers
Like the FOX network?

by RCCook on Feb 1, 2007 3:59 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yep, ole Rupert has really been...........
a big supporter of the Democrats............did he ever trade his 40% stake in DirecTv for that NewsCorp stock?

by tklawless on Feb 1, 2007 4:15 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

My point
Exactly.

FOX puts out some of the trashiest shows on TV. I enjoy some of those shows, but it just kills me that any GOPer can display moral outrage at "all the filth on TV" when their own propaganda arm's entertainment division is the source of much of that filth.

And as was said above, the people who own the major TV networks- CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, HBO- they don't vote Democratic, for the most part.

by RCCook on Feb 1, 2007 4:26 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Fox entertainment !=Fox News
Though I agree, it is somewhat disgraceful.

I know anyobody not a far fringe lefty is considered a right wing lunatic in mainstream America these days, but I'm pretty sure Ruport is a moderate anyway. He has done a lot of support for Hillary Clinton for example.

Fox is a moderate news network, it just stands out because the other 4-5 news networks are extremely leftist (MSNBC doesn't even seem to try to hide their ties to the Democrats lately..just today they're touting their big splashy day with all the Democrat presidential candidates, plus remember their election coverage anchored by, Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews, it doesn't get much more biased than that).

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 4:35 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Rupert is a moderate, now?
What day is it on your planet?

by tklawless on Feb 1, 2007 4:42 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

weird
using your leftist media to make a point about the rightist media while also holding that the leftist media is too leftist.  

must be tough.

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2007 5:03 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Virtually all mainstream media is leftist
What am I supposed to do?

Left:

CBS
NBC
ABC
MSNBC
CNN
Comedy Central

Moderate:
Fox News

Hmm, which of these networks is constantly attacked on LSB hmmm, I wonder why...

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 5:10 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah
FOX News moderate? The home of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?

I think I've figured out where Sharky lives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Htrae

by RCCook on Feb 1, 2007 5:25 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yep, I guessing ruppert will be
SHOCKED to find out he's moderate!

by tklawless on Feb 1, 2007 5:29 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

And Alan Colmes?
Oh noes! Not teh logic!

I think I see more Democrat talking heads on Fox than Republican. Lisa Schwartz is cute, though (Democrat representative that is on Fox News constantly).

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 6:11 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Yes.
It is. A nice change from the other radical left networks.

I like how you didn't name Greta Van Sustern and Alan Colmes and Juan Williams. Did they quit?

by Longhorn on Feb 1, 2007 6:28 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

alan colmes
what a great spokesperson.  he's not charming and charismatic...and what a looker!

forgive me if I'm not impressed.

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2007 6:57 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

damn
i screwed up the sarcasm.  either way alan colmes sucks and the fact that he speaks for democrats is a minus, not plus.

by ab03 on Feb 1, 2007 6:58 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

more:
E.D. Hill, Mort Kondracke, Chris Wallace

other contributors: Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 1, 2007 7:54 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Chris Wallace
Not at all a liberal. Do you have him confused w/ his father?
I think employee of the month is a good chance to be a winner and a loser at the same time.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 2, 2007 8:01 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

probably referring to
the fact that he's a registered Democrat.

by willamos2 on Feb 2, 2007 8:13 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Pretty much...
he's probably on par with Kondracke, in terms of being a hawkish liberal.  At any rate, he is another example a moderate at Fox News.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 2, 2007 8:30 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

hawkish liberal
Puts the moron in oxymoron...
I think employee of the month is a good chance to be a winner and a loser at the same time.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 2, 2007 9:02 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

If that's your prerogative, then fine...
but there are plenty of honest and intelligent commentators who fit that profile.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 2, 2007 9:06 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Look
I should not have said it in a rude manner, but you must not understand the meaning of the word liberal.

Liberals by definition: doves, not hawks.

It's like calling someone a dovish neo-con.

I think employee of the month is a good chance to be a winner and a loser at the same time.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 2, 2007 9:10 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Wait a minute.
So if you don't think a war is a good idea in a particular situation, you have to be a liberal?  That is the silliest logic I've ever heard.  One of the biggest "liberal" presidents in our history was a hawk during the Vietnam era (LBJ, in case you were wondering).  FDR was the first modern liberal and couldn't wait to get us involved in WWII.

Personally, I think the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning and has been horribly mismanaged since.  So by your definition, I must be a liberal.  But as a guy that believes in fiscal conservatism and is anti-abortion, somehow I don't think the "liberal" label fits all that well.  

Maybe a slightly more narrow brush would be appropriate, no?

by Athos on Feb 2, 2007 10:58 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Superskinny post time
You misunderstand me. Reread my post. I did not say anyone who opposes a war is automatically a liberal. That would be quite silly. I oppose this war, but am not against war for the right reason. And I'm definitely not a liberal, except with regard to some social issues.

