# Does anything really matter anymore?



## RussellAP (Feb 21, 2012)

As some of you have already heard, our planet has past the point of no return in carbon emissions. 400 ppm (parts per million).
What this means is that carbon, a greenhouse gas, is going to be holding in enough energy to raise the average temperature to a point that will precipitate other greenhouse gases like methane to release, (which is already happening on a grand scale). Methane is much worse than carbon. We could have stopped the carbon, but there's no stopping methane. 
As coastlines are threatened, people will be relocating inland. Farming will at first become erratic with unseasonably cold and hot and dry. Storms will increase in number and strength. With mass migrations and global food shortage, no government will be able to help. Many will die, too many to bury. Disease and pestilence will follow.

If the oceans warm another couple degrees, the algae will die, then the plankton, then the small fish, then the large fish. That's one third of the world food supply right there.

You might not see it for a while, but you will definitely see it in the near future. Maybe not as I've laid it out above, but it will not be business as usual for us. If we survive.

Not very pleasant, but sometimes truth isn't. You want to give your kids an advantage. teach them survival in the wild, it'll be very valuable to them.

I know a lot of you don't believe that there is any problem with the climate, and that's fine, there isn't anything you could do about it if you believed it anyway. Not trying to start an argument, just wanted to let you all know that your lives are about to change dramatically and I wouldn't expect you'll hear much truth from the media about this.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Good assessments here what the 400ppm milestone means in context of our environment.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

As one said long ago, "there is a season for everything". I interpret it as there are cycles in the universe. "This too shall pass" as said another.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Forgot to mention. It is always a good idea to know and practice survival skills. A lot of people watch it on the Tubes but never practice it.


----------



## BillWhite (Jul 23, 2007)

Dang Russell. Hope that your business is going better for you than the worldly condition.
For me and mine, I've got more to try to correct than that issue. Given the fact that I'm 72 this year, I guess that I'll leave those issues to those who might be able to correct them. 
Not bein' snarky.
Maybe try to get the Chinese to clean up their part of the world? Quit buyin' stuff from them? India? That's another story.
Bill


----------



## Wildwood (Jul 22, 2012)

If you ever saw the carbon emission tax legislation Congress worked on but never passed maybe would have different opinion. If those global warming scientist estimations on sea level rising forecast had not been pooh-poohed by others maybe would have different opinion. That's right they lied and thank god no one died! Now we talking climate change!

If knew that Europe had to pass laws restricting wind farms because hazard to animal and humans in the area. Yes, Europe went gang busters for wind energy but did not decrease the new coal fired plants that came on-line during that same period. Most of the wind energy companies coming and setting up here European owned. 
This administration will never talked about a government solar farm project deem to expensive operate & maintain was abandoned. That happened several years before Obama took office. On his watch several solar energy companies went bankrupt even with government grants while heads of those companies walked off with severance packages employees got nothing. Tax payer footed the bill.

This administration advocates passenger rail service to reduce carbon emissions. Passenger rail service cannot exist without subsidies! Railroad companies tried getting president Obama interested in promoting more cargo freight ignored. Industry would foot the bill and reduce number of long haul semi trucks on our highways! Would still need those trucks but their routes would be shorter and number on the highways would be reduced.

I could go on, but government & politics is in the way of solving the problem! No, not against innovation or developing alternate energy sources. Government has to get out of the way!


----------



## timbertailor (Jul 2, 2014)

The evidence can be found in just about every corner of the world in just about every science discipline so no arguments here.

Just glad I lived in the time period I did. It has been a wonderful life. I try not to feel guilty because the legacy we have left behind will certainly lead to the end of civilization as we know it.

Not sure I want to live through Mad Max anyway.

I am moving to the country, getting my own well, going solar as best I can, start a little farm of my own, and hope that I can get far enough off the grid to live out the rest of my days in peace.

P.S. The first major catastrophe here in the US is when Lake Mead no longer can generate power or provide water for California, Nevada, and Colorado. I never thought in my lifetime I would see the Colorado River dry up.

FEMA and Homeland Security are the wolves in sheep clothes!


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

In 2010 Al Gore bought an 8 million dollar beach front mansion. I guess he going to sit there and watch the water come in.

All we half to do is pay Al some carbon taxes and everything with be fine. After all he need lots of money to keep his jets fueled.

This doesn't sound like a man who believes in what he's peddling.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/sea-level-rising-gore-buys-multi-million-dollar-oceanfront-mansion

I kind of wish ranting rich was here for this one.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

When's Al Gore going to make another cartoon?

Watch you wallets.

"If the oceans warm"

ROFL


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

God will cool the planet and make all well again. Have faith ye of no faith. God always solves our problems for us. If he doesn't then we must have done something to piss him off and we deserve the results of our behavior.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

If you dig deeper - you find that the receding glaciers are Uncovering viking settlements and birch forests in the Alps from 4000 years ago.
So Earth has been a lot warmer.
In Kansas you can find sea fossils, as the middle of the US was under sea water before.

China and teh developing world are INCREASING emission far faster than the US can back off. You do know that the US is not the major CO2 producer right…. those "Exempt" nations are.

I am not saying 'screw it' nothing matters, lets continue trashing the planet….but the Scientists that make their living from waving the red flag…. have become politicians, that shout down any opposing voices.
No Real Scientist ever would say "The Debate is Over, the Science is Settled"

Especially when you find the data being faked…FALLING temperatures in South America temp stations are being "adjusted - to show a rise in temperature".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

But the Off Earth marker - - from that Right wing publication National GEographic begs a better question… lest we think there are significant "emmissions" from our Mars Rover…. If it is all about Human Impact…. why have the Mars Ice Caps gone away?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html


----------



## Wildwood (Jul 22, 2012)

Been awhile since read parts of these bills in PDF format which made it easier to scan through various sections. Trying to read either one of these documents is a very arduous task!

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2454/text

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1733/text

Americans so very lucky neither HR2454 nor S1733 became law. I am all for saving the planet but no one has a clear and reasonable path to follow that is affordable. Neither solar nor wind new technology and 100% reliable. Lack of qualified technicians, spare parts, and component capability add to the problems.

Solyndra a solar panel company ended up costing taxpayers $535 million!

Back in 2009, unemployed man went to Government energy repair/service school for 4 to 6 weeks in Florida. Learned about various hand tools, never saw any testing equipment or actual equipment they would work on now or later.

Housing experts recommend staying on the grid with local electric companies whenever possible! In some parts of the country can get solar panels installed on your home free but pay monthly rental fee plus electric bill.

Today if build a home off the grid using solar or wind or combination of the two will cost an additional $20,000 to $50,000. Back-up battery system creates additional hazards and in some places not permitted. If add a diesel or propane back-up generator cost still higher! Replacing components over time due to capability issues make budget planning tough.

Bottom line SNAFU!


----------



## Tennessee (Jul 8, 2011)

I'll get more serious about global warming when the 2.5 + billion people in India and China quit bringing online a new coal fired power plant every week, figure out how to stop polluting their water, and finally put in double sewer systems, instead of dumping all their waste into their water. 
When I lived in China, it was considered a clear day when that evening, you could see a star or two.

When we brought over some of their employees to study our manufacturing, they were asked at a dinner what they liked the best about the USA. 
Their answer? "How clear the air was…"

Finally, just too many of the global warming scientists have been shown that if they did not read that line, they lost their grants from the feds. That was enough for me.


----------



## moke (Oct 19, 2010)

I was on a ship one time to visit Antartica. It was full of scientists, from all over the world but mostly Europe, they were all bound there on a one way ticket to stay and do research…..we sat at dinner with some guys from Denmark or Sweden, I can't remember which….they unanimosly said when the grant funding in America dries up for research, the problem will go away.

Undoubtedly there is some sort of climate change going on…..and being a stauch Republican, even I wouldn't blame a political party for the weather!!!! And by the way, they claimed about two years ago that there was more ice in Antartica than ever…....
Mike


----------



## Dal300 (Aug 4, 2011)

Hey Mike, did you happen to be aboard the R/V "Hero" on the trip to Antarctica?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> Hey Mike, did you happen to be aboard the R/V "Hero" on the trip to Antarctica?
> 
> - Dallas


Just for grins I did a search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=R/V+%E2%80%9CHero%E2%80%9D&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z-5UVYWTC8HfoATKkIHICg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=612&dpr=1.5


----------



## JoeinGa (Nov 26, 2012)

Shoulda listened to Zager And Evans years ago! They knew about this back in 1969 !


----------



## moke (Oct 19, 2010)

No, I was on a cruise ship….I can't remember it's name right now. Something "Rover" I think. We boarded in France, but it was Swedish, maybe Norwiegen. I have a friend that is worth about a half a billion, and he had been to every continent in the world except for Antartica, he wanted to go and his wife would not go, so he asked me….while it was nice, I have to say I would not go again either. There were some odd dudes on that vessel!
Mike


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Russell, the worm can has fallen over board again! Sure glad I'm not a republican so as not to refute any of the worms that crawl out.


----------



## Dal300 (Aug 4, 2011)

Thank's Mike. A good friend of mine was aboard the one I mentioned earlier. He was a photographer for the expedition that was concerned with the health of the animal population.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

Dr. Dirt the 1st couple things mentioned in your post has as much to do with plate uplift as global temps. Continuous crustal rise over 4000 could have easily moved the elevation into a different zone. Today's standard is about 3° per 1000 feet up. Euro Birch likes cool and or cold climates; N. Euro Mountains currently rise +/- 1cm per year.

30 to 60 feet higher every thousand yrs could easily push the elevation into a different colder thermal clime.

As for mid west N. America, it's basically the same process crustal uplift; even though it was warmer the inland sea was due more to the restructuring of a newer continent.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

God will fix everything. Earth will return to the garden of eden and the dinosaurs…


----------



## mudflap4869 (May 28, 2014)

I am 67 and have tried to teach and live conservation all my life. Well no one was willing to sacrifice convenience for the health of the planet. At this point I just say screw them, let them suffer the results of their actions. I have no relatives that I give a fig about so what happens after I am gone is good enough for civilization to bear.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Dr. Dirt the 1st couple things mentioned in your post has as much to do with plate uplift as global temps. Continuous crustal rise over 4000 could have easily moved the elevation into a different zone. Today s standard is about 3° per 1000 feet up. Euro Birch likes cool and or cold climates; N. Euro Mountains currently rise +/- 1cm per year.
> 
> 30 to 60 feet higher every thousand yrs could easily push the elevation into a different colder thermal clime.
> 
> ...


Thanks - we all know about pangaea, and the Bering Ice Bridge.

Point is that it used to be a lot warmer…. the CLIMATE, has chaged.

There also used to used to be an ice age. How did the ice age end, the glaciers melt, and the great lakes form, without industrial CO2 from man made sources?

I remember the "Science Being Settled" by emminant scientists before….









Here is the real question… if we go back to 1990's emmisions in teh USA, and China and India build a coal plant every few weeks.
*What is the net effect on climate? *

I believe under the current plans from the administration (revert to 1992 emission levels), the Only thing we accomplish is to ship whatever remaining jobs to "developing" exempt countries, so we can argue for a 15 dollar minimum wage at McDonalds…. since those are the only jobs left.

Pollution is bad…. OK we all got that. however what is the Effect of the solutions proposed? beyond 'less is a good thing' arguments?

We require actual LEADERSHIP… that can enunciate EXACTLY, that IF we do x,y,z… THEN a,b,c will happen in t-years. 
And the "WE" cannot exclude the largest polluters, holders of sovereign debt, like China and India.

We should not embrace a 'let's fall on our swords to make al gore richer' path, and call ourselves green.

Scientific consensus changes….


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

The upshot is the public sector is never taxed, regulated, and put

out to pasture as these commies come up with more solutions in

search of problems.

The height of arrogance.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

Dr. Dirt.
There're many reasons ice ages begin and recede, the obvious ones are continental drift, volcanism and the halocline stream all related to plate tectonics, (uplift, subsidence and above water land mass movement). Do a little research; there's tons of data on the subject. Make a mountain change the weather, cut off the standard movement of an existing body of water and change the weather. Have a massive up tick in above water volcanism, and change the weather, below surface volcanism, heat the water up and change the weather.

There have been at least 5 glaciation periods in the last 2 something million yrs, and appear to be cyclical every 150,000 yrs. Scientists/Geologist use data collected from many disciplines and can prove the results are predictable. Anomalies adding to and or coinciding with glacial periods, Moon orbit, Maunder minimums and large meteors?

The same actions can cause the beginnings of interglacial periods.

The current climate change is off the predicted path by many 10s of thousands of yrs; all the known predictable triggers are not the cause, the wrench in the gear is mankind, the industrial revolution and over population poor land use/maintenence.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

"The current climate change is off the predicted path by many 10s of thousands of yrs; all the known predictable triggers are not the cause, the wrench in the gear is mankind, the industrial revolution and over population poor land use/maintenence."

The earth is too big with many variables for anyone to come up with such utter nonsense.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

That's the problem yeah the earth is too big, the oceans are too big, the air goes up so high, the fish are so many to be polluted and drained of nutrients, and over fished.

Small minds think small!


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

IMHO this another way to part the emperor from his fancy new invisible clothes and of course his money. It started with global warming, everyone ended up paying through the nose.Then the scientists said no wait a minute the atmosphere isn't actually getting warmer.So those who were on the gravy train and didn't want to bring it to a screeching halt decided to rename it 
simply climate change.

Guess what they have instilled the most obvious scamming fear into all of us just like when the churches tell you from way back,that you are going to spend eternity in the flames of hell for your sins.But guess what if you pay them good hard cash you can have those sins removed or expunged from god's record.Laughable if many millions, nay billions of people over the years had not been so frightened they coughed up.No wonder the pope is in Rome after all isn't that were the mafia comes from? All a big con'scam . as I see it.They even admitted it was too late to make changes.as any damage to the ozone layer was best left to resolve itself over along time.nothing we can do they added is worth a damn.Alistair


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Pearls of wisdom.

Thank you Alistair.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Global Warming/Climate Change/Recycling: An Atheists Religion.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Dr. Dirt, Moke, Scotsman, AlaskaGuy, and others,

If you have any interest whatsoever in experiencing an accurate assessment of the situation, I propose you spend some time listening to the actual climate scientists. Maybe even listen to the National Academies of the US and similar organizations for 79 other countries. A broad range of evidence from many disparate sources has been carefully analyzed by competent professionals for decades and many conclusions have overwhelming support. 97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is currently undergoing significant changes and that humans have caused it. Sounds far fetched? Its good to be skeptical. Dare them to convince you. Go listen to their stories, the complete stories, and only then make your own decision. Bring all of your "global climate change must be bunk because…" claims. You will find them one by one refuted. Be willing to spend some time, the body of evidence is large and interrelated. Don't cherry pick, don't jump to conclusions. Consider all the evidence. It takes time and effort to work through it all.

Otherwise all you are doing is clinging to ignorance.

Al Gore? Time? These are strawmen. The other isolated tidbits are cherry picked observations at best and in many cases outright wrong. The conclusions drawn do not reflect the entirety of the data set.

FWIW, I have a Ph.D. in chemical engineering with a minor in physics and have worked as a research engineer for a major oil company for 25 years. Want to talk thermodynamics, heat transfer, quantum mechanics, statistics, mechanics, numerical modeling (numerical evaluation of partial differential equations)? I am qualified to teach college level courses in several of these subjects. Even so, I am no expert in climate science because I don't have a working knowledge of enough of the relevant data. Just for giggles I'm taking this course on climate science denial. I haven't gotten very far but the climate scientists definitely have their story together on every technical presentation that I have seen presented.

But hey, a bit of casual reading in the popular press makes one more qualified than an entire community of highly trained experts that study this topic professionally.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I would be much more impressed with climate scientists if they stuck to climate science instead of the mix that is mostly social engineering. Any scientist knows that science is never settled, and how many times is that tag line repeated? I also refuse to believe that anything exists that only has negative consequences yet I have never heard of one positive thing that could come from global warming.

I am not in the global warming denial camp, I am of the belief that the earth is too complicated of a system for us to really know with high certainty. I am also in the camp that scientist/social engineers/peddlers of the global warming theories are doing a terrible job of being unbiased in their science. Every time a global warming denier throws something out there like "it just snowed the earliest/latest" it has in the last 50 years here" they get told that is just cherry picking data but they will do the exact same thing when a natural disaster occurs they will immediately blame it on global warming. Remember 2005 right after hurricane Katrina how global warming was the blame and it was stated that next year would be even worse for the US and well that still hasn't happened yet.

There is just too much politics and social engineering thrown in and it muddies the science.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

GregD,
Read their comments, you're wasting your time on the severe 1st degree inbreeding.


----------



## Dal300 (Aug 4, 2011)

Hey! I don't care what happens to the environment. I will be worm food in a year or so.

As for my progeny? If they are smart enough to not go to California and can even manage to get off the earth, it sounds like a survival method to me. If they stay here, natural selection will make the decisions, no matter what.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I would be much more impressed with climate scientists if they stuck to climate science instead of the mix that is mostly social engineering. Any scientist knows that science is never settled, and how many times is that tag line repeated? I also refuse to believe that anything exists that only has negative consequences yet I have never heard of one positive thing that could come from global warming.
> 
> I am not in the global warming denial camp, I am of the belief that the earth is too complicated of a system for us to really know with high certainty. I am also in the camp that scientist/social engineers/peddlers of the global warming theories are doing a terrible job of being unbiased in their science. Every time a global warming denier throws something out there like "it just snowed the earliest/latest" it has in the last 50 years here" they get told that is just cherry picking data but they will do the exact same thing when a natural disaster occurs they will immediately blame it on global warming. Remember 2005 right after hurricane Katrina how global warming was the blame and it was stated that next year would be even worse for the US and well that still hasn t happened yet.
> 
> ...


Pat,

Is it possible that the commentary that you find objectionable is some combination of a) statements made by climate scientists that you are understanding differently than they intended and b) statements made not by scientists but by hangers-on that want to use climate science for their own agenda? Then again, some scientists are [your derogatory name of choice] and make inflammatory statements. But when I listen to videos of the actual experts I have so far been impressed.

You mention a couple of specific issues that are potentially frustrating. May I have a go at them?



> Any scientist knows that science is never settled, and how many times is that tag line repeated?


For all practical purposes, science does in fact get settled. For example, Newton's laws of motion are very well regarded even though they are wrong in some situations and have been superseded by quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics is so well settled it is sometimes considered a dead science.

However, it is also true that it is valid to challenge any scientific theory, even one that is "settled". Scientists love doing that, when they can, because if the challenge is successful and you achieve a significant improvement the impact is often quite profound. If a theory is "settled" it has done an excellent job explaining reality (Newtonian mechanics, for example), and if it is superseded (quantum mechanics) that is usually because science discovered new and different situations.



> I am also in the camp that scientist/social engineers/peddlers of the global warming theories are doing a terrible job of being unbiased in their science. Every time a global warming denier throws something out there like "it just snowed the earliest/latest" it has in the last 50 years here" they get told that is just cherry picking data but they will do the exact same thing when a natural disaster occurs they will immediately blame it on global warming.


Scientists do their best work in peer-reviewed publications. To fully appreciate the story in all its complications and nuances one really needs to gain a working knowledge of the literature, all the papers by the entire community of scientists. That is hard to do even if you have the necessary skills.

Outside of the peer reviewed literature it is definitely a reader-beware wild west.

"Cherry Picking" is, as far as I can see, nothing other than being selective in picking the specific examples you want to highlight. What is critical is why one is choosing to cherry pick. On the one hand it is often a helpful communication/teaching technique to point out a specific example that demonstrates a more general observation to help someone understand the general observation. On the other hand one may construct a specific example and claim it implies a particular conclusion. Sometimes that is the case; more than one perfectly respectable theory has been shot down with a single data point that would not fit. Long before a theory has become "settled" the experts have been trying for years if not decades to find such data points. A non-professional is extraordinarily unlikely to identify such a data point. Often, however, the implications of the one specific example are limited or non-existent. There is also a significant probability that the "data point" is actually and inadvertent or deliberate error.

Personally, I have 2 methods of determining whether someone is feeding me BS through cherry picking or other fraud. The first method is the scientific method. It is hard and time consuming. The second method is a bit of social engineering: is this person primarily interested in selling me something or helping me understand something. It is not definitive, and still takes time and effort, but almost always a person will reveal themselves given enough opportunity.

But the first step in both methods is to get the speaker/author to tell me in as much detail as they will exactly what it is they want me to believe and why it is believable. It is always fair to say, "I find that conclusion quite surprising. Can you help me understand how you got to that conclusion, and how you eliminated other possible conclusions". And then I listen as actively as I can.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> For all practical purposes, science does in fact get settled. For example, Newton s laws of motion are very well regarded even though they are wrong in some situations and have been superseded by quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics is so well settled it is sometimes considered a dead science.
> 
> However, it is also true that it is valid to challenge any scientific theory, even one that is "settled". Scientists love doing that, when they can, because if the challenge is successful and you achieve a significant improvement the impact is often quite profound. If a theory is "settled" it has done an excellent job explaining reality (Newtonian mechanics, for example), and if it is superseded (quantum mechanics) that is usually because science discovered new and different situations.
> 
> - GregD


Greg

It is obvious from your posting that you share the same affinity for true science that I do. Everything in your post is something I agree with. But I would like to point out that the examples above are fairly simple laws/rules and not the application of them.

Often scientists and engineers get things wrong, not because the laws/rules are bad but they have made bad assumptions/simplifications. In the case of climate science the laws are basic thermodynamic, heat transfer, magnetism, inertial, chemistry, and probably a whole boat load of other laws and the models are simplifications of the actual system of the earth.

I am an engineer myself (ME) and I know that there are even basic looking heat transfer problems that can't be solved analytically without making some assumptions and simplifications. Modeling the earth takes one hell of a simplification.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Thomas Sowell said of the Kyoto Protocol, "They do this because they know the only thing they can tax is people."


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Often scientists and engineers get things wrong, not because the laws/rules are bad but they have made bad assumptions/simplifications. In the case of climate science the laws are basic thermodynamic, heat transfer, magnetism, inertial, chemistry, and probably a whole boat load of other laws and the models are simplifications of the actual system of the earth.
> 
> I am an engineer myself (ME) and I know that there are even basic looking heat transfer problems that can t be solved analytically without making some assumptions and simplifications. Modeling the earth takes one hell of a simplification.


Really? And you think your assessment of climate science is better informed than the US National Academies? REALLY? It blows my mind that someone without substantial professional experience in climate science would be confident that they know better than the US National Academies. It is a completely irrational belief. Yet so many people are so convinced that they know better.

I dare you to sign up for this course and watch the videos. Models are but one tool. There appears to be a lot of data - not model results - from many different sources. You will have to ignore a bunch of non-scientific statements, but I find the presentation of the technical material to be quite compelling. If I find a source that has just the technical stuff without the preachy commentary I'll let you know.

By all means, make up your own mind. But make up your mind after you see the story from the primary sources.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

I can make one settled scientific factually supported prediction.
This ain't gonna be solved here on this forum.

In other news, since I make my living designing and building solar power systems, both grid interactive and off grid, you don't have to believe the world is coming to an end to justify going solar. It's just a great feeling to watch the meter run backwards, or to have a house with all the amenities we are used to and no power bill.

The systems are not free for sure, but the price has really come down in the last couple of years. Elon Musk of Tesla has just announced a battery storage system that will make solar even more practical. He's taking orders now for his "Power Wall" system that will store 10KWh and costs $3500. That is not enough to storage to completely run a house, but it's a start, and the systems can be expanded to up to 90kWh. I have built systems that were cost competetive with his, but I had to use lead acid batteries. Lithiun, untill now was not affordable. But his is.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
> 
> 49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
> 
> - waho6o9


One quote from the text of the letter is false:

With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

A series of studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists are confident that the global climate is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Studies have also shown that 97% of the climate science papers (in peer reviewed publications I presume) that indicated a position on global climate change and its cause indicated that the global climate is warming and human activity is the primary cause.

But dueling "experts" is a scientifically vacuous exercise. So much of this "discussion" is marketing, very much like the tobacco industry disinformation campaign against the scientifically established links between smoking and cancer. Listen to the story from the primary sources, look at the data, and make up your own mind.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Greg - the challenge here is manyfold.

The Climate has ALWAYS been changing…. so what is our target? What is the baseline.(4004 BC?) 1900? now 1992.
If we pollute at 1992 levels (present proposed solution), and China and India continue unabated…. what is the effect on Global Climate? *Is it somehow 'FIXED' because the USA fell on their collective swords?*

None of the so called climate scientists have put out the effects of the policies they want to impose.

Add to this you have the so called "Peer Review" which in the climate field, is a core of people whose sole livelihood comes from making dire predictions… that "approve" eachothers papers, and actively shun all evidence that doesn't belong to thier world view.

TIME magazine is reporting the NEWS, as reported by the same bunch of Noted scientists, it is not some 'opinion piece' by an ignoramus with a Journalism degree.

Your comment to go listen to the climate folks… is about as useful as talking to Al Sharpton about Racism in America - - he makes his living from strife.
Climate scientists - are the new 'educated professional agitators with dog whistles'

Remember "Use the Mike's Trick to hide the decline" Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
These the experts I should be talking to?

Or maybe the data from Latam, that showed a 50 year decline in temperatures… that was "adjusted" to instead show the climate warming?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/
Unethical manipulation of the data like this??




















> But dueling "experts" is a scientifically vacuous exercise. So much of this "discussion" is marketing, very much like the tobacco industry disinformation campaign against the scientifically established links between smoking and cancer. Listen to the story from the primary sources, look at the data, and make up your own mind.
> 
> - GregD


This I agree with… question is 'which side of the climate debate represents the tobacco industry'

the Libs promoting carbon credits and a new carbon commodity trading scheme, screaming about rising oceans then buying oceanfront villas, with the money from selling out his environmental network to Quatar?

Talking climate change with libs is like talking about religion with ISIS

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/how-the-illiberal-left-uses-silencing-tactics/

contrary views are to be met with derision and even violence.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Hey Dr. Dirt,

What to do about global climate change is completely irrelevant to whether global climate change is occurring and whether human activity is the primary cause. Bringing that into the discussion serves only to incite and distract.

Some responses to the Paraguay temperature data:
http://theconversation.com/why-scientists-adjust-temperature-records-and-how-you-can-too-36825
http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html

But it is completely irrational to take a concern about a tiny subset of the total data set - which is huge - and draw sweeping conclusions about widespread conspiracy. That is hype intended to incite and distract. The meaningful thing to do is to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the temperature data set as a whole.

Climate scientists are, in general, at least as well educated as myself. I am probably better paid than they are by quite a bit in many if not most cases. It seems to me that they have plenty of other employment opportunities. The idea that the entire community of climate scientists are in on some conspiracy to maintain their livelihood is an hopelessly improbable conspiracy theory. And don't forget that the US National Academies must be in on the conspiracy, as well as similar organizations from 79 other countries.

Is this last bit as accurate and insightful as the rest of your post?

*the Libs promoting carbon credits and a new carbon commodity trading scheme, screaming about rising oceans then buying oceanfront villas, with the money from selling out his environmental network to Quatar?*

You are conflating the actions of Al Gore with the entire community of people advocating for certain policies. Neither Al Gore nor these policy advocates are the least bit relevant to a meaningful discussion on the veracity of climate science theory.

Understanding science doesn't involve screaming. You seem to be screaming.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Thank you Greg D.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If you dig deeper - you find that the receding glaciers are Uncovering viking settlements and birch forests in the Alps from 4000 years ago.
> So Earth has been a lot warmer.
> In Kansas you can find sea fossils, as the middle of the US was under sea water before.
> 
> - DrDirt


I worked in Gavle Sweden a couple of years ago. I was there in July and the sun went down from about 1:00am to 2:00am! Really neat place, it is where Gevalia coffee is made. Anyway, one of the guys I trained told me they used to be able to grow wine in Sweden in in the 900 - 1,100 AD period. We also know that the sailing routes to NA the Greenland Vikings described have been under ice for centuries.

These can be explained by the Medieval Warming Period

A couple years back I sat on a plane beside a Norwegian sailing master. He was flying to Baltimore to meet up with his training ship. He told me something that always stuck with me. He said global warming was making Norway colder! What the what? He said as the glaciers melt they drop a lot of cold water into the sea around Norway, this drives the water temp down and affects the air temperature as well. Talk about a strange side effect. It opened my eyes that even the evidence form an entire country could be counter-intuitive.

What is now Kansas was under sea 100 million years ago, I don't think NA had even formed yet, so perhaps we shouldn't gauge weather trends from that long back.


----------



## moke (Oct 19, 2010)

Gregd-
Thank you for posting that. I enjoy a good challenge and a chance to learn something relavant.
Mike


----------



## moke (Oct 19, 2010)

>GregD,
Read their comments, you're wasting your time on the severe 1st degree inbreeding.

-I meant to do that!<
ghridah
Really? I am sure that your enlightened wisdom is a gift we can all enjoy…...please, just keep your inflammatory remarks to yourself…I have noticed them all over this site. What exactly does this contribute?
Mike

- moke
[/QUOTE]


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Some responses to the Paraguay temperature data:
> http://theconversation.com/why-scientists-adjust-temperature-records-and-how-you-can-too-36825
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html


These links describe the general reasons why temperature data is adjusted. It would be more satisfying if there was an explanation for the adjustments made for the referenced measurement stations so you could decide for yourself whether the adjustments were logical or nefarious.

This page presents a summary of what climate scientists claim regarding global climate change and also a summary of the references that support this position:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

It probably isn't the only page that does this, and it may not be the best. It is the first one I found. I only tried the links to the first two papers; they didn't work so well. I could still find the first reference but not the second. Finding the references may be tough going. Reading and understanding them will really eat into your shop time.

This site is dedicated entirely to the level of consensus within the community of publishing climate scientists. 
http://theconsensusproject.com/
The paper behind the site:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

The idea that the scientific peer-reviewed literature can be corrupted to exclude all but one world view is an extraordinary unlikely conspiracy theory. The peer review process attempts to exclude papers which do not satisfy scientific standards which include, among other criteria,
- clear description of the methods used and data referenced
- conclusions that follow logically from the data and the methods of analysis
One reason is that more than a few scientists are hopelessly idealistic geeks and would never participate in such a collusion.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Maybe a better starting point is this brochure from the US Department of Commerce / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdf

And the NOAA seems to have a bunch of additional information for the curious:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information

There is also the US National Academies:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

And remember, what you are looking for is an explanation that ties together all of the various data from all the various sources into a logical, coherent, understandable story. It should feel like a million-piece jigsaw puzzle coming together to form a clear picture.

But I'm being a bit disingenuous. It takes an awful lot of work to truly appreciate even small bits of the data set. And it is a lot of very boring work - far worse than sanding. One technique that is helpful is to pick out one facet that you find particularly perplexing or interesting and focus on that bit of the picture. For example, how do they know what the temperature was like one thousand or ten thousand years ago? Why do they think the recent climate trend is different from the previous changes in climate? How exactly does the greenhouse effect work?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

I have been following this for a bit. But honestly, when a debate reaches the point (or digresses to the point) where someone will actually use governmental data as a new starting point I question how seriously that person wants to be taken.

I see it as humorous. You are saying "The people who steal money from me told me that….".

Maybe no one else does. Thats cool. But for me to take anything serious take the gvt out of it.

(I just had a warm fuzzy moment when I wrote "take gvt out of it")



> Maybe a better starting point is this brochure from the US Department of Commerce / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
> 
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Often scientists and engineers get things wrong, not because the laws/rules are bad but they have made bad assumptions/simplifications. In the case of climate science the laws are basic thermodynamic, heat transfer, magnetism, inertial, chemistry, and probably a whole boat load of other laws and the models are simplifications of the actual system of the earth.
> 
> I am an engineer myself (ME) and I know that there are even basic looking heat transfer problems that can t be solved analytically without making some assumptions and simplifications. Modeling the earth takes one hell of a simplification.
> 
> ...


1. I never said that I know better than they do, show me where I did. 
2. Why the hostile tone?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Some responses to the Paraguay temperature data:
> http://theconversation.com/why-scientists-adjust-temperature-records-and-how-you-can-too-36825
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html
> ...


Regarding the adjustment of data: you wanted to question why I think I know more than climate scientists even though I never said I did, I will tell you this I am an expert an instrumentation. For those that do not know instrumentation is the taking of data. The reasons that the temperatures of the stations vary are defiantly a valid concern and whenever a data acquisition system is in designed such things have to be accounted for. But never in a million years would I recommend to anyone using my data that they try to adjust raw data to adjust for known and unknown environmental factors that influenced it. In the end the adjustment of the raw data is nothing but an educated guess. Also due to heat island effects because of encroaching urban sprawl to stations or trees being cut down (both of the possible reasons they list for why they adjusted the data) I would actually expect the raw data to need to be adjusted downward rather than upward.

PS Google Peer Review Scam and you will find hundreds of cases of recent peer review scams.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I have been following this for a bit. But honestly, when a debate reaches the point (or digresses to the point) where someone will actually use governmental data as a new starting point I question how seriously that person wants to be taken.
> 
> I see it as humorous. You are saying "The people who steal money from me told me that….".
> 
> ...


I also have some personal prejudices that I struggle with when I need to remain logical.

FWIW, I have had the good fortune to work with and co-author a paper with researchers at Sandia National Labs. At the time the work was done it developed the largest Finite Element Method model that Sandia had ever run. I have also used an equation of state for brine solutions published by Donald Archer of NIST. He did have several typos in his paper and one small bug in his FORTRAN code but the work was solid and useful. Abramowitz and Stegun is a classic reference for numerical analysis; these authors were at the US National Bureau of Standards. My professional experience has been that the US government employs some very competent scientists and engineers that do quality work. NASA is a US government agency; they landed people on the moon decades ago. GPS started as a US government system. I used the Internet back in graduate school when it was the Arpanet, another US government system.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> 1. I never said that I know better than they do, show me where I did.
> 2. Why the hostile tone?
> 
> - patcollins


1. Sorry if I misunderstood. How should I reconcile your first paragraph with the position of the US National Academies for at least the last several years, that climate is changing and this change is caused by humans?

2. I apologize if my careless wording came across as hostility. I am just gob-smacked that the well established position of the US Academies on this topic has so little influence on public opinions.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> If you dig deeper - you find that the receding glaciers are Uncovering viking settlements and birch forests in the Alps from 4000 years ago.
> So Earth has been a lot warmer.
> In Kansas you can find sea fossils, as the middle of the US was under sea water before.
> 
> ...


Then perhaps the current trend in temperature is not 'cataclysmic' not the "warmest in recorded history" either.

So since there were only about 265 million folks in 1000 AD populating the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
With little to no industrialization…. what drove CO2 up to those temps much higher than today.
The causes MUST have been Natural.

If it was NATURALLY warmer…..
How do you then definitively conclude (IPCC) that current warming is *'almost entirely' caused by man*??

really? flipping that around they say there is 'Essentially no NATURAL warming occurring anymore' it is just all us wrecking the planet.

I am a believer in the fact that often the simplest reason usually the correct one.