The widely accepted definition of a liberal, among many things, is a person who is hesitant to engage in war. A dove. Likewise, with neo-conservatives, not necessarily conservatives but the neo-cons, hawks, trigger-happy.

You flipped my assertion backwards. I said liberals are typically doves, not being against a war equals liberalism. Your LBJ analogy is a notable one, FDR not so much. We were attacked. Even a liberal or a dove is for war when we are attacked.

So no, I think my brush was right on the money...

I think employee of the month is a good chance to be a winner and a loser at the same time.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 2, 2007 11:14 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Your comment was too all-inclusive.
My observation was correct.  FDR was the perfect example given his pre-attack buildup of the military and his well known view of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.  It is pretty well documented that we were headed for war sometime in 1942, but were forced in earlier by the Japanese attack.

And as for your definition of liberal, I think you are quoting the common misconception that arose following the failed presidiential bid of McGovern--that being that Democrats generally, and liberals specifically, were weak on defense and "doves".

Either way, calling somebody a liberal because of their views on a narrow issue is a bit myopic.

by Athos on Feb 2, 2007 12:04 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Like arguing w/ my wife
The patronizing history lessons are getting a little tiresome. Preparing for Hitler makes you a hawk? I'd say it makes you prudent.

The funny thing is, I agree w/ most of your assertions, but you keep mischaracterizing mine.

Please don't pigeonhole me in with the idiots who think democrats=liberals=war sissies. That's a stupid theory espoused by liars and ignorant people.  

 

I think employee of the month is a good chance to be a winner and a loser at the same time.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 2, 2007 12:56 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I hate to break it to you
But liberal and democrat are not the same thing.

If you don't think Chris Wallace is a right-winger, then you probably believe Bill O'Reilly when he says he's an independent. Here is Mr. Wallace's explanation:

"On October 11, 2006 The Washington Post revealed that Wallace had been a registered Democrat for more than two decades. Wallace explained his party affiliation in terms of pragmatism, insisting that being a Democrat is the only feasible means of participating in the political process in heavily Democratic Washington D.C. He maintained he had voted for candidates from both major parties in the past."

Watching Wallace interview a Bush administration official is like watching an infomercial. If that's how you like your news, more power to ya...

I think employee of the month is a good chance to be a winner and a loser at the same time.

by Brian Thomas on Feb 2, 2007 9:01 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Well...
Like I said already, he at least supports the fact that there are moderates at Fox News.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 2, 2007 9:03 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

I guess that means
all Republicans are hard line conservatives.

You know, those fire breathing conservatives like Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chaffee, etc.

Jaramillo says it's all still there (with Sosa): the bat speed, the work ethic, the body, the will.

by DJCahill on Feb 2, 2007 9:13 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

chaffee
got jobbed.  what a weird election that was.

by ab03 on Feb 2, 2007 9:48 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

that's obviously not the case...
But you're all missing what my point was...
I didn't say it in my first comment about other democrats on Fox News, I have since clarified.
The fact that he's a democrat doesn't mean he's a complete liberal, but he does provide more of a moderate perspective.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 2, 2007 9:50 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

Chris Wallace
Sometimes his words just hypnotize me.

I just love his flashy ways.

I guess that's why I'm broke, and he's so paid.

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 2, 2007 12:29 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

No.
Like MSNBC.

by Longhorn on Feb 1, 2007 4:21 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

No, no, no
Pointless grandstanding.

It's none of the government's business if MLB wants to be dumb and do this deal.

If Coca-Cola signed an exclusivity deal to sell their product only at Wal-Marts, would/should John Kerry care?

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 1, 2007 2:47 PM CST   0 recs

Yep, I agree with you...
Although, it does breed collusion and higher prices.
Even still, there is no one holding a gun to the demand-side of the equation.
Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 1, 2007 2:57 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

No,
I'd just buy Dr. Pepper. What's my alternative to our national pastime?
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."

by SteveP on Feb 1, 2007 3:04 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Lots of things
NBA Basketball and the NHL go into June.
Then you can watch the WNBA through August until football starts.

by Chris Martin on Feb 1, 2007 3:20 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

It wasn't meant to be
I was just giving him some options.  

by Chris Martin on Feb 1, 2007 5:20 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Missed that one
Was the right to watch baseball on t.v. added as an amendment to the constitution or something?

by Brandon Wilson on Feb 1, 2007 9:10 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

What is the problem with this law?
I don't understand why people are up in arms about this. The light bulb industry, maybe, but why everyone else?
It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 1, 2007 5:00 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I'm not against it
I want California liberals to suffer as much as possible under their own stupidity. They need to start putting their money where their mouth is and suffering for global warming. It wont be easy, after all.