The data from South America that in raw form showed a decline… were "Adjusted" to show an increase instead… . is because that is the conclusion the scientist WANTED. When the adjustment fit his hypothesis he declared it truth.
I do not believe it is ISOLATED, or just from a small set of stations either.
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

At work we criticize folks doing that crap as doing *"Decision based Fact making…. instead of Fact based decision making"*
It is a rampant problem…. especially in academia where results don't matter just justifying grant renewals to keep studying it. It is particularly bad where government policy and the basement science of the computer modeler meet to make powerpoint slides for Al Gore.

It is always easy to just say "pollution is bad, so we should stop x or y regardless of a link to global warming"

But when you instead want to do as the EPA does and classify CO2 as a pollutant for them to regulate, and we attribute global warming as a health issue akin to smoking… then you have drifted very far from global climate change….. other than the "Political Climate"


----------



## Wildwood (Jul 22, 2012)

Can remember getting a letter from the state asking if would be willing to pay little more each month on electric bill for clean energy. Long story short everyone got the same letter and not many people said yes. So now NC Renewable Energy Mandated appears on my monthly bill.

Have a president that said would be training program to teach service personnel how to install and service renewable energy equipment. Well do not have qualified teachers to teach. So no jobs in manufacturing, installing, or servicing renewable energy equipment.

Live next to a military base with couple of new solar energy collector fields, people in base housing now required to pay for electricity. Can only guess other military & other government installations doing the same thing. You know money to put in those solar farms cut into operational readiness! Camp Lejeune had solar panels installed on some barracks years ago. Neither base employees nor civilian electricians could keep them operational.

Solar & wind energy while centuries old the new technology has not made it ready to replace fossil fuels yet. Common sense would tell you we need to move little slower get the bugs out. Just look at Europe, countries went all out for new wind turbine fields. During that same period did not stop more cold fired plants coming online. All countries in Europe now have moratoriums on new wind fields! Our president put coal miners out of work!

So until government, captains of industry, and scientist get their stuff in one bag going to be a painful journey or SNAFU!


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Regarding the adjustment of data: you wanted to question why I think I know more than climate scientists even though I never said I did, I will tell you this I am an expert an instrumentation. For those that do not know instrumentation is the taking of data. The reasons that the temperatures of the stations vary are defiantly a valid concern and whenever a data acquisition system is in designed such things have to be accounted for. But never in a million years would I recommend to anyone using my data that they try to adjust raw data to adjust for known and unknown environmental factors that influenced it. In the end the adjustment of the raw data is nothing but an educated guess. Also due to heat island effects because of encroaching urban sprawl to stations or trees being cut down (both of the possible reasons they list for why they adjusted the data) I would actually expect the raw data to need to be adjusted downward rather than upward.
> 
> PS Google Peer Review Scam and you will find hundreds of cases of recent peer review scams.
> 
> - patcollins


Very cool. If you ever dig into the details of those temperature adjustments I would like to hear your impression. The raw data is retained, and readily available. Several climate scientists assert that leaving out the temperature corrections has only a very small effect on the obvious upward trend in the average global temperature. And their map of temperature change shows, for example, modest temperature increases in some highly developed areas (southeastern US, for example) and extreme temperature increases in undeveloped areas (oceans, for example). They have spent time working the issues you bring up. Maybe not in all cases would you agree with the technical choices that they made, but it isn't likely they completely blew it.

Also, temperature measurements are only one of several indicators of increasing average global temperature.

Peer review is not perfect. Nevertheless I would argue that it works far better than our legal system or any other widely used system to distinguish substance from drivel.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Then perhaps the current trend in temperature is not cataclysmic not the "warmest in recorded history" either.
> 
> So since there were only about 265 million folks in 1000 AD populating the Earth.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
> ...


It was my understanding that what is exceptional is the rate of temperature increase. I suspect your first statement quoted here is a mischaracterization of current climate theory.

Your "flipping that around" logic is flawed. The statement "current warming is almost entirely caused by man" means not the natural changes have stopped, only that the total magnitude in natural changes that are expected in the current era is small, very small, compared to the observed magnitude of change. And I understand magnitude to mean rate of temperature change.

Once again there is a lot of excitement about some small detail. I agree it would be very interesting to see why climate scientists are so confident that they have accurately differentiated man-caused changes from natural changes but without even listening to their entire story it is completely inappropriate to conclude that they are wrong.

Belief is irrelevant. Data and logic rule. If you have conviction in your belief that the warming trend is the temperature data is corrupted then let's get together offline and work it up together. We will get the raw and adjusted data and see how they compare. I have seen climate scientists do that exercise and the differences between raw and corrected data were negligible compared to the trend.

After that we can move on to examine the *other* indicators of global climate warming.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Then perhaps the current trend in temperature is not cataclysmic not the "warmest in recorded history" either.
> 
> So since there were only about 265 million folks in 1000 AD populating the Earth.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
> ...


From the MWP link:
*Causes of MWP include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and ocean circulation*

Nothing about CO2 at all. Ice cores show that during the past 400,000 years CO2 hasn't been above 320ppm.

Other events can have huge impacts, its just that we aren't seeing anything else except man.

Look up Lake Agassiz or the Younger Dryas, massive effects to climate based partly on a massive influx of fresh water from melting glaciers in NA. The water was backed up and all rushed out at once. One channel formed the Mississippi Valley. The fresh water is lighter than salt water and helped shut-down the ocean conveyor. The heat nearer to the equator stayed there instead of being carried north by the conveyor.

We can explain many such historic events, so why are scientists not believed now?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

From "American Thinker." 
By Viv Forbes

Twenty-fifteen is the make-or-break year for climate alarmism, with a crucial battle planned for Paris in November. So we can expect regular bursts of global warming propaganda.

The year started on cue with a breathless announcement from the U.S. National Climate Data Center: "2014 was Earth's warmest year on record" (their records start in 1880).

The Little Ice Age ended in about 1880. Therefore, it is no surprise that global temperatures have generally risen since then. And it reveals nothing about the cause of the warming.

Moreover, the announcement hides more than it reveals.

Firstly, the alleged new peak temperature is just 0.04° C higher than 2010. Whom are they kidding? No weather recording station can measure to that accuracy. Once the likely error bars are added to the averaged data, the story changes to "recent global temperatures remain flat."

Secondly, what does "average" mean? Almost every place on Earth has a different average temperature, and the averages range from 34° C to -58° C, a range of 92° C. With very large daily and seasonal variations, an unevenly scattered and variable set of temperature recording stations, and frequent "adjustments" to the raw figures, their calculated "global average" is probably a manipulated and meaningless number.

Trends are more important than spot values. Satellite data and proxies such as ice core data give more reliable long-term "average" temperature trends. Both records say that 2014 is not unusually high.

Moreover, information on global temperature trends go back far beyond 1880 - ice core data goes back 20,000 years. These show that there were several periods in the last 10,000 years with global temperatures significantly above that for 2014.

So the "warmest year on record" is just another warmist temperature lie.

Twenty-fifteen is the make-or-break year for climate alarmism, with a crucial battle planned for Paris in November. So we can expect regular bursts of global warming propaganda.

The year started on cue with a breathless announcement from the U.S. National Climate Data Center: "2014 was Earth's warmest year on record" (their records start in 1880).

The Little Ice Age ended in about 1880. Therefore, it is no surprise that global temperatures have generally risen since then. And it reveals nothing about the cause of the warming.

Moreover, the announcement hides more than it reveals.

Firstly, the alleged new peak temperature is just 0.04° C higher than 2010. Whom are they kidding? No weather recording station can measure to that accuracy. Once the likely error bars are added to the averaged data, the story changes to "recent global temperatures remain flat."

Secondly, what does "average" mean? Almost every place on Earth has a different average temperature, and the averages range from 34° C to -58° C, a range of 92° C. With very large daily and seasonal variations, an unevenly scattered and variable set of temperature recording stations, and frequent "adjustments" to the raw figures, their calculated "global average" is probably a manipulated and meaningless number.

Trends are more important than spot values. Satellite data and proxies such as ice core data give more reliable long-term "average" temperature trends. Both records say that 2014 is not unusually high.

Moreover, information on global temperature trends go back far beyond 1880 - ice core data goes back 20,000 years. These show that there were several periods in the last 10,000 years with global temperatures significantly above that for 2014.

So the "warmest year on record" is just another warmist temperature lie.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/another_alarmist_temperature_lie.html#ixzz3acrcSoZe 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> From "American Thinker."
> By Viv Forbes
> 
> Twenty-fifteen is the make-or-break year for climate alarmism, with a crucial battle planned for Paris in November. So we can expect regular bursts of global warming propaganda.
> ...


Gerald, in the interests of being fair and unbiased to the debate that blog is actually a pretty crappy argument against global warming and barely more than simple opinion.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I think one thing that people are afraid to bring up is that this needs to get under control before anything could possibly have much of an effect.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Pat
There is a lot more that "Opinion" in that blog.
The whole AGW business is for the sole purpose of placing taxes and controls on people. It is all part of the leftist move for their utopia.
The environmentalist made a smart move. when the Wall came down and their darling Communist USSR folded.
they jumped on the global warming and other items that are meant to control for the sake of control.
I have to recall in my 72 years that leftist can never tell the truth or accept responsibility for anything. 
They never want to solve a problem. They only want the issue.
LBJ woke me up in his march to destroy individuals/families by the Great Society.
The present administration is the most corrupt, immoral and lying bunch I have ever seen.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Pat
> There is a lot more that "Opinion" in that blog.
> The whole AGW business is for the sole purpose of placing taxes and controls on people. It is all part of the leftist move for their utopia.
> The environmentalist made a smart move. when the Wall came down and their darling Communist USSR folded.
> ...


That blog has three major points and I can find issues with all three of their points.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Pat -

Off topic. You might enjoy having a go at this open source FEM model, Elmer, available here:
https://csc.fi/web/elmer

With it one can do some pretty cool models of a variety of physical problems.

Yes, one could even do stress analysis on a stool or cabinet, if one were interested in woodworking…

Regards,


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Pat -
> 
> Off topic. You might enjoy having a go at this open source FEM model, Elmer, available here:
> https://csc.fi/web/elmer
> ...


Cool, thank you, I have been playing around with a very limited one called LISA. http://lisafea.com/


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

This page contains a list of common questions about global climate change, with answers in both "basic" and "intermediate" versions:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

That site is produced by a group that includes many members of the climate science community. So it is reasonable to expect that the answers are excellent approximations of the positions of the climate science community and not some clumsy approximations created by some well-intended but less capable climate science supporter or some straw-men created by some climate science critic.

At least read what they have to say before making up your mind.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Jerry is spot on.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> *Belief is irrelevant. Data and logic rule.* If you have conviction in your belief that the warming trend is the temperature data is corrupted then let s get together offline and work it up together. We will get the raw and adjusted data and see how they compare. I have seen climate scientists do that exercise and the differences between raw and corrected data were negligible compared to the trend.
> 
> After that we can move on to examine the *other* indicators of global climate warming.
> 
> - GregD


If only that were true.
Money rules…. really it always has, but the levels of greed of the past 20 years or so has really perverted things.

You have entire 'fiefdoms' created on government grants, that are only renewed if you can claim whatever small activity you have going on is somehow Earth Shattering, Ground Breaking etc.
There are numerous examples out there now (Thanks to Wikileaks) that document the silencing anyone that challenges the Flat Earthers, that have taken climate change as their new religion.

So long as we "Hide The Decline" 
Adjust 70 year decreases…. into Increases. 
And silence dissent, rather than challenge or disprove it…. this issue remains.
It is simple to argue individual datapoints, however I believe that over such a period, the days of rain/no rain.. sunny location, overcast etc…. the TREND should not change.

The fact that "Media Matters" says to ignore this, as 'standard and nothing to see here, move along' doesn't cut it.

I pointed to the Medieval warm period and Rob brought up the point about less than 300 ppm CO2 in the Vostok Ice cores. Raises questions becaues it was a lot warmer… but with lower CO2 tells me that CO2 and climate are perhaps not a direct Cause/effect relationship.

CO2 is the focus because it can be directly regulated… it is easy to model from Brown Energy, so they can tax it and use surcharges and carbon trading to control people. Even though it was warmer before…. here is the NOISE we get.









*Of course now our 0.8degree C rise since 1880…. is cause for this proclamation from the president:*










Really - - it will affect how our military will defend the country?

Like a lot of other AGW climate skeptics, I am an environmentalist-in fact MORE of an environmentalist since I focus on REAL environmental issues like over-fishing, restoration of the land base, biodiversity, and waste dumping into oceans, recycling-it's true, I don't obsess on the climate all day (I know, I know-I'm bad…).
I think the chinese trawlers drag netting the pacific ocean of all marine life is a more immediate issue.

The more time and resources devoted to hyping a non-threat like "carbon pollution" are fewer resources that can be devoted to these real issues.

Hey if the billionairs BUY carbon offsets for their private Jets… that is Just as Good as not polluting right? so long as you just pony up some money you can talk about how green you are.

Out here in the real world we tend to see the 80:20 rule…If you want change, you go after the Major problem… you don't EXEMPT them and send all your pollution and jobs to their shores, and complain about unemployment, But we're being GREEN!!

It is like those that complain about gun violence.
DOJ stats for 2011 show that 6220 people were MURDERED by handguns…. and 323 by rifle (all rifles)... and thus to "Solve" gun violence, we need an Assault Rifle Ban…. we will attack whatever portion of that 323 represents assault rifles, and of course assuming that the murder wouldn't be done by other means
we will go after a small percentage… of the 3% of murders.

This is why your statement 
*Belief is irrelevant. Data and logic rule.* is not one I ascribe policy or logical lawmaking to.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Jerry is spot on.
> 
> - waho6o9


Almost every one of Jerry's statements are false.

Climate science is by all measures motivated to understand what has happened and what will happen. That is an entirely separate effort, and performed by largely a different group of people, than those that intend to use the science to drive some political agenda.

By definition environmentalists are primarily interested in the environment. Again, those that intend to use environmental policy to drive a political agenda are largely a different group.

I am arguably a "leftist"; I certainly have positions and values that would make many that are like-minded with Jerry very uncomfortable. The top two priorities on my political agenda are, "don't be stupid" and "people are important". After that I have a very open mind. I do not lie. Not even to my first grade daughter when she asked whether Santa was real. I own up to everything I do - ask my family and co-workers. I am also research engineer; solving problems is what I do.

LBJ and the present administration? I agree there may be substance to those accusations.

Broad-brush accusations are factually wrong; there are broad variations that are quite significant. Broad-brush accusations only serve to create the illusion that there is "us" and "them". There is no "them". There is only "us".


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> I am arguably a "leftist".
> 
> - GregD


I have a question: What's a leftist position on worldwide population growth? Should it be dealt with? By whom? And how? And is the population 'explosion' of the last 100 years alone a significant contributor to climate change?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I have to wonder what the carbon foot print of the protest against Shell's oil rig in Seattle is??


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

DrDirt,

Based on what I see as a habit of logical errors and distractions in your posts in this thread I have grown suspicious that you are unwilling or unable to have a technically honest discussion with me. I suspect that you are going to stick with your positions regardless of the evidence. Prove me wrong. Let us together examine 1 scientific point where we disagree and resolve the disagreement. I proposed the temperature record, because I believe all of the data are available to clearly determine whether adjustments to the measured temperature are causing the apparent increase global average surface temperature.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I have a question: What s a leftist position on worldwide population growth? Should it be dealt with? By whom? And how? And is the population explosion of the last 100 years alone a significant contributor to climate change?
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


I don't know.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

The "hypotheses" that humans are largely responsible for long-term, dire, global climate change, has so far been shown to be remarkably false. Actual climate data suggest that the larger responsibility lies with nature itself. Unfortunately, the hypothesis was declared a proven "theory" much too prematurely by some so-called self-identified "consensus." 
Perhaps the best reason to be skeptical of political grandstanding of certainty in science is that the objectivity of science is destroyed by the subjectivity of arrogance. Much worse than the obvious ruse, "Trust us, we're politicians," is the more subtle ploy, "Trust us, we're scientists." President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation over 50 years ago contained a warning that bears repeating "[P]ublic policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The above were taken from web sites that address Global warming.

Money can't ultimately buy the truth; but money can certainly distort the truth. The U.S. Treasury has lots of cash to support research and programs that promote the man-is-the-enemy-of-climate hypothesis. The saying, "You get what you pay for," applies here. Unfortunately, it's the taxpayer who is footing the bill for political science masquerading as climate science. The discovery of truth suffers from an influx of government cash essentially earmarked for finding a big human footprint stomped in the global atmosphere-in a sense providing kickbacks to supporters of "correct" climate programs.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> DrDirt,
> 
> Based on what I see as a habit of logical errors and distractions in your posts in this thread I have grown suspicious that you are unwilling or unable to have a technically honest discussion with me. I suspect that you are going to stick with your positions regardless of the evidence. Prove me wrong. Let us together examine 1 scientific point where we disagree and resolve the disagreement. I proposed the temperature record, because I believe all of the data are available to clearly determine whether adjustments to the measured temperature are causing the apparent increase global average surface temperature.
> 
> - GregD


I would say the same to you… you have not evolved on any of the issues to recognize problems… you just wave off any 'inconvenient data' and proclaim technical honesty.

When a bunch of "proven liars" scream that the sky is falling… and that ONLY the USA needs to react, and that "Solving pollution issues" is about buying and selling Carbon Credits. And now this is a dire National Security threat….

Then What those folks say becomes deeply discounted.

An honest debate would have been an actual explanation why a decrease is "really increasing".... and not a discussion that "all data is manipulated/adjusted all the time" the Hand waving

You are unwilling to look at the data already provided.. Reporting stations show a CONTINUOUS decline in temperature over a 70 year period.









But instead someone PAID to be a global alarmist says No No No…. it is really this:









What "analysis" are you proposing be done to "confirm that the decline is REALLY an increase"

I believe the raw data. You believe the headlines.

The DATA show a decline (sure at that location).... which gets averaged into a larger data set around the globe.

That inconvenient truth gets tossed.
By the way my PhD is in Chemistry at Penn State, where Michael Mann is, then I was a postdoctoral researcher at Arizona State, before going to industry instead of Academia….Wanna see my old picture on my Brookhaven National Lab Sychrotron ID badge?
(So long as this has become a manhood measuring issue for you) instead of a policy debate.

My knowledge of having 2 dozen papers and grants "peer reviewed" provides insight that all this is NOT Fact and Data Driven…. you can specify (sorry RECOMMEND) who should review your papers/proposals as being 'experts' and steer debate. It is more incestuous than you make it out to be.

We both know that when papers say Figure 2 shows 'typical results' that graph has been massaged thoroughly and is really of the one single 3AM experiment that looked the best…. not 'typical'


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Perhaps the best reason to be skeptical of political grandstanding of certainty in science is that the objectivity of science is destroyed by the subjectivity of arrogance. Much worse than the obvious ruse, "Trust us, we're politicians," is the more subtle ploy, "Trust us, we're scientists." President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation over 50 years ago contained a warning that bears repeating "[P]ublic policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
> The above were taken from web sites that address Global warming.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Jerry - - Think you nailed it. been to the Eisenhower library at least once a year, since we live 25 miles from Abilene KS, and his boyhood home/library location here. We tour the archives and do scouting projects as part of 'Citizenship in the Nation' merit badges.

Somehow when any admission by a scientist that there are '****************************** in the armor' means your position is in jeopardy…. casts a cloud of doubt.

Some things are obvious… you can look at the Beijing Sky and say "That is not a good thing" we shouldn't be able to chew our air.
The California Drought is not NORMAL (regardless a political position on endangered snails/fish other issues) it is dry there.
The North East Snowmageddon this past winter is not "Normal" either.
Glaciers have retreated.

The discussion comes from "what part of the problem is man made" 
What part of ANY SOLUTION… can Man impact.

IF the consensus, is "we must euthanize 3 billion people" to get to a manageable population that can be fed, and if we all lived in Yurts with solar panels (without exception for billionaires)...

That if all the above was done, then in a thousand years, climate would be back to "Normal"

One asks What is Normal….
And also what is our actual path today.
Would you do all of the above to 'avoid/delay' a 1 degree change. Or do we think we instead will adapt, with technology understanding that change is ALWAYS going to happen.?
It is difficult to gin up the voters and activists to save for retirement…. nevermind start a "thousand year recovery"


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> What "analysis" are you proposing be done to "confirm that the decline is REALLY an increase"
> 
> I believe the raw data. You believe the headlines.
> 
> - DrDirt


The assertion that is relevant to the global climate change question is that the global average surface temperature shows a distinct increase in the rate of temperature increase. Your counter-argument, as I understand it, is that the "distinct increase in the rate of temperature increase" is an artifact of inappropriate adjustments to the raw temperature data. The first analysis I propose is to compare the global average surface temperature history from the raw data and from the adjusted data, and compare the 2 results to see whether the adjustments have made any significant impact on the overall character of the result.

If the analysis shows no significant change in the character of the result then any further attention to the adjustments is much ado about nothing. If the analysis shows a significant change in the character of the result then it would be important to determine whether the adjustments were appropriate or not. Investigating that in a meaningful way could be difficult. If we get to that point I will happily concede that this is an unresolved concern.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The "hypotheses" that humans are largely responsible for long-term, dire, global climate change, has so far been shown to be remarkably false. Actual climate data suggest that the larger responsibility lies with nature itself. Unfortunately, the hypothesis was declared a proven "theory" much too prematurely by some so-called self-identified "consensus."
> 
> Money can't ultimately buy the truth; but money can certainly distort the truth. The U.S. Treasury has lots of cash to support research and programs that promote the man-is-the-enemy-of-climate hypothesis. The saying, "You get what you pay for," applies here. Unfortunately, it's the taxpayer who is footing the bill for political science masquerading as climate science. The discovery of truth suffers from an influx of government cash essentially earmarked for finding a big human footprint stomped in the global atmosphere-in a sense providing kickbacks to supporters of "correct" climate programs.
> Perhaps the best reason to be skeptical of political grandstanding of certainty in science is that the objectivity of science is destroyed by the subjectivity of arrogance. Much worse than the obvious ruse, "Trust us, we're politicians," is the more subtle ploy, "Trust us, we're scientists." President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation over 50 years ago contained a warning that bears repeating "[P]ublic policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
> ...


Hmmm, was this vast conspiracy in all nations happening during the Bush years as well?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Much worse than the obvious ruse, "Trust us, we're politicians," is the more subtle ploy, "Trust us, we're scientists."
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


"Trust us, we're scientists" is an activity that has nothing to do with science. Maybe, on this at least, we can agree?

In my world, scientists and engineers that are respected say, "this is what I did, that is what I got; can you see any places where I went wrong?" That certainly isn't the case with the entire population that I encounter, but it is for a substantial subset.


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

Well Moke, 
If most of the detractors commenting on the subject had paid attention in GS and HS Earth Science instead of picking their noses and eating it they might remember much of what's being wrangled over was covered in class. The derision doesn't come from experience, or of the knowledge even a little research, (that won't take one out of its comfy chair) can offer. It's simply easier to deny and deride. Debate and rebuttal would be satisfying even if to lose by superior information.

Plate tectonics, expanding universe, glaciation, round Earth, sun centricity, all derided because the data went against the "common sense" of common minds, and the Church. All mentioned normally take hundreds of thousands to millions of yrs to effect, or will never effect life under normal conditions, the current issue does. We are at or near the "Tipping Point", I wish I was smart enough to find the answers for what can/could be done if anything at all. The problem with that is the rest who'd rather ignore, deride or stick their heads in the ground because it's cheaper, easier and if you can't see the bogyman he can't see you and eventually go away.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Well Moke,
> If most of the detractors commenting on the subject had …
> - Ghidrah


And now some of the us/them illusion from the other side of the "debate".


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Anyone know if glacial rebound is added to the climate models?

If the Northern parts of NA are rising after being pushed down by glaciers (1 mile thick ice is heavy). Will the sea level in Hudson bay appear to go down and the sea level around say Florida appear to go up. I read once that Canada goes up a millimetre/year and the US sinks a millimetre/year. The fulcrum is around the great lakes. Granted that isn't much, but over a century it should be noticed.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The assertion that is relevant to the global climate change question is that the global average surface temperature shows a distinct increase in the rate of temperature increase.
> 
> Your counter-argument, as I understand it, is that the "distinct increase in the rate of temperature increase" is an artifact of inappropriate adjustments to the raw temperature data.


That is PART of it. Seems obvious to me that going after global averages… we are talking about the climate changing… how much and how quickly.

Some parts of the world will get colder, some warmer… we have been seeing this effect. e.g. while we had a very cold winter…. Australia was having a record hot summer…. both at the same time.

So the challenge…. is that you can have two regions both experince more 'extreme' temperatures…. but the MEAN Temperature is not going to change.

However, if you have a "predetermined outcome in mind" i.e to PROVE *warming*.... then you can start massaging the data of different sites to help it fit your model, instead of adjusting your model to fit the real data.

Adjusting data is far easier, than developing a comprehensive accurate model.

Indeed if you turn decreases into increases, you can dramatically affect the Hockey Stick graph.



> The first analysis I propose is to compare the global average surface temperature history from the raw data and from the adjusted data, and compare the 2 results to see whether the adjustments have made any significant impact on the overall character of the result.
> 
> - GregD


Sounds like a good 'sanity check' w.r.t. the past 100 years max.

Then you get into extrapolations of tree ring data.
That stuff is hard to really map to the tenth of a degree C

I think you mistake my skepticism as outright denial.

Earth is getting warmer. We cannot look at LA, Beijing, and other areas and say "None of that matters"

Flip side though, is while most scientists are not direct Liars…. there is always an Overhyping of results to make a splash. how every paper done in materials science, is going to advance the cure for cancer, lead to new nanomaterials, and nanobots that will regrow your hair blah blah, and it will all happen within a decade.

My views on peer review are partially grounded from materials research work that with Rustum Roy, he passed in 2010. I worked with him on some diamond/dlc projects while a grad student from 91-96
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10600/title/-Soft-Cheating--Is-More-Harmful-To-Science-Than-Cases-Of-Outright-Fraud/

I believe the case going after Human Global warming and that all the remedies are confined to the west is Dangerous, and unproven.

That CO2 is singled out as ostensibly the SOLE CAUSE of global warming, and its subsequent listing as a pollutant to be regulated by the EPA is dubious.

Scientists should be looking for solutions… not cheerleading or inciting panic.

Sure 97% of all the people paid by the government to decry global warming agree…. isn't really proof.

These folks need to show their analysis is right… and what the solution would require (of EVERYONE) and exactly what that looks like/costs. Not just dollars, wholeistically from flood control, mining, energy production.

Enough with the whole…. we should do x, y, z because…. Well it is just GOOD, regardless if it impacts warming. AGW becomes a blanket excuse.
Like 9/11 was a reason for every stupid thing Bush pushed through, like the patriot act.

Now we magically have to close power plants, put in thermostats that are controlled by the power company because of Global Warming.
45mpg cars mandated…. AGW
accept GMO crops…. AGW
Water rationing… AGW

So when you get these scandals… you start to question the severity.

Similarly if as the scientists at UC Davis proclaim, that if we went cold turkey it will take 1000 years to recover.
Then to the point of the OP…. why are we talking about it at all. It is over and we need to work on what has to be adapted.

When the guy making movies about a 30 foot sealevel rise… buys a beach house, folks start looking at teh changes and saying "You First"


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

No idea but I believe anytime new info can be added to improve a models accuracy it's done to test for improved data.

I've done a little reading and seeing (on TV, possibly "How the earth was made") over the yrs regarding glacial rebound, in particular the great lakes. I spent close to 2 yrs in all 5 lakes back in the 70s. It appears to be rising and (possibly sinking) and at different rates. The Canadian side seems to be rising faster than the US side. Maybe like a flatiron effect. If one accepts moraines as an indicator then the last glacial phase made it into southern Ohio, less ice less depression, father N greater depression, greater rebound.

If I remember correctly the GLs along with natural rain and snowfall are spring fed, all water naturally flows W to E. When all the ice was gone from Huron, Mackinaw straights and the Detroit river you'd find remnants floating toward Buffalo NY. So the lakes have been draining E since 1st created during interglacial periods.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Anyone know if glacial rebound is added to the climate models?
> 
> If the Northern parts of NA are rising after being pushed down by glaciers (1 mile thick ice is heavy). Will the sea level in Hudson bay appear to go down and the sea level around say Florida appear to go up. I read once that Canada goes up a millimetre/year and the US sinks a millimetre/year. The fulcrum is around the great lakes. Granted that isn t much, but over a century it should be noticed.
> 
> - RobS888


Maybe they will compensate by population growth, and obesity to help hold that part of the continent down when the ice melts


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Please tell me how if you are serving on a coast guard vessel, rescuing crab fishermen…. if you Deny Climate Change…. you endanger our security and UNDERMINE the readiness of our forces!!

These are the kinds of claims, and Hyperbole, that make people bury their heads and say it is all Kabuki Theatre!
Obama through his actions is the driving force behind the skeptics.
--------------------------------------
Obama Graduation Address to the Coast Guard Academy

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Climate change is one of those most severe threats. This is not just a problem for countries on the coasts or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now.

After all, isn't that the true hallmark of leadership? When you're on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant, you plan for every contingency. If you see storm clouds gathering or dangerous shoals ahead you don't just sit back and do nothing. You take action to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. *So too with climate change. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.*

Hmmm what is next? Witchcraft testing? Burning at the stake as Heretics?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

FWIW there is a lengthy discussion on the temperature record here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Anyone know if glacial rebound is added to the climate models?
> 
> If the Northern parts of NA are rising after being pushed down by glaciers (1 mile thick ice is heavy). Will the sea level in Hudson bay appear to go down and the sea level around say Florida appear to go up. I read once that Canada goes up a millimetre/year and the US sinks a millimetre/year. The fulcrum is around the great lakes. Granted that isn t much, but over a century it should be noticed.
> 
> ...


The ice melted long ago…We are supposed to be pretty fat as a nation, but I doubt we come close to 1 mile of ice in weight. Think of it as a very slow motion tempurpedic mattress.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Please tell me how if you are serving on a coast guard vessel, rescuing crab fishermen…. if you Deny Climate Change…. you endanger our security and UNDERMINE the readiness of our forces!!
> 
> These are the kinds of claims, and Hyperbole, that make people bury their heads and say it is all Kabuki Theatre!
> Obama through his actions is the driving force behind the skeptics.
> ...


I don't see what is wrong with that. At least there is climate change.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

I think you missed the point. 
NASA and the rest you mentioned were funded through money that was stolen from you and me. Some people go around and are proud to be victims in this manner. I for one am not. On top of that I will never believe what a thief tells me just because he has some educated people in his employ.

Governments throughout history have said many things which many at the time thought were great ideas but after time those same governments are seen as they truly are: liars.

To top it all, governments in the 20th century alone killed 203 million people via war alone.

I bring this to your attention just so you know that you are placing your trust in the biggest thief and murderer in the history of mankind.

What does this have to do with the truth or falsehood of climate change?-done just believe your sources. Think of who is putting the data together. Why they are putting the data together. To what ends.



> I have been following this for a bit. But honestly, when a debate reaches the point (or digresses to the point) where someone will actually use governmental data as a new starting point I question how seriously that person wants to be taken.
> 
> I see it as humorous. You are saying "The people who steal money from me told me that….".
> 
> ...


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

I thought politics was a banned topic this is pure politics


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

I would rather say it is apolitics or philosophy. Anything dealing with gvt or one of their agencies could be said to be politics. So I agree, if that is true, no mention of it.


> I thought politics was a banned topic this is pure politics
> 
> - thedude50


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

NASA and the rest you mentioned were funded through money that was stolen from you and me. Some people go around and are proud to be victims in this manner. I for one am not. On top of that I will never believe what a thief tells me just because he has some educated people in his employ

Pearls of wisdom ^

This pot smoking idiot thinks he knows how to run Health Care and now he's peddling Climate Change.

Watch your wallets.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> NASA and the rest you mentioned were funded through money that was stolen from you and me. Some people go around and are proud to be victims in this manner. I for one am not. On top of that I will never believe what a thief tells me just because he has some educated people in his employ
> 
> Pearls of wisdom ^
> 
> ...


Ah, the Heritage Foundation came up with what led to "Obamacare" go criticize them. Were Reagan and Kennedy liars as well?

P.S. I would rather pay for universal healthcare and climate change than 2 useless, long term wars.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Dear Sir,
As far as my comments go (and I only speak for myself) I am insulted to be grouped with a republican (Heritage Foundation) or democrat. Any self respecting anarchist would be insulted.

Were Reagan and Kennedy (pick any Kennedy) liars? Yes, in general all men are liars. A liar is someone who has / does lie. All men have lied.

Again, in general they were liars as they were politicians: Politicians=thieves=murderers (via proxy)=liars.

Agreed about the paying for war, but not about the other two. See, we agree somewhere.



> NASA and the rest you mentioned were funded through money that was stolen from you and me. Some people go around and are proud to be victims in this manner. I for one am not. On top of that I will never believe what a thief tells me just because he has some educated people in his employ
> 
> Pearls of wisdom ^
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Dear Sir,
> As far as my comments go (and I only speak for myself) I am insulted to be grouped with a republican (Heritage Foundation) or democrat. Any self respecting anarchist would be insulted.
> 
> Were Reagan and Kennedy (pick any Kennedy) liars? *Yes, in general all men are liars. A liar is someone who has / does lie. All men have lied.*
> ...


I can't agree with a self confessed liar. ;-}


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> I thought politics was a banned topic this is pure politics
> 
> - thedude50


Yes, but this is about climate change.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I thought politics was a banned topic this is pure politics
> 
> - thedude50
> Yes, but this is about climate change.
> ...


yes mostly, some let their hatred out though, so anything is politics for them.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

I've been spending some time reading the pages listed on this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I've been reading through not only the content, but the discussion in the comments section.

*THOSE* are substantive technical discussions. In those places where I have the technical background to meaningfully understand the content or discussion the authors provide a very reasonable and sophisticated presentation of the data, issues, and conclusions.

No, they don't have absolutely everything nailed down with complete confidence. But they certainly have their ducks in order, and marching in step. And they have a *lot* of ducks.

Does anyone know of a comparatively sophisticated web site that promotes the alternative view?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

I like what you did there.



> Dear Sir,
> As far as my comments go (and I only speak for myself) I am insulted to be grouped with a republican (Heritage Foundation) or democrat. Any self respecting anarchist would be insulted.
> 
> Were Reagan and Kennedy (pick any Kennedy) liars? *Yes, in general all men are liars. A liar is someone who has / does lie. All men have lied.*
> ...


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I guess if it on the Internet it must be true. I know our government has never lied to us.

Go ahead and trust our government.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/03/worst-things-government-has-done-to-americans/


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I guess if it on the Internet it must be true. I know our government has never lied to us.
> 
> Go ahead and trust our government.
> 
> ...


That is just a small sampling. There are many more true stories.

And yet not everything the government tells us is false; not everything the government does is bad. Every pack of cigarettes clearly states that when used as intended they cause cancer. CDC recommendations on vaccines. Water quality in Lake Erie and air quality around the Houston ship channel are much improved from what they were a few decades ago. Hurricane tracking is pretty good.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I guess if it on the Internet it must be true. I know our government has never lied to us.
> 
> Go ahead and trust our government.
> 
> ...