They'll probably pass laws banning all but econo-box cars (well, except for fat cat SUV driving Democrat politicians, no doubt) and restricting electricity to 8 hours a day as well. That is, if they weren't so gutless when it comes to a little sacrifice.

I certainly hope the law passes.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 5:15 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

BTW
At another forum a  bunch of the whiny liberals seemed upset because they "hate fluorescent lighting". They just dont like the way it lights I guess.

I dont care, they need to suck it up. But you know they wont.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 5:17 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Always hilarious..
To see conservatives attack California,and in particualar San Francisco.  San Francisco Values are what brought you pretty much the entire high-tech industry and are what is driving the American economy today.

by PatrickWalz on Feb 2, 2007 2:51 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

San Francisco is going to slide off the fucking
Map, at this rate, pretty soon. What a cesspool.

Nice (D) Mayor you got there.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 2, 2007 7:57 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Glass houses
It's not too hard to find some whacky proposed laws in TX.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/02/01/parents.fined.ap/index.html

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."

by SteveP on Feb 1, 2007 5:49 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Except
In Cali the lightbulb bill has a real chance of passing, given their history.

Apples and Oranges.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 6:00 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

what's the problem?
I don't see what the problem with energy-efficient light bulbs is. You haven't explained your problem with it. If it reduces our use of coal and natural gas, cutting pollution and reducing energy prices, why is that a bad thing? It's bad if you are a privately owned electric utility. Otherwise, why is the law  bad? Not that I expect any sort of reasonable response from you, but you could at least give it a shot.
It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 1, 2007 6:37 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

The law is bad because
It's not based on science.

Its stupid.

Global Warming is a myth.

Its meddling government micromanaging your life.

How the heck does it reduce energy prices anyway? Energy prices in a state like California are going to nothing but go up due to enviromental stuff.

The easiest way to reduce energy use would actually be to RAISE the prices (which you would have to do artificially otherwise they would always trend down, since natural resources are so plentiful and efficient ). But oh no, cant have common sense. Reminds of a liberal bitching about high gas prices. What encourages people to drive less more than high gas prices?

But I already said I support the law, to punish ultra-liberal California. My only problem is people like you are going to try to fore your way on me.

But for California, I love the law. I can promise it will not pass though, it would be too much sacrifice for the liberals. They dont want to suffer, they want everybody else to suffer. Just like liberals dont care about Kyoto, their real goal is oinly to har the USA, otherwise they would be happy about all the countries that did sign Kyoto. But they're not, because it's not about the enviroment or the rest of the world, their goal is only to hurt the USA. If they cared about the enviroment they'd focus all their efforts on Russia.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 6:49 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

If California liberals were serious about GW
They would most certainly pass this law.

Lets keep an eye on it TRZA, and you're going to answer why they dont. Because it's not acceptable.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 6:52 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

I did a google news search of kyoto
Since I mentioned it. I found:

Canada is pretty much rejecting it.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c3191412-cf3c-42c4-aa81-e8e8ef83e14b&k= 29725

France is threatening that the EU may impose a carbon tax on US goods if we dont adopt Kyoto. Then the article mentions France is not meeting it's Kyoto obligations.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog.asp?id=475

UK says they beat their 2010 target, but it looks like they're not going to make 2020 target at all. It also makes me wonder how the hell they exactly measure household CO2 emmisions, or if they just make that up like good liberals.

http://www.carbonfree.co.uk/cf/news/wk05-07-0006.htm

India, Russia, China, Australia, and USA dont like it.

Looks like the protocol is a disaster, and all the liberal countries aren't abiding by it, but I'm sure they will insist the United States abide 100%. That was always the goal.

How can you support this garbage TRZA?

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 7:06 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

response t/k
Have someone coming over. Totally disagree with you, but at least appreciate the attempt to make an agrument.
It's Coagulicious!

by trza on Feb 1, 2007 7:08 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

France
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=14322

If you read through this article it appears they have no intention of meeting Kyoto goals.

You can do two things, you can suffocate your society, or you can ignore Kyoto. It looks like when push comes to shove, France chooses the latter.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 7:23 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

And geez
Like France's socialist economy isn't lifeless enough.

Now you ask them to add Kyoto suffocation on top of that? Yeah right..

I dont mind, in a competitive world the countries that dont embrace Kyoto such as India will race ahead. The same reason I dont mind California's lightbulb law and general industry hating-mindset, that is why Texas continues to grow by leaps and bounds comparitively to more liberal states.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 1, 2007 7:27 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Global Warming is a myth
Just like the round earth.