Could it possibly be, sort of, maybe not either end of the spectrum?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I guess if it on the Internet it must be true. I know our government has never lied to us.
> 
> Go ahead and trust our government.
> 
> ...


Yes, but they gave us fluoride and Velcro.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

In principle I dispute the claim that gvt has ever done anything good. For instance: if Jim and Bill broke into homes and only took 35-45% of the possessions but upon fencing them they donate all the funds to st. Judes, what would you then say? Bad from the get go equals bad all the way through. Some may say Jim and Bill are heros but I bet that the people who got screwed out of 35-45% of what is justly theirs thinks they are thieves and would have preferred a st. June flyer in the mail requesting donations.

Oh, get the analogy?

<block>

I guess if it on the Internet it must be true. I know our government has never lied to us.

Go ahead and trust our government.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/03/worst-things-government-has-done-to-americans/

- AlaskaGuy

That is just a small sampling. There are many more true stories.

And yet not everything the government tells us is false; not everything the government does is bad. Every pack of cigarettes clearly states that when used as intended they cause cancer. CDC recommendations on vaccines. Water quality in Lake Erie and air quality around the Houston ship channel are much improved from what they were a few decades ago. Hurricane tracking is pretty good.

- GregD
[/QUOTE]


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Jim and Bill are thief's no matter what the do with the lute. If Jim and Bill what to give to St Judes they could get jobs and donate their resources. I have/do makes donation to certain place but that my choice not Jim and Bill.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> In principle I dispute the claim that gvt has ever done anything good. For instance: if Jim and Bill broke into homes and only took 35-45% of the possessions but upon fencing them they donate all the funds to st. Judes, what would you then say? Bad from the get go equals bad all the way through. Some may say Jim and Bill are heros but I bet that the people who got screwed out of 35-45% of what is justly theirs thinks they are thieves and would have preferred a st. June flyer in the mail requesting donations.
> 
> Oh, get the analogy?
> - SirIrb


Actually I don't. You agreed to the percentage the first time you filed taxes. So if you had agreed that Bill &Ted could come by and take the possessions there is nothing to whine about.

If you give them your money (no matter how passive agessively) you still gave it and get to use the other parts of our society. Find an island if you feel that strongly about it and make your own rules.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Ahh, the love it or leave it argument. But I own property here. It is mine justly. Some mention a social contract. But where did I sign said contract? Where is my agreement? Simple existing is no argument. Remember, love it or leave it begs the question as to who the real owner is. Back to the contract. Tell me anywhere in contract law someone can bind you without your consent. Or a parent can bind a child contractually. Can't happen. So the social contract argument fails. Love it or leave it fails because, well, I own it. I have land and a house. I will use the same argument: this is mine, so the gvt can leave me.



> In principle I dispute the claim that gvt has ever done anything good. For instance: if Jim and Bill broke into homes and only took 35-45% of the possessions but upon fencing them they donate all the funds to st. Judes, what would you then say? Bad from the get go equals bad all the way through. Some may say Jim and Bill are heros but I bet that the people who got screwed out of 35-45% of what is justly theirs thinks they are thieves and would have preferred a st. June flyer in the mail requesting donations.
> 
> Oh, get the analogy?
> - SirIrb
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Ahh, the love it or leave it argument. But I own property here. It is mine justly. Some mention a social contract. But where did I sign said contract? Where is my agreement? Simple existing is no argument. Remember, love it or leave it begs the question as to who the real owner is. Back to the contract. Tell me anywhere in contract law someone can bind you without your consent. Or a parent can bind a child contractually. Can t happen. So the social contract argument fails. Love it or leave it fails because, well, I own it. I have land and a house. I will use the same argument: this is mine, so the gvt can leave me.
> 
> - SirIrb


So you don't pay taxes?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

No I don't pay taxes. Paying is a willing action. I have money unjustly taken from me. Believe it or not, unlike the honest house burglar, this money is taken from me in a predictable, bi-weekly pattern. I would rather the common thief over the gvt. A common thief has no illusions of grandeur that they can stick areound after the crime, no a thief is gentleman enough to leave you alone after one crime.


> Ahh, the love it or leave it argument. But I own property here. It is mine justly. Some mention a social contract. But where did I sign said contract? Where is my agreement? Simple existing is no argument. Remember, love it or leave it begs the question as to who the real owner is. Back to the contract. Tell me anywhere in contract law someone can bind you without your consent. Or a parent can bind a child contractually. Can t happen. So the social contract argument fails. Love it or leave it fails because, well, I own it. I have land and a house. I will use the same argument: this is mine, so the gvt can leave me.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Actually I don t.* You agreed to the percentage the first time you filed taxes*. So if you had agreed that Bill &Ted could come by and take the possessions there is nothing to whine about.
> 
> If you give them your money (no matter how passive agessively) you still gave it and get to use the other parts of our society. Find an island if you feel that strongly about it and make your own rules.
> 
> - RobS888


Whether or not you agree the first time, second time, or any subsequent time, you are required to submit and file taxes or else you'll suffer the wrath of government. "Suffer the wrath" sounds over the top but it's quite accurate. All laws, every single one of them, are ultimately backed up with the threat of death. If you don't submit payment for the taxes levied against you (whether it's the first time you file or not), you will be further fined. If you refuse that, your wages and/or assets will be taken from you. If you manage to resist that, you're likely to find men with guns wanting to lock you in a cage. If you attempt to resist that, they will kill you. In other words, if you are determined to keep the fruits of your labor (as in this example), you will be killed.

There is no "thing" called "government." There are only people. What we call government is nothing more than a group of people who won a popularity contest (which somehow magically bestows upon them the right to rule other men with violence). These people get together, write down words on paper, and suddenly their words must be obeyed. If you challenge those words, you'll bring your grievance to a court where judgement comes from a person or group of people who are part of the same organization (but merely in a different branch, so somehow there's no conflict of interest). Supporting government is quite literally supporting the use of violence against peaceful people.

On to the climate change thing:

GregD, I don't know the science behind climate change so I generally don't debate that. One of the things around this issue that I do debate is this commonly held notion:

"One reason is that more than a few scientists are hopelessly idealistic geeks and would never participate in such a collusion." (I've also heard something along the lines that scientists are less likely to be corrupt or to act on emotion because…they're scientists).

Scientists are people. They are perhaps smarter (in specific areas, anyway) but no different from any other person. Let's not hold scientists in such irrationally high regard as to suggest they are not subject to all the same conditions as every other human.

Let's also not pretend that a politically charged topic such as climate change can be discussed in such a way as to disconnect the politics from the study itself. The funding for such research comes from, at least in part, politically motivated people. To assert that the science and the politics are separate things and should not be discussed together is, at best, naive and, at worst, an attempt to push a narrative. People have agendas. Some want honest things, like the proliferation of truth and knowledge. Others want to corrupt those things for their own personal gain (either money, power, or both).


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Billy nailed it correctly.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Yall smell that? That's the fresh smell of anarcho-capitalism being lovingly shared.

My take on scientist and the whole climate change thing: remember back when coffee was bad, onions were bad, milk and butter…bad and bad. Then scientists said we changed our minds. They are all good now. Even smokes. I have heard of Dr.'s telling people who are coming down with Parkinson that it could help them if they take up a 2 or 3 smoke a day habit (this presupposes said patient is 50+).

All that to say, the earth does revolve the sun, that is true, but my take on it is that most scientist don't know with much confidence if what they say/ publish today is anything more than best guesses that they type it all out with crossed fingers, hoping they are dead before proved wrong. Just because a scientist (Angles singing in the background at the mention of scientist) says it, hey, it's a lot of guesses. Not like he got the information from on high and then wrote it down In baby eagle tears.

Wow, I didn't know I held scientists and government in the same regards.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

As my father used to say, "They are educated beyond their intelligence."


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

As mark twain said: don't let school interfere with your education.
That made me feel better when I dropped out of college.
Yes, I am proud I did.



> As my father used to say, "They are educated beyond their intelligence."
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


----------



## Ghidrah (Jan 20, 2015)

And there's the junk science again, cherry picking one aspect of a study and then over generalizing a relationship between the 2. They were never bad, but, e.g., whole milk is not required for most adults, many by nature become lactose intolerant as they mature. Eggs and LDL/HDL, nearly cancel each other out, face it high fat is not good for you period, how many of you had parents or relatives that died young, (below 65) from heart disease, and lurved to eat the gristle and crispy fat off all those stakes, sopped up all that grease with bread and butter?

YUM!!!

If you were willing to do the research, which you aren't you'd discover that (the scientists) made no claims only providing the facts of the studies they were involved with. However, correlations can easily be made with the right twisted brains and marketing; face it, fear is money. Fad dieticians, Pharmaceuticals and for profit businesses needing to expand the stockholders portfolio, one would naturally think GPs would see through the façade, in reality they place very little time and effort into keeping up with truth or consequences.

Show of hands, how many think the doctors and scientists working for the tobacco companies didn't know the companies they worked for were lying to the public? Fracking, deep-sea drilling and above ground oil pipelines are perfectly safe!

Smoking and Parkinson's Disease
That might be fine for those TV doctors to suggest, anyone listening to them needs and extra hole in their head and not the good kind. Any real doctor that would even consider recommending to a pre or post PD patient to start smoking because only 10 million of the half billion people who smoke had PD should be set on fire in the public square.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> There is no "thing" called "government." There are only people. What we call government is nothing more than a group of people who won a popularity contest (which somehow magically bestows upon them the right to rule other men with violence). These people get together, write down words on paper, and suddenly their words must be obeyed. If you challenge those words, you ll bring your grievance to a court where judgement comes from a person or group of people who are part of the same organization (but merely in a different branch, so somehow there s no conflict of interest). *Supporting government is quite literally supporting the use of violence against peaceful people.
> *
> - NinjaAssassin


Whah! I don't want to pay my share! Whah! I don't want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don't wanna pay!

That last bit is pretty funny, we are about the most violent country, with the most violent people… Correlation there?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> As mark twain said: don t let school interfere with your education.
> That made me feel better when I dropped out of college.
> Yes, I am proud I did.
> 
> ...


So some knowledge made you feel better about rejecting/failing to acquire other knowledge?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Yall smell that? That s the fresh smell of anarcho-capitalism being lovingly shared.
> 
> My take on scientist and the whole climate change thing: remember back when coffee was bad, onions were bad, milk and butter…bad and bad. Then scientists said we changed our minds. They are all good now. Even smokes. I have heard of Dr. s telling people who are coming down with Parkinson that it could help them if they take up a 2 or 3 smoke a day habit (this presupposes said patient is 50+).
> 
> ...


Perhaps, if you had finished your schooling we would have some confidence in what you say. You have previously proclaimed that "all men lie", so I'm not surprised you think poorly of anyone now.

That isn't "anarcho-capitalism" you smell it is just bovine scatology.

P.S. Do Angles sing in degrees or radians?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

No, good sir, I am proud of where God has placed me in spite of not being degreed as so many I work around. Not to mention that so many degreed engineers I work around do not have the slightest idea how to change a tire. So the knowledge you appear to think highly of seems to attract idiots in my eyes.

As far as the other comment you made, what class would you suggest me take to see things as clearly as you? Philosophy? Poly Sci? Econ? Again, you appear to be someone who places way too much trust in the paper and not the ideas Or the results. This may be a sign that you are mad you are still paying for student loans/ still paying for student loans for a degree you don't have a job practicing.

Sorry the type o was offensive. It is obviously metric degrees.


> As mark twain said: don t let school interfere with your education.
> That made me feel better when I dropped out of college.
> Yes, I am proud I did.
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> No, good sir, I am proud of where God has placed me in spite of not being degreed as so many I work around. Not to mention that so many degreed engineers I work around do not have the slightest idea how to change a tire. So the knowledge you appear to think highly of seems to attract idiots in my eyes.
> 
> As far as the other comment you made, what class would you suggest me take to see things as clearly as you? Philosophy? Poly Sci? Econ? Again, you appear to be someone who places way too much trust in the paper and not the ideas Or the results. This may be a sign that you are mad you are still paying for student loans/ still paying for student loans for a degree you don t have a job practicing.
> 
> ...


If all men lie, how could you possibly believe in a god that wanted you to drop out of college? Men wrote the bible several times over yet you believe in something you can't see and dispute things you can.

Oh well I see I'm wasting my time, so have a nice day and Holliday tomorrow.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Ahh, the love it or leave it argument. But I own property here. It is mine justly. Some mention a social contract. But where did I sign said contract? Where is my agreement? Simple existing is no argument. Remember, love it or leave it begs the question as to who the real owner is. Back to the contract. Tell me anywhere in contract law someone can bind you without your consent. Or a parent can bind a child contractually. Can t happen. So the social contract argument fails. Love it or leave it fails because, well, I own it. I have land and a house. I will use the same argument: this is mine, so the gvt can leave me.
> 
> - SirIrb


Your vision of reality is at least half blind. In the absence of the government, its property laws, and its willingness to enforce its property laws you would have no property rights to own. In the absence of government you would have rights only to the property you could hold by force and only for as long as you could hold it by force. That property is yours "justly" only within the context of the laws of the governments - local, state, and federal - that claim jurisdiction over that land. Those arrangements were decided long before you were born (most likely). And part of those arrangements include taxes of various sorts.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!
> 
> That last bit is pretty funny, we are about the most violent country, with the most violent people… Correlation there?
> 
> - RobS888


I'm sorry, did you have an argument to put forth or are you merely going to make up positions I've never stated and then annihilate them (otherwise known as a strawman argument)?

I'm here for rational debate. Feel free to join in.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Perhaps, if you had finished your schooling we would have some confidence in what you say. You have previously proclaimed that "all men lie", so I m not surprised you think poorly of anyone now.
> 
> That isn t "anarcho-capitalism" you smell it is just bovine scatology.
> 
> ...


I see. So you don't know how to debate. Ad hominem is your thing.

Good luck, my friend.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Your vision of reality is at least half blind. In the absence of the government, its property laws, and its willingness to enforce its property laws you would have no property rights to own. In the absence of government you would have rights only to the property you could hold by force and only for as long as you could hold it by force. That property is yours "justly" only within the context of the laws of the governments - local, state, and federal - that claim jurisdiction over that land. Those arrangements were decided long before you were born (most likely). And part of those arrangements include taxes of various sorts.
> 
> - GregD


You make a lot of assertions but I'm not sure you understand the concepts you're discussing (not meant to sound condescending).

What do you believe a right is? How do you define property rights? How do you believe one comes to have a right to property?

Once I understand your definitions of these concepts, I'll be better able to address your later assertions.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!
> 
> That last bit is pretty funny, we are about the most violent country, with the most violent people… Correlation there?
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should read your little treatise again. I distilled it down to the base emotion.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Perhaps you should read your little treatise again. I distilled it down to the base emotion.
> 
> - RobS888


Then I think it's fair to say you did not comprehend what you read. You distilled it down to what you wanted it to be. Not what it was.

Read. Comprehend. Try again.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Perhaps, if you had finished your schooling we would have some confidence in what you say. You have previously proclaimed that "all men lie", so I m not surprised you think poorly of anyone now.
> 
> That isn t "anarcho-capitalism" you smell it is just bovine scatology.
> 
> ...


Sure, look at my posts and see how many times I insult anyone.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Perhaps you should read your little treatise again. I distilled it down to the base emotion.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Nope, I'm pretty sure you claimed the gubment forced you to pay taxes at the point of an implied gun Thanks for the personal attack there though.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Your vision of reality is at least half blind. In the absence of the government, its property laws, and its willingness to enforce its property laws you would have no property rights to own. In the absence of government you would have rights only to the property you could hold by force and only for as long as you could hold it by force. That property is yours "justly" only within the context of the laws of the governments - local, state, and federal - that claim jurisdiction over that land. Those arrangements were decided long before you were born (most likely). And part of those arrangements include taxes of various sorts.
> - GregD
> 
> You make a lot of assertions but I m not sure you understand the concepts you re discussing (not meant to sound condescending).
> ...


And yet you do sound condescending. How can you live here and not understand. Will you argue what is is, now?


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Perhaps, if you had finished your schooling we would have some confidence in what you say. You have previously proclaimed that "all men lie", so I m not surprised you think poorly of anyone now.
> 
> That isn t "anarcho-capitalism" you smell it is just bovine scatology.
> 
> ...


By all means, pretend the context and tone of your post is complimentary or even indifferent.



> Then I think it s fair to say you did not comprehend what you read. You distilled it down to what you wanted it to be. Not what it was.
> 
> Read. Comprehend. Try again.
> 
> ...


Well, let's go back and see what you originally said:

"Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!"

I didn't say those things (and I reject the nonsensical phrasing "my share"). I have no problem voluntarily paying for the things I want to use, when I use them. I have no problem voluntarily following rules if I want to utilize property or services from another party and I have no problem abstaining from such utilization if I disagree with the rules. I don't want what "society offers" (feel free to elaborate on that mushy concept) without paying.

That original response of yours also has nothing to do with your most recent response. You are quite literally forced to pay taxes at the point of an implied gun. If you disagree, feel free to use reason, logic, and empiricism to demonstrate otherwise. We're civil, rational people, right? Leave the hostility at the door.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Your vision of reality is at least half blind. In the absence of the government, its property laws, and its willingness to enforce its property laws you would have no property rights to own. In the absence of government you would have rights only to the property you could hold by force and only for as long as you could hold it by force. That property is yours "justly" only within the context of the laws of the governments - local, state, and federal - that claim jurisdiction over that land. Those arrangements were decided long before you were born (most likely). And part of those arrangements include taxes of various sorts.
> - GregD
> 
> You make a lot of assertions but I m not sure you understand the concepts you re discussing (not meant to sound condescending).
> ...


Forgive me for not knowing the private thoughts of another man. Perhaps you can teach us all to read the mind of another.

I try not to make assumptions regarding how others define the concepts that are discussed. For instance, you think freedom is paying a compulsory tax or going to jail (or worse) - because that tax might be used for something you value. I think that's the antithesis of freedom. Do you think there's value in debating points when no one understands the other??


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Your vision of reality is at least half blind. In the absence of the government, its property laws, and its willingness to enforce its property laws you would have no property rights to own. In the absence of government you would have rights only to the property you could hold by force and only for as long as you could hold it by force. That property is yours "justly" only within the context of the laws of the governments - local, state, and federal - that claim jurisdiction over that land. Those arrangements were decided long before you were born (most likely). And part of those arrangements include taxes of various sorts.
> - GregD
> 
> You make a lot of assertions but I m not sure you understand the concepts you re discussing (not meant to sound condescending).
> ...


And yet you just did make an assumption about what I believe. The antithesis of freedom is slavery, as in human chattel. Paying a tax is nothing, unless you don't think it is fair, hence the whiny portrayal.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Well, let s go back and see what you originally said:
> 
> "Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!"
> 
> ...


Based on your argument I'm doubting the rational part. To me rational people don't decry the government to anything approaching the comments you made. It seems irrational or massively childish to go on about "there is no government just people."

Name a society that works/worked without any government?

And let's be clear, I'm insulting your "argument" not you.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Forgive me for not knowing the private thoughts of another man. Perhaps you can teach us all to read the mind of another.
> 
> I try not to make assumptions regarding how others define the concepts that are discussed. For instance, *you think freedom is paying a compulsory tax or going to jail (or worse) - because that tax might be used for something you value.* I think that s the antithesis of freedom. Do you think there s value in debating points when no one understands the other??
> 
> ...


It wasn't an assumption. It was a conclusion drawn from your original response to me:

"Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!"

You clearly believe it's good and right to "pay my share," "follow the rules," and pay for what "society offers." The context of all that was taxation. So, you quite literally believe taxation is aligned with freedom.

As for your definition of slavery - chattel slavery is not the only form of slavery. If the slaves of the south were permitted to keep some portion of the fruits of their labor, would they have no longer been considered slaves? If they were allowed to vote and were no longer considered property, but were otherwise subject to the same conditions, would they no longer be considered slaves?

According to written law, the government owns you. You are not allowed to consume what they do not permit you to consume. You are not allowed to do what they do not permit you to do. You must give them whatever amount of your income that they demand. All of this is with the threat of violence as a penalty. Such freedom.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Paying a tax is nothing,

Now there's a new one. LOL

Kudos for keeping this discussion on a professional level.

As you were.


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

Sounds like more environmental wacko nonsense to me.

You can't do much about the natural cycles of the planet.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> Based on your argument I m doubting the rational part. To me rational people don t decry the government to anything approaching the comments you made. It seems irrational or massively childish to go on about "there is no government just people."


What is your argument there? That "government" is something more than just people? People who either seek control over the populace or who seek to support those who seek control over the populace? What then?



> Name a society that works/worked without any government?


http://tomwoods.com/blog/ireland-stateless-for-2000-years/

Name a government that has both continued since it's inception and not reduced the freedom of its subjects.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It wasn t an assumption. It was a conclusion drawn from your original response to me:
> 
> "Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!"
> 
> ...


Nope, you are still assuming. *Show the written law that the government owns me.* Your interpretation of how things work is very interesting. Tell me more.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A. 
And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Paying a tax is nothing,
> 
> Now there s a new one. LOL
> 
> ...


New concept? All my income taxes are about 18%. Big deal.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

I'll explain through analogy.

You own your car. It's yours. But I've placed certain restrictions on your car. You can't put certain brands of tires on it, you can't take parts off of it and sell them (you can only donate), and you must use an approved fuel provider. I have no claim to this car. I've not paid a penny for it nor did I do anything to help you acquire it. It's yours and I have nothing to do with it other than these restrictions I've created. If you violate these restrictions, I'll take money from you, maybe lock your car in an impound lot, and if you resist any of that, I'll destroy your car.

In practice, is this car really yours?

As far as I know, there's no law that says you are property of the US government. In practice, you aren't allowed to do anything that the legislators and judges haven't permitted you to do and are thus their property. If you disagree, just try to distill liquor without a license or drive without a license (or in a manner other than authorized by the legislature) or, in most places, build on your own property without a permit. You will quickly find that, in practice, you are not the owner of your person or your life. The US government (i.e. a group of people who won a popularity contest, along with their appointees) is the owner of your person and your life.

If you have an argument to put forth, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> New concept? All my income taxes are about 18%. Big deal.
> 
> - RobS888


I can afford to drop about $30 for ice cream for the kids a couple times a month. Not everyone can.

Surely you're not suggesting that, because it's no big deal to you, it's not a big deal to anyone right?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> What is your argument there? That "government" is something more than just people? People who either seek control over the populace or who seek to support those who seek control over the populace? What then?
> 
> Name a society that works/worked without any government?
> 
> ...


I couldn't watch the video and the "resource pages" were all dead links.
What is the gist? Ireland didn't have a government? Just kings? What 2,000 year period? I've been to Tara was that just a made up thing? How about Newgrange, Nouth & Douth? I've been there as well, I wonder what market influence caused that?

The Normans invaded in 1171, so there was an Irish monarchy to that point then essentially English control from then on until 1921. Isn't a monarchy a form of government? Think you are short on rights now? Try wearing green in 1600s Ireland.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> In practice, is this car really yours?
> 
> *As far as I know, there s no law that says you are property of the US government. * In practice, you aren t allowed to do anything that the legislators and judges haven t permitted you to do and are thus their property. If you disagree, just try to distill liquor without a license or drive without a license (or in a manner other than authorized by the legislature) or, in most places, build on your own property without a permit. You will quickly find that, in practice, you are not the owner of your person or your life. The US government (i.e. a group of people who won a popularity contest, along with their appointees) is the owner of your person and your life.
> 
> ...


You literally just said there was such a law. How can I trust you when your thesis isn't true.

I see it as, I can do what I want unless the government says no, and I agree with many of the rules. I wish there were more gun laws. You seem to see it as they tell you what to do and that chafes you the wrong way.

Why would I want to do something against the law? I don't want to distill liquor, or build on my house without a permit. That is ridiculous! Permits are to keep people safe. These regulations are generally written in blood. If you don't have a license to drive, you shouldn't be operating a car.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> New concept? All my income taxes are about 18%. Big deal.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Sure do. I believe our taxes are pretty fair. Could be higher for those making 250K or above, but hey, I only have one congressman and he can only do so much. I loved watching him yell at Daryl Issa (the richest congressman).


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A.
> And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog
> 
> - thedude50


The bible is the biggest hoax of all time. LA still has a nice brown layer over it, but hasn't CA been working on this longer than any other government? I see people complaining about not getting certain finishes anymore because of the VOCs.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

> This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A.
> And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog
> 
> - thedude50
> ...


Religion is a banned topic because of jerks like you


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> What is your argument there? That "government" is something more than just people? People who either seek control over the populace or who seek to support those who seek control over the populace? What then?
> 
> Name a society that works/worked without any government?
> 
> ...


Well, the resources page were also videos. In any case, here's an article discussing medieval Iceland. I'll go off to find a non-video source for stateless ireland

https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government



> In practice, is this car really yours?
> 
> *As far as I know, there s no law that says you are property of the US government. * In practice, you aren t allowed to do anything that the legislators and judges haven t permitted you to do and are thus their property. If you disagree, just try to distill liquor without a license or drive without a license (or in a manner other than authorized by the legislature) or, in most places, build on your own property without a permit. You will quickly find that, in practice, you are not the owner of your person or your life. The US government (i.e. a group of people who won a popularity contest, along with their appointees) is the owner of your person and your life.
> 
> ...


Well, I worded my statement poorly. My mistake. According to written law, the government has a right to control you and your actions. I don't ask you to "trust me." I ask you to be honest in your presentation of information and to use logic and facts (when applicable) when putting forth an argument.

You agree with many of the rules, but not everyone does. In some cases, the rules are extremely negative to one's life. It's a federal offense to possess cannabis, but it has a scientifically and medically validated use for people suffering from epilepsy. Perhaps you don't suffer from a condition that would be treated by a natural substance deemed illegal by a group of people (and enforced with threats of violence), but there are people who do. These are rules made by other people. People no different from you or me. The difference is there are people out there like you who believe these rulers have some right to make rules by which everyone *must* live. That these rules should ultimately be enforced with death (because that truly is what the enforcement of every law rests upon).

You don't want to distill liquor, but some people do. And it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. Consider what that means. A person that has the equipment, knowledge, and materials to turn fruit and vegetables into a certain kind of alcohol must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and jump through numerous hoops in order to do so, all so they can be taxed on it. If they don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for permission, they will go to jail. If they don't want to go to jail, they'll be killed.

You don't want to build on to your house without a permit, but a permit doesn't do anything to keep people safe. It's as if you're implying that, prior to permits, people were dying due to poor building practices for the majority of human history. And that, after permits were implemented, no permitted structure failed. A permit is literally a bribe for permission to use your own property in a certain way. Building codes are supposed to serve as a minimum guideline for building. Permits are unnecessary for building standards to be used.

What does a license to operate a vehicle demonstrate? Certainly not that the recipient of the license is a good driver. If I'm a good driver with a license and don't renew my license, do I magically become a poor driver?

It chafes me the wrong way that people believe they have the right to rule over me as my master. If people can't run their own lives, how does the ritual of voting bestow upon the popular winner the knowledge, wisdom, and character to run everyone else's lives?


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

> New concept? All my income taxes are about 18%. Big deal.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


You're either trolling or you are sincerely proclaiming that, because it's not a big deal for you, it's not a big deal for anyone. Which is it?


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

Forget it. You can call this one a win for you. I come here for woodworking and have been pretty successful at avoiding political discussions for the most part. I'm going to go back to avoiding them now.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A.
> And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog
> 
> - thedude50
> ...


Atheists? I can prove climate change exists can you prove anything from the bible about god?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> New concept? All my income taxes are about 18%. Big deal.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Take me at my word.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

"Sure do. I believe our taxes are pretty fair. Could be higher for those making 250K or above, but hey, I only have one congressman and he can only do so much. I loved watching him yell at Daryl Issa (the richest congressman).

- RobS888"

We are taxed too high and half the people pay no taxes The successful People are taxed unfairly I believe the only Fair tax is the flat tax a VAT tax of ten percent on everything but food end the vise taxes and abolish the frigging IRS. If everyone paid taxes the deficit would be gone. why is it fair for the successful to pay a higher tax than a failure? Tax the rich to feed the lazy till there are no rich no more. we don't have an income tax on dividends either so the very wealthy who don't need to work pay no taxes. I TAKE IT YOUR NOT SUCCESSFUL Because if you were you would know the rich are over taxed if they work but if they don't have to work they pay zip.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Well, I worded my statement poorly. My mistake. According to written law, the government has a right to control you and your actions. I don t ask you to "trust me." I ask you to be honest in your presentation of information and to use logic and facts (when applicable) when putting forth an argument.
> 
> You agree with many of the rules, but not everyone does. In some cases, the rules are extremely negative to one s life. It s a federal offense to possess cannabis, but it has a scientifically and medically validated use for people suffering from epilepsy. Perhaps you don t suffer from a condition that would be treated by a natural substance deemed illegal by a group of people (and enforced with threats of violence), but there are people who do. These are rules made by other people. People no different from you or me. The difference is there are people out there like you who believe these rulers have some right to make rules by which everyone *must* live. That these rules should ultimately be enforced with death (because that truly is what the enforcement of every law rests upon).
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand some of the rules, so they don't make sense to you. People die from moonshine, people die from faulty electrical work.

Even in Iceland in the commonwealth you could be forced into slavery, so there have always been masters as you say.

I trust my government, you don't. That doesn't give you the right to accuse them of thievery.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> "Sure do. I believe our taxes are pretty fair. Could be higher for those making 250K or above, but hey, I only have one congressman and he can only do so much. I loved watching him yell at Daryl Issa (the richest congressman).
> 
> - RobS888"
> 
> ...


1/2 the people or 1/2 of people that work? Big difference.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Half the adult population


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> "Sure do. I believe our taxes are pretty fair. Could be higher for those making 250K or above, but hey, I only have one congressman and he can only do so much. I loved watching him yell at Daryl Issa (the richest congressman).
> 
> - RobS888"
> 
> ...





> Half the adult population
> 
> - thedude50


Is this that 47% LIE of Mitt RMoney's? So people on SS should pay taxes? People that don't work like stay at home moms should pay taxes. I think you should stay with people that actually work for a living.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Look if everyone paid people would have pride of ownership they would care about what happens in the US


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

no you should read the whole thing on the flat tax and yes if you choose not to work you should still pay ten percent Flat tax


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Its no lie that half those that can work are on the dole


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A.
> And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog
> 
> - thedude50
> ...





> This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A.
> And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog
> 
> - thedude50
> ...


Congratulation Dude, I think you the first one in this debate to name call.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Attack the god of a Muslim and loose your head


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Look if everyone paid people would have pride of ownership they would care about what happens in the US
> 
> - thedude50


Maybe, not sure taxes have that effect, they seem to annoy some people a lot!

People having a say instead of companies and lobbyist might get them more involved. And involved people care more.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

OH By the way people on Social Security do Pay taxes Get your facts right


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Attack the god of a Muslim and loose your head
> 
> - thedude50


Same as your god by the way. And you are confusing the proscription against deifying Mohamed and god. Mohamed said he was just a man and not a god.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> OH By the way people on Social Security do Pay taxes Get your facts right
> 
> - thedude50


Do they? Do they get them at the end of the year? If so they don't really pay any taxes.

EDIT:
I just checked and if SS is your only income you don't pay taxes.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Its no lie that half those that can work are on the dole
> 
> - thedude50


Could you prove that please?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> no you should read the whole thing on the flat tax and yes if you choose not to work you should still pay ten percent Flat tax
> 
> - thedude50


10% on dividends as well, count me in. No deductions right? 10% no matter what?


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

Its all on the governments website I wont do your research for you But I have found it so can you what you need to do I look at the list of those on food stamps the labor participation rate Plus the stater tdi rate and and the SSI rate SSN those that are retired those will get you most of what you need


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> OH By the way people on Social Security do Pay taxes Get your facts right
> 
> - thedude50
> 
> ...





> Its all on the governments website I wont do your research for you But I have found it so can you what you need to do I look at the list of those on food stamps the labor participation rate Plus the stater tdi rate and and the SSI rate SSN those that are retired those will get you most of what you need
> 
> - thedude50


I just checked and only 40% of SS recipients pay taxes on it.
http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2015/02/09/how-to-reduce-taxes-on-your-social-security-payments

It's like the wood haul posts, no pictures no truth. Post a link to support your claims or it is just your opinion.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This is a sham the biggest hoax of all time We used to pollute way more than we do now I remember going to L. A.
> And not being able to see the buildings of Downtown because of the Smog
> 
> - thedude50
> ...


He just came out of nowhere swinging hard.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

your wrong I was on ssi and they tax you on each check


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> your wrong I was on ssi and they tax you on each check
> 
> - thedude50


http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Are-Your-Social-Security-Benefits-Taxable


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

http://dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/

How about Cospaia?



> Well, let s go back and see what you originally said:
> 
> "Whah! I don t want to pay my share! Whah! I don t want to follow the rules! I want what society offers, but I don t wanna pay!"
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/
> 
> How about Cospaia?
> 
> - SirIrb


I thought you conceded?

I find what 300 people could do to be less than helpful for your argument, even Iceland with a very homogenous population of what maybe 10,000 people (including thralls (slaves)) during the commonwealth doesn't help.

Interesting DNA fact: 60% of Icelandic men are Norwegian decent. 60% of Icelandic woman are Keltic decent. Seems slavery was pretty big with them.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Happy Memorial Day Everyone.

Today is Memorial or maybe it should be call BBQ day. Most people I know are panning on throwing a piece of meat on the BBQ. But in the interest of Mother Earth, climate change and using up our resources I'm wonder if we should be doing that.
I believe there are many who believe man made climate change is the cause of the drought in California and other places.

So I ask you to what this very short video on "how many gallons of water does it take to produce a single steak"

Then answer this question.

Should the Government?

A. Ban all beef production

B. Put a limit on how often you can BBQ meat

C Stay out of our choice of what we eat

D None of the above (fill in your opinion) after all we all have one.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/tunedin/the-amount-of-water-that-goes-into-one-8-oz-steak-is-shocking/vi-BBjTYFu


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

I never said i conceded. Different guy.

So how many people does the country/non-country have to have in population for you to accept them when you ask about places that existed with no government. Will the next thing be you say "but they had no carrot crops, that doesnt work, they have to have carrots!" or some other such nonsense.

Look, you asked and two different people gave you what you asked for. What it comes down to is you like to be the victim, you are proud you live in a place that steals from you. Ok, I am glad for you. I am not proud to be a victim, but I call it what it is: theft. You can call it taxes if you want to lie to yourself.



> http://dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/
> 
> How about Cospaia?
> 
> ...


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

A great book to read "The Black Book of the American Left: Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz." 
This man was in deep with Leftist. His parents were members of the CPUSA and he was raised in that manner.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I never said i conceded. Different guy.
> 
> So how many people does the country/non-country have to have in population for you to accept them when you ask about places that existed with no government. Will the next thing be you say "but they had no carrot crops, that doesnt work, they have to have carrots!" or some other such nonsense.
> 
> ...


Go ahead and make an argument based off of 300 people living in a clerical error buffer zone that became wealthy by smuggling.

A society could be any number of people, so this little error zone counts as a society. Now the fun part will be hearing you say how that can work for any other group that isn't in the same unique situation? Is the US going to make it smuggling into Canada & Mexico? Don't forget each of the families had a ruler that made the rules.