And humans landing on the moon.

And a 14 Billion year old earth.  We all know its 10,000 years old.

Jaramillo says it's all still there (with Sosa): the bat speed, the work ethic, the body, the will.

by DJCahill on Feb 2, 2007 6:52 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

These scientists agree with you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

As a matter of fact, a lot of the scientists taking Exxon-Mobil's money said that Global warming isnt an issue.  Just like the scientists in the 50s and 60s who were taking Marlboro money said smoking isn't bad for you.

So light up, and have a cool refreshing smoke.

Jaramillo says it's all still there (with Sosa): the bat speed, the work ethic, the body, the will.

by DJCahill on Feb 2, 2007 9:57 AM CST to parent up   0 recs

There are plenty of scientists who dont believe in
Global Warming. I just read an article on one, he's some top scientist in Massachusetts. Of course they're made because the top state scientist doesn't agree with the State's position in court. He probably wont have his job long, after all, we know liberals dont tolerate dissent.

What's scary is nowdays scientists who dont believe in global warming are going to be marginilized, ostracized, and censored. That's far more like the flat-Earthers would behave in the past, than the round earthers.

I have no respect for the scientific establishment anyway. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows it's a joke. They have their ways of effectively censoring dissent, as the big state dollars with a purpose attached that they formulate a study that supports global warming come there way.

You're a complete dumbass for that comment, Cahill.

According to you, we're supposed to be awash in Hurricanes right now. But no matter how many times global warming "scientists" are proven wrong, that doesn't stop their lying.

It amazes me how, in the midst of dead cold across the country, these fucking idiots can get up on TV with a straight face and talk about global warming. I guess that's how far they've succeeded in pulling the wool over people's eyes now.

I read an article the other day that it snowed in Malibu for the first time since 1978.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 2, 2007 6:36 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

Uh-huh
And the scientists publishing global warming studies dont take an ounce of the government's money, right Cahill?

But I know you have to attack the motives and censor those who disagree with you. Your media lapdogs have got you covered.

Toe the line, or else.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 2, 2007 6:38 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

The funny thing is
I can guarantee Exxon Mobil's scientists are a lot more accurate than the governments.

If you get a brain tumor, you can trust in science all you want. You're still gonna die. Science cant cure cancer, because they aren't smart enough. Lets be clear about it, they cant do it. They're failures. They've been paid trillions of dollars in state money and they cant cure a cold.

We keep hearing how sea levels are going to rise so much guys, how come they're not rising? How come the beaches last year are the same as this year? And next year?

When is anything provably going to change?

Oh yeah, some far off future date, always. Isn't that conveineint.

Well, Al Gore did put basically a 50 year timetable on things. We all know, we know, you know as much as I, not a damn thing he said will happen within 50 years. It doesn't matter though, Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything he predicted and he's still "respected" by the scientific establishment. Just like Joe Biden can be a racist and Gavin Newsom can have affairs, and not a damn thing will happe to either, because they have a (D) by their names.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 2, 2007 6:44 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

And lets not forget Cahill
The guy who invented DLP, owns a business, and probably drives a SUV.

I'm sure he's done more to promote the mythical global warming than any of us. And I'm sure he hasn't got balls to drop his SUV.

I'm sure he doesn't even do any relatively painless thing like drive a hybrid. Because he's a fuckin hypocrite, and he doesn't believe in global warming. I can promise you that. Answer me Dan, do you drive a hybrid? You'll either lie or say no, take your pick.

Webber begins to dominate..

by Sharky on Feb 2, 2007 6:47 PM CST to parent up   0 recs

You are ridiculous
First off, this is nothing like the round/flat Earth debate.  There wasn't even a real scientific method back then, and even if there was there wasn't data like there is now.  These people are taking measurements all over the world and the data shows it's getting hotter.

There's no doubt the Earth is warming.  That doesn't mean we'll never set a record low temperature again, or that it won't ever snow in Florida.  It just means that on the whole, the temperature is rising.  You can't point to a week in December of 2004 and say "here, look...global warming is obviously a myth".  That's stupid.

The question is, what's causing the Earth to get hotter?  Most scientists agree it's carbon emmissions.  I'm not going to get into all of the science, but let's just say there's a lot of evidence to support the idea that human activity is causing it.  It could be that it's just some cyclical climate change, too, although not many scientists believe that at this point.  They don't dismiss it completely; the evidence is just pointing toward something else.

And you obviously don't know anything about the scientific community.  It LOVES controversy.  New ideas that are backed up with EVIDENCE are always taken note of.  The whole idea of a journal is a bunch of scientists arguing with one another.

Okay, but what if it isn't human activity that's causing global warming?  Would that me