So let's hear how you scale it up a million times? If you can't use it as a model what good is it?

Just curious, why don't you think the anarchist- capitalist are lying to you as well?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

The left and right are essentially the same machine. They may talk different but their results are the same.
The left is pro taking your money and giving it to people who dont work for it (real people call this theft). If you dont make enough honestly they will make sure you get some cash from someone else.
The right is pro taking your money and giving it to people who will work for it…it doesnt matter if you want them to work for it or not. Take for example GM. You dont care, like me, if they fail?-doesnt matter, your cash went to them.

I know the arguments pro/con left/right. I was a conservative for years. But honestly what got me mad was marriage. Not the fact of it or the institution of it but the government oversight of it. For you to have a "legal" marriage, one the gvt is cool with, you have to ask their permission. What is that. Take the theology out of it for a second, what is marriage? It is a friendship. So the gvt says "if you want to have a friend you need our approval". Screw that. Did the revered George Washington have a marriage license? Abe? TJ? No, no and no.

I promise, when you start thinking this way you will begin to see less and less need for slave-masters.



> A great book to read "The Black Book of the American Left: Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz."
> This man was in deep with Leftist. His parents were members of the CPUSA and he was raised in that manner.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> A great book to read "The Black Book of the American Left: Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz."
> This man was in deep with Leftist. His parents were members of the CPUSA and he was raised in that manner.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Interesting that his views changed after a women he knew was killed. He suspected by the black Panthers. He didn't seem to have an epiphany about leftism.

I think he is on a mono-maniacal crusade for his own reasons. I distrust anyone on the ends of the spectrum. Zealots scare me.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Yes, it could be any number of people. The key you may be missing is force. 
What is the big deal that it is a clerical error? That is a happy error. And smuggling is usually all based off Malum Prohibita which in my mind is totally irrelevant. Malum In Se is all that matters.

This can work for any group of people who freely choose to live without overlords.

You asked for an example. You have been given some. Scale is not the problem. What if inventors said to the Wright bro's "So what if birds can fly, if you cant present me with an example of people flying then your proposal doesnt work."?

What would AnCaps be lying to me about? You make it sound like they are a political party like the Dems or Repubs with some central cog in the machine. It is a philosophy for all to see, digest and if it is right for them, embrace.



> I never said i conceded. Different guy.
> 
> So how many people does the country/non-country have to have in population for you to accept them when you ask about places that existed with no government. Will the next thing be you say "but they had no carrot crops, that doesnt work, they have to have carrots!" or some other such nonsense.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

I hate the politics now going on in my country….very divisive

The class warfare does nothing good…..neither is the religious or race warfare doing any good but making things worse

Taxes are too high and WAY to much waste by bureaucrats….The answer is not simply to tax the rich

Only 60% employment rate….the reported unemployment rate is meaningless….

We need people to gain education (of any kind)and good jobs…..

I believe that increasing employment is a key to solving many problems

I love my country but fear that politicians of ALL types are ruining my country


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Just out of serious curiosity, and to be a bit philosophical, what is the country you love if you hate the politicians? Or to be a bit leading, what is government without the governing?



> I hate the politics now going on in my country….very divisive
> 
> The class warfare does nothing good…..neither is the religious or race warfare doing any good but making things worse
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The left and right are essentially the same machine. They may talk different but their results are the same.
> The left is pro taking your money and giving it to people who dont work for it (real people call this theft). If you dont make enough honestly they will make sure you get some cash from someone else.
> The right is pro taking your money and giving it to people who will work for it…it doesnt matter if you want them to work for it or not. Take for example GM. You dont care, like me, if they fail?-doesnt matter, your cash went to them.
> 
> ...


Marriage isn't friendship! Friendship is a component of marriage or at least one hopes it is. It has far more legal connotations than friendship. That argument holds absolutely no water.

I don't care about football, but I had to help pay for the Ravens stadium. GM failing would have been very bad.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Rob;
Did you read Horowitz's Collective Writings?


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

GM failing would have been very bad.

Thems the breaks.

GM made bad business decisions and should have paid the consequences.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Yes, it could be any number of people. The key you may be missing is force.
> What is the big deal that it is a clerical error? That is a happy error. And smuggling is usually all based off Malum Prohibita which in my mind is totally irrelevant. Malum In Se is all that matters.
> 
> This can work for any group of people who freely choose to live without overlords.
> ...


You're dreaming about some kind of anarchy utopia. Tell me how 300 million people make money smuggling? The clerical error allowed this little peace of land to be overlooked, then it became beneficial to the large opposing societies on each side to keep it there. Somewhat like Hong Kong was to China. Either of the states on either side could have taken it if they wanted to and they did do so.

The Wright Brothers weren't the first to fly, just the first to sustain it for a certain period of time. Many, many people around the world were trying to do it. If they had all had a nice windy dune they may have been first. Do you believe Ben Franklin invented electricity or Edison the light bulb or Ford the automobile? These are fantasies.

You would like to believe these "concepts" would work, but there isn't any proof they can for anything other than small isolated groups. It doesn't matter if they are isolated by water or national/regional boundaries.

You said all men lie, I'm just curious what makes you believe AnCaps (whatever that is?) or a bible. it seems out of character.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob;
> Did you read Horowitz s Collective Writings?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Nope, I read about him. Reminds me of the character from Braveheart, well in the loosing his mind and dedicating himself to a single thing part.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> GM failing would have been very bad.
> 
> Thems the breaks.
> 
> ...


Only problem is many other companies (including Ford) would have paid it as well and millions of people would have lost their jobs. A bank failing would be less damaging.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The left and right are essentially the same machine. They may talk different but their results are the same.
> The left is pro taking your money and giving it to people who dont work for it (real people call this theft). If you dont make enough honestly they will make sure you get some cash from someone else.
> The right is pro taking your money and giving it to people who will work for it…it doesnt matter if you want them to work for it or not. Take for example GM. You dont care, like me, if they fail?-doesnt matter, your cash went to them.
> 
> ...


He didn't have teeth either.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

That was just an example. The problem is you want a "this is how it works because this is a place it did work" when not everything in existence has the precedent. Actually nothing had a precedent until it was created. Make sense?

Yes, all men have lied and that makes all men liars. Now the real question is who makes it a habit to lie? Who lives in lies?

GM failing would have been great. They are not "Their" jobs. The jobs are owned by the company. It is a linguistic error to apply ownership to one who does the job. The same thing happened to the piano industry. No one bailed them out. Some 20 piano companies went bankrupt. Guess what, no one really wanted pianos any more. It is a market sign.

I guess he did have false teeth too. Hope that wasnt a point.



> Yes, it could be any number of people. The key you may be missing is force.
> What is the big deal that it is a clerical error? That is a happy error. And smuggling is usually all based off Malum Prohibita which in my mind is totally irrelevant. Malum In Se is all that matters.
> 
> This can work for any group of people who freely choose to live without overlords.
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

How bout this government policing….










The Department of Justice considers the clubs a criminal enterprise and is asking a federal judge to make it illegal for Mongols members to wear the patch or even display the name-allowing cops to literally take a Mongols jacket right off a biker's back.

"It not just stripping them of their identity, or robbing them of a recruiting tool, it's taking the star off their helmet," said a law enforcement source in Los Angeles. *"The logo itself furthers a criminal enterprise." *

------------

Evil Logos….. mmmmm Got it!

So we will work on Violent crime through the patent office…..
\
Reminds me of others mentioning "educated beyond their intelligence"


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

I am against I.P. of any form.



> How bout this government policing….
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> That was just an example. The problem is you want a "this is how it works because this is a place it did work" when not everything in existence has the precedent. Actually nothing had a precedent until it was created. Make sense?
> 
> Yes, all men have lied and that makes all men liars. Now the real question is who makes it a habit to lie? Who lives in lies?
> 
> ...


My bad, I thought you had details on how this would/could work, I didn't realize it was just a flight of fancy.

How can you decide who is a lying liar or just a liar? You are pretty funny with this stuff.

Difference is people still buy cars and I suspect the piano industry at its height was nothing compared to the auto industry. GM was poorly run, that is why the feds required a change at the top, the market wasn't shutting them out. shouldn't the example be similar in some way. If GW was alive today he would have teeth and a marriage license, see how that works?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I am against I.P. of any form.
> 
> - SirIrb


Why? Is it because you would have to ask/pay to use it?

This gets funnier and funnier, why would anyone develop anything if it could be copied in a second? Since there are no rules do they march right over and shoot the copier? (I had office space in my head when I typed that).


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

> GM failing would have been very bad.
> 
> Thems the breaks.
> 
> ...


New companies would come into existence. They would purchase the tooling etc and start new better run companies.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

People made things for thousands of years before the gvt got involved.



> I am against I.P. of any form.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Not a flight of fancy.

The gvt makes a habit of lying. I consider them liars. Some people try to live so that they are not constantly lying. Some choose to constantly lie. You going somewhere with this?

Not necessairly the industry in as much as a part of it. People said they didnt want GM cars because of their buying habits. The market spoke. Thats it. GM should have died right there.

The point is not what GW would have done (which is speculation on your part) but what he had to consider himself married.



> That was just an example. The problem is you want a "this is how it works because this is a place it did work" when not everything in existence has the precedent. Actually nothing had a precedent until it was created. Make sense?
> 
> Yes, all men have lied and that makes all men liars. Now the real question is who makes it a habit to lie? Who lives in lies?
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> New companies would come into existence. They would purchase the tooling etc and start new better run companies.
> 
> - waho6o9


I'm talking about the feeder plants. Ford could possibly go out of business because their feeders were taken down by GM (the largest auto maker) So even if you bought parts of GM where do you get parts to make cars from? This is heavy manufacturing here, not a piano company. I think it is naive to see GM as a "company" that is separate from all others it works with.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> People made things for thousands of years before the gvt got involved.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


Yes, they made things for thousands of years, so they could eat tomorrow. So this fantasy world is agrarian? We each have a plot of land that is our own little fiefdom? Do we have sons? Where do they go? Do I subdivide my land for them? (didn't work out too well in Ireland) If I keep it to myself where do they go? Dubious minds want to know. Please give some details as to how this might work?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Not a flight of fancy.
> 
> The gvt makes a habit of lying. I consider them liars. Some people try to live so that they are not constantly lying. Some choose to constantly lie. You going somewhere with this?
> 
> ...


If you can't tell us how it might work it is just a fantasy.

Also, your memory is faulty. Auto sales in 2008 were:

GM -22%
Ford -20%
Chrysler -30%
Toyota -15%
Honda -8%
Nissan -10%

Everyone was hurting. The "Market" you speak of was talking loudly to everyone and every industry "we have no money".

I'm sorry, but you are not convincing me of anything yet.

EDIT:

Forgot my link.

http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2009/01/2008-us-auto-sales-are-worst-since-1992.html


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Basically if you run your business in the ground, regardless of demand, you should not be in business. If the economy is bad and you dont have buyers then you should not be in business. If you are a cabinet maker and the economy is bad you go out of business. Are you anti-automation because robotics take the place of people? Or maybe you recognize that someone has to make the robots too so the labor is dispersed from the product that was made by hand to those who get employed to make the robots. This is just the way things run when the market isnt messed with.


> Not a flight of fancy.
> 
> The gvt makes a habit of lying. I consider them liars. Some people try to live so that they are not constantly lying. Some choose to constantly lie. You going somewhere with this?
> 
> ...


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

People arent working today so they can eat tomorrow? I think you are going on a bit of a journey to try to make this point.

Tell me, why must there be IP? Why the continuum problem of 20 years. Where is it holy writ that 20 years is the "just" time line for a patient to be good? It is a continuum problem for me. For one who believes in Malum In Se alone, throwing 20 years at something and just saying "because I said so" is no answer. And being pro IP, you should question why 20 years. If you are really a believer then why not the inventor's lifetime? Why not to the kids? Why not make it so that patients can be willed down as an inheritance?

None of it makes any sense to me. IP kills innovation. I have something like 10 patents. They were pulled in my name by the company I worked for at the time. So what? Did it keep Kenmore from infringing? Nope. I have spent countless hours engineering something to keep it from being infringed upon and countless hours reverse engineering something someone else made to get around the patent. Its a game.



> People made things for thousands of years before the gvt got involved.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Basically if you run your business in the ground, regardless of demand, you should not be in business. If the economy is bad and you dont have buyers then you should not be in business. If you are a cabinet maker and the economy is bad you go out of business. Are you anti-automation because robotics take the place of people? Or maybe you recognize that someone has to make the robots too so the labor is dispersed from the product that was made by hand to those who get employed to make the robots. This is just the way things run when the market isnt messed with.
> 
> - SirIrb


Well, that is just your opinion. Nothing factual proves or backs those opinions. I have asked for proof.

Are you ok with monopolies? That is the end result of free markets. That is a fact, look at the 1880s. Controls and regulations are there for a reason.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> People arent working today so they can eat tomorrow? I think you are going on a bit of a journey to try to make this point.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


Well, that just shows you aren't reading what I wrote. Up until about 100 years ago, most labor was for survival.

So what do they do with sons in your fantasy world?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I guess if you believe in jc, santa and the bunny you can also believe in global warming.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Monopolies can only exist where one can not, by force, compete in the free market. If that is how you see them then I am against them. Governments cause monopolies. Tell me where, sans government, a monopoly exists.

EDIT: Basically it is a barrier to entry. What is that barrier?-force. Who has that? Not Microsoft.


> Basically if you run your business in the ground, regardless of demand, you should not be in business. If the economy is bad and you dont have buyers then you should not be in business. If you are a cabinet maker and the economy is bad you go out of business. Are you anti-automation because robotics take the place of people? Or maybe you recognize that someone has to make the robots too so the labor is dispersed from the product that was made by hand to those who get employed to make the robots. This is just the way things run when the market isnt messed with.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Also, your memory is faulty. Auto sales in 2008 were:
> 
> GM -22%
> Ford -20%
> ...


Wow so in the market crash, when the housing bubble burst,....people couldn't take out a home equity loan to buy another Car/Boat/Timeshare?
My memory tells me that we GAVE billions to Avoid GM bankruptcy…. but then the did a bankruptcy anyway.

Got rid of Saturn, and Hummer, Pontiac and Oldsmobile are all gone…..

What exactly did the bailout "Prevent" 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101262120

Bankruptcy is NOT the same as Going out of business.
So we spent how many billions… to simply delay the bankruptcy anyway???


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Also, your memory is faulty. Auto sales in 2008 were:
> 
> GM -22%
> Ford -20%
> ...


We did it to prevent the domino affect on thousands of other companies. To save the auto industry, not one specific company.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Monopolies can only exist where one can not, by force, compete in the free market. If that is how you see them then I am against them. Governments cause monopolies. Tell me where, sans government, a monopoly exists.
> 
> EDIT: Basically it is a barrier to entry. What is that barrier?-force. Who has that? Not Microsoft.
> 
> - SirIrb


There are no places without government, and only a very few tiny cases ever existed, so that is a trick question.

Monopolies aren't a barrier to entry they are barriers to existence. A monopoly is the natural outcome of a free market. Accumulating market share is the motivating factor. Monopolies don't need to use force, they use leverage and in your fantasy world without laws the could use force as well.

Microsoft would buy any company that had a product they couldn't compete with. Bill Gates had to prop up Apple, so MS had some competition.

Companies can use leverage on suppliers, MS did this as well with PC manufacturers. If you only sell my stuff, I'll discount it. All to drive up market share and reduce competition. Then charge what they want. I guess because they have been outlawed so long (100 years) you don't really understand.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I guess if you believe in jc, santa and the bunny you can also believe in global warming.
> 
> - DKV


Another pearl!


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Thought you would like this. It covers how IP and 4 other factors, cause monopoly.
https://mises.org/library/five-ways-create-monopoly



> Monopolies can only exist where one can not, by force, compete in the free market. If that is how you see them then I am against them. Governments cause monopolies. Tell me where, sans government, a monopoly exists.
> 
> EDIT: Basically it is a barrier to entry. What is that barrier?-force. Who has that? Not Microsoft.
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I realize you believe all this stuff, however I refute this first line as infantile. The whole article is snarky and one sided. Let me rephrase the entire site: regulation bad, freedom good.

*It's hard to maintain monopoly status in a free market when you have to deal with all that competition and whatnot.*

I realize now, to you a monopoly is a government controlled/granted entity. That is one of the three types of monopoly. Perhaps you should look up a natural monopoly. How can we discus your misconceptions if you don't use standard English?

Let me help you with a link…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Since I have been away for the holiday weekend I see this topic has veered off course quite a bit into the nut patch.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Indeed Pat!


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

SirLib;

Than you for the Mises.org site. What a well of knowledge.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Since I have been away for the holiday weekend I see this topic has veered off course quite a bit into the nut patch.
> 
> - patcollins


Guilty as charged.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

I'm talking about the feeder plants. Ford could possibly go out of business

O ye of little Faith


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> I think you missed the point.
> NASA and the rest you mentioned were funded through money that was stolen from you and me. Some people go around and are proud to be victims in this manner. I for one am not. On top of that I will never believe what a thief tells me just because he has some educated people in his employ.
> 
> Governments throughout history have said many things which many at the time thought were great ideas but after time those same governments are seen as they truly are: liars.
> ...


SirIrb, I am curious do you think all taxes are stolen money, do you just object to the amount taken, or the fact that you don't get to choose exactly what they go toward?

I am not one against religion, but I believe religion has killed more than governments btw.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Any money that is taken without my consent is theft.

Religion has killed much, historically. But as of today where most of us live, to be part of an organized religion is a choice and choice is the key. If they get in bed with the government then they are just as bad as Boeing doing the same. I say that as one who dislikes religion but has a relationship with Jesus. There is a difference. Religion is man made, faith, to me, is not.

What do you call money taken from you without your consent?



> I think you missed the point.
> NASA and the rest you mentioned were funded through money that was stolen from you and me. Some people go around and are proud to be victims in this manner. I for one am not. On top of that I will never believe what a thief tells me just because he has some educated people in his employ.
> 
> Governments throughout history have said many things which many at the time thought were great ideas but after time those same governments are seen as they truly are: liars.
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> We did it to prevent the domino affect on thousands of other companies. To save the auto industry, not one specific company.
> 
> - RobS888


Prove that….

There was no domino effect from shuttering the operations that ultimately were closed as part of the bankruptcy

So Why didn't we just do the Reorganization on day 3

The bailouts did NOTHING to prevent the bankruptcy.

the domino effect is just some 'sky is falling BS' just like the TARP bailout of the banks… with a hollow claim that "it would have been worse if we didn't do it" and there is ZERO proof that would be the case… just some talking points.

The bailouts were a boon for the Car Companies and Banking sector. My 401K still dropped ~40%, so how was any of that stuff "good" for us?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We did it to prevent the domino affect on thousands of other companies. To save the auto industry, not one specific company.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


I guess since I grew up just outside of Detroit I see it differently than you guys. So many companies depend on making parts for the auto companies that a major collapse in Ford or GM would probably collapse the entire industry.

*Dr Dirt, you are correct there was no domino effect! It was prevented.*

What did GM do with all that money? They paid bills. I know that Ford went from 14 million units/month to 10 million units/month 90 days later. This was part of the problem I guess with the bidness model they use, they have massive numbers of parts arriving on JIT schedule.

I don't believe the lines that were shutdown had their own vertical organization, meaning they had their own plants and suppliers. At one time GM had the camaro, trans am, firebird, and something called the type LT that were pretty much the same car with different trim lines.

Let me give you an example: Mazda used to make the MX-6 and the Ford Probe on the same assembly line. 3 days they made Probes, 2 days they made MX-6s. They weren't different plants even though they were technically different companies. I believe the lines they shut down were far less significant than it may appear.

But think about where $50 billion went? GM paid it back pretty quickly once people started buying cars, but do you think the feeder companies could absorb that much loss?

The bailouts were to say the industry, I believe and not just GM. A boon seems like you come out way ahead, I don't see how GM came out ahead? Ford was happy they didn't lose their suppliers, but where is the boon?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I'm talking about the feeder plants. Ford could possibly go out of business
> 
> O ye of little Faith
> 
> - waho6o9


Correct, I have zero faith.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I guess since I grew up just outside of Detroit I see it differently than you guys. So many companies depend on making parts for the auto companies that a major collapse in Ford or GM would probably collapse the entire industry.
> 
> *Dr Dirt, you are correct there was no domino effect! It was prevented.*
> 
> - RobS888


Nothing was prevented.
Those same suppliers, like Takata, DANA, supply the other automakers as well.
TOTAL car sales would be the same in teh US whether GM made any or not. NOBODY sat and said….gee if GM goes under, and I cannot buy a Chevy Volt (cough cough).... I will just sit on my hands and buy nothing.

So in NET the suppliers will sell EXACTLY the same number of tires, Airbags, Axles in direct proportion to the number of auto sales - - not whether the Kansas City Truck plant is fully occupied.
The guy that was *going to buy* a Silverado… will instead buy an F150, or Ram 1500, or Nissan Titan (All made in the USA)

The Jobs saved is based on this flawed BS…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/autos-bailout-study-idUSL1N0JO0XU20131209
CAR estimated that a complete shutdown of the industry that was bailed out in 2009 would have resulted in the loss of 2.63 million jobs and those losses would still have stood at more than 1.5 million in 2010. If only GM had been shut down, the job losses would have been almost 1.2 million in 2009, shrinking to 675,000 in 2010.

I see it is a challenge, but GM going bankrupt (Which they did even after TARP) is not the same as *"a complete shutdown of the industry"* That these gloom and doom prophecies were made from.

In the end - GM restructured. and the Government "We the People" lost 10 billion dollars

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/09/government-treasury-gm-general-motors-tarp-bailout-exit-sale/3925515/

So the 10 billion was simply money down the toilet NEVER TO BE PAID BACK… like repaving an air force runway and closing the base 3 months later…. but touting the construction jobs.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I guess since I grew up just outside of Detroit I see it differently than you guys. So many companies depend on making parts for the auto companies that a major collapse in Ford or GM would probably collapse the entire industry.
> 
> *Dr Dirt, you are correct there was no domino effect! It was prevented.*
> 
> ...


I don't see what people would have purchased later has to do with this. How does Ford build a car when the company that makes acoustic lining goes out of business because GM owes them 10 million dollars? Ford has to stop production to find a new supplier… if they can find one quickly.

All the auto companies were hurting. GM owed 18 billion dollars to suppliers in June 2009. They were 192 Billion in debt.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/19/news/companies/gm_other_supplier/

GM owed HP 17 million and millions to utility companies everywhere they had physical plants. This way bigger than you guys understand.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I don t see what people would have purchased later has to do with this. How does Ford build a car when the company that makes acoustic lining goes out of business because GM owes them 10 million dollars? Ford has to stop production to find a new supplier… if they can find one quickly.
> 
> All the auto companies were hurting. GM owed 18 billion dollars to suppliers in June 2009. They were 192 Billion in debt.
> 
> ...


No…....... the problem is far less complex than you want to make it out to be.

Those 'Creditors largely lost what they were owed when GM went into bankruptcy… WHich Tarp was going to prevent… since your memory is a bit selective.

So the creditors got pennies on the dollar. Which is EXACTLY what they would have gotten if there weren't a bailout.

You are using the typical 'All or Nothing' argument…. Not unlike the IRS lawyers, the creditors end up SETTLING, not closing.
They would not have gotten a 100% loss. and DIDN'T get 100% of their accounts payable.

The claim the suppliers would go under is pure fantasy - because the market still existed, wheter GM was there or not.

GM filed bankruptcy anyway….. the Bailout didn't PREVENT that, as promised.

But hey god forbid the Government cannot deliver on thier promises that taking 787 billion from China + the Printing presses cranking out monopoly money, and simultaneously zeroing out the private investors and institutional retirement funds that held GM stock, represented a 'investment'

Somehow when you said….


> Correct, I have zero faith.
> 
> - RobS888


I presume you don't mean in our "benevolent" government riding in on a white horse saying "we are from the government and we are here to help".


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Any money that is taken without my consent is theft.
> 
> Religion has killed much, historically. But as of today where most of us live, to be part of an organized religion is a choice and choice is the key. If they get in bed with the government then they are just as bad as Boeing doing the same. I say that as one who dislikes religion but has a relationship with Jesus. There is a difference. Religion is man made, faith, to me, is not.
> 
> What do you call money taken from you without your consent?


Part of living in a government is paying for the things that it's constitution has authorized it to have power over. I think there are a lot of things the government is into that are not constitutional but defense and infrastructure certainly are constitutional powers of the federal government.

I am pretty sure Somalia has no taxes, but I am guessing you quite enjoy the benefits of a national defense and infrastructure.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

But do you argue that any money taken from you without your consent is theft?

I own land here justly. And we are trying to establish who justly should have control. So the "love it or leave it" argument, which seems to be the direction you are heading, begs the question. I didnt authorize them to control me or my land.

This brings about the constitution being a social contract argument. A legal contract, to have any teeth, has to be agreed upon by the binding parties. I can not submit my son to a contract. Likewise a bunch of guys who came up with the constitution can not hold their wishes over on me in a legal and binding way. Remember, I am talking about what is just, not what is practiced.

EDIT:
Just as a thought experiment, why dont you and I write up a constitution and start taxing people we placed under our control. We set the borders (imaginary lines) of our neighborhood as our country and then tell people if they dont pay us we will place them in a cage? That is the same as the Mafia but without the cage option. Which is the same as the gvt. I submit to you if this example fails then the concept of gvt fails. They are one in the same.

You may say that the u.s. gvt is here and this is their land. But is it? The gvt doesnt produce anything. Therefore anything they have bought they bought with stolen funds. What they say they "own" land wise was first owned by others. Not all of who had a choice in letting the gvt take their land. This leads to ownership by might. There is nothing right about that. That is the same as you seeing a nice 70" tv at your neighbors house and taking it because you can.



> Any money that is taken without my consent is theft.
> 
> Religion has killed much, historically. But as of today where most of us live, to be part of an organized religion is a choice and choice is the key. If they get in bed with the government then they are just as bad as Boeing doing the same. I say that as one who dislikes religion but has a relationship with Jesus. There is a difference. Religion is man made, faith, to me, is not.
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> No…....... the problem is far less complex than you want to make it out to be.
> 
> Those Creditors largely lost what they were owed when GM went into bankruptcy… WHich Tarp was going to prevent… since your memory is a bit selective.
> 
> ...


We shall have to agree to disagree…again.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> But do you argue that any money taken from you without your consent is theft?
> 
> I own land here justly. And we are trying to establish who justly should have control. So the "love it or leave it" argument, which seems to be the direction you are heading, begs the question. I didnt authorize them to control me or my land.
> 
> ...


Wrong approach, the people came together (well the male landowners at least) and decided to have a government. Totally different than it being thrust upon them. They as a group had a choice. You are part of that group now, well the whinging part at least.
Think of it as collective bargaining. Until the group decides to change you have to tow the line. Taxes are not theft.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Ok, that sounds fair. 
So if I make up my own "government" and thrust it upon everyone else that is fair? All I need, based on your logic, are 40 people who agree with me. There goes the whole concept of majority rule.



> But do you argue that any money taken from you without your consent is theft?
> 
> I own land here justly. And we are trying to establish who justly should have control. So the "love it or leave it" argument, which seems to be the direction you are heading, begs the question. I didnt authorize them to control me or my land.
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Ok, that sounds fair.
> So if I make up my own "government" and thrust it upon everyone else that is fair? All I need, based on your logic, are 40 people who agree with me. There goes the whole concept of majority rule.
> 
> - SirIrb


Read carefully. In the case of the US, each state sent reps. The reps decided on the type of government, the people accepted what they did. It is binding on all that live here. Rejecting it and insulting it means nothing.

It was majority rule for those allowed to vote. Fortunately, (at the moment) most adults can vote in the US, so yes majority rules via their elected reps. That is a representative democracy.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Actually the u.s. is a republic not a rep democracy. The little jingle we were taught in school makes that clear.

So if we made "states" of neighborhoods and sent one person from each neighborhood to represent those in the neighborhood, doesnt matter if they like it or not, then we are kosher?

I still see it as quite flawed because I didnt choose to send anyone. The constitution is totally irrelevant even if it is followed to the letter. I never signed it. How is it binding on me? my presence here is not the same as consent when we are arguing the relevance of who has the right to be here-me or the gvt.


> Ok, that sounds fair.
> So if I make up my own "government" and thrust it upon everyone else that is fair? All I need, based on your logic, are 40 people who agree with me. There goes the whole concept of majority rule.
> 
> - SirIrb
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Actually the u.s. is a republic not a rep democracy. The little jingle we were taught in school makes that clear.
> 
> So if we made "states" of neighborhoods and sent one person from each neighborhood to represent those in the neighborhood, doesnt matter if they like it or not, then we are kosher?
> 
> ...


You don't even understand what a democracy is, what is the point of continuing? I can't help you.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Is that how you handle being kindly corrected?



> Actually the u.s. is a republic not a rep democracy. The little jingle we were taught in school makes that clear.
> 
> So if we made "states" of neighborhoods and sent one person from each neighborhood to represent those in the neighborhood, doesnt matter if they like it or not, then we are kosher?
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Is that how you handle being kindly corrected?
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


Again, you are using words you don't seem to understand.

Here are a few of the words you seem to be confused about: Taxes, theft, slavery, monopoly, democracy, republic, & corrected.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Can we move forward?

"… we regard the terms "republic" and "representative democracy" as being interchangeable, as does the political science literature. They are a form of democracy distinct from another form known as direct democracy. A number of years ago I coauthored a college textbook with professors Alan Rosenthal, Burdett Loomis and John Hibbing, Republic on Trial: The Case for Representative Democracy. Here is what we said in the first paragraph of that book:

'After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the framers had produced. "A republic if you can keep it," he replied. The American republic is synonymous with representative democracy, the political system through which citizens govern themselves.

Representative democracy is democratic in that the people have the power to choose those who govern; it is representative in that the people themselves do not govern but leave governance to the agents they elect. The engines of representative democracy are Congress at the national level and legislatures at the state level, with the executive and judicial branches playing important supporting roles.'"

http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2011/09/republic-or-representative-democracy.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Nevermind.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

This is neither enlightening nor entertaining anymore. This thread started out with information and dialog, but is now rhetorical one-upsmanship. Contrarianism isn't a virtue.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Nevermind 2


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> But do you argue that any money taken from you without your consent is theft?
> 
> I own land here justly. And we are trying to establish who justly should have control. So the "love it or leave it" argument, which seems to be the direction you are heading, begs the question. I didnt authorize them to control me or my land.
> 
> ...


Who is to say that land is yours? What if I showed up with a backhoe and just stared building on it?

I am also not going down the love it or leave it route, I am just pointing out what the alternative looks like. Anarchists are exactly like communists, they think it is a great system even though it has never worked anywhere in practice only in their heads and they always think that it will work if it is done "their" way.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes Pat, oh so true. Lenin promised to end the things the Tsars did and as soon as the revolution was over started the horror story we all are familiar with.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Getting back to the original topic of Climate Change, and the assertion that scientifically valid dissenting opinions have been effectively censored from the literature, here is one example from the field of political science where a single dissenting voice eventually demonstrated that a significant result had been fabricated:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/01/gay_marriage_study_faked_how_grad_student_david_broockman_uncovered_a_huge.html

This is a great example because it is sure to evoke conformation bias in all but the most careful. On the one hand a single young researcher did in fact bring down a widely accepted but fraudulent result. On the other hand this researcher was advised, over and over again, to ignore his suspicions about the work. Absolutely no question there are huge pressures in science to "go with the flow". But also, no question, there are at least the occasional geek that simply can't help themselves and compulsively pick at a question independent of whether that is good for themselves or not.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Great article!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Greg - indeed saw that article. Noted as well that he already had a tenure slot at stanford before he actually published this… so it was harder to blacklist him and relegate him to being a Starbucks Barista forever.

Found this part espeically accurate to how AGW has a "science consensus… we know best argument just as in this case" 
This concept of invoking authority… as people puff out and thump their chests about the degree they hold, as a reason you should just sit back and be quiet.

"So when he and I really had a disagreement, he would often rely on the kind of arguments where he'd basically invoke authority, right? He's the one with advanced training, and his adviser is this very high-powered, very experienced person [Lynn Vavreck, his Ph.D. adviser at UCLA], and they know a lot more than we do." (Vavreck said she couldn't comment because of UCLA's ongoing investigation of LaCour's conduct.)

So LaCour was always able to *dissuade people from looking too closely,* from asking follow-up questions.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> This concept of invoking authority… as people puff out and thump their chests about the degree they hold, as a reason you should just sit back and be quiet.
> 
> - DrDirt


I have met a few "researchers" that act exactly that way but I can't think of an example of anyone getting very far with this strategy. In the end that only slowed down Brookman a couple of years during which he was very busy with other stuff. This strategy works better for a services vendor that claims they have some magic sauce that enables them to divine (at a premium price) all the mysteries of the universe from a tiny nit of questionable "data".

But the AWG web sites that I have visited recently aren't doing this. By contrast, they provide a fair bit of detail and references. The story seems to hang together, in general; it seems plausible. Whether it is probable depends on the details, and I am still trying to identify the details that are both critical to the story and vulnerable to challenge.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Getting back to the original topic of Climate Change, and the assertion that scientifically valid dissenting opinions have been effectively censored from the literature, here is one example from the field of political science where a single dissenting voice eventually demonstrated that a significant result had been fabricated:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/01/gay_marriage_study_faked_how_grad_student_david_broockman_uncovered_a_huge.html
> 
> ...


The worst thing about fake data etc is that even if your conclusion is correct, or it was done for the "right" reasons etc nobody will ever believe it again. Of course it is better for the earth if we use less oil etc, I just think there are those that would exaggerate, see what they want to see, and even fabricate for "the greater good". [Read why every result of global warming is bad and nobody ever says anything that could be good about it].

Often there is great pressure to get the results that are expected, the results that tow the party line etc. The literature may not expressively be the censoring factor but a scientists boss wanting particular results.

This is one reason why I am suspect of things I read.


----------



## warrenski (May 31, 2015)

The first scientific article to predict the significant climatological impacts of burning fossil fuels for energy was written in 1890. Big money (AKA energy sector) has spent 125 years trying to debunk what is now an immense-overwhelming, really-body of proof of human impacts on climate change.

Some of the weaker-minded now adhere to the notion that because there has always been climate change and we can't accurately partial out the impact of human activity, it can't matter.

A key measureable variable in climate change is atmospheric CO2. During the carboniferous era plant and animal growth locked a huge amount of the carbon into the soil (coal, oil, tar sands). That allowed the global cooling that gave rise-much later-to mammals.

Now we have a species of mammal that is re-releasing that carbon-in fact, has located most of it globally-and is pumping 10s of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. Appetite for bigger, faster and easier seems quite normal, and since it is the norm, the appetite alone is considered an entitlement and justifies the practice.

We had flat-earthers for centuries after Magellan's crew first circumnavigated the globe. Today (centuries after Jenner's 1798 invention of smallpox vaccine) we have anti-vaccinationists. After over 150 years of virtually uncontested, world-wide scientific confirmation we even have evolution deniers, Climate change deniers are just the latest crop of silly buggers.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The worst thing about fake data etc is that even if your conclusion is correct, or it was done for the "right" reasons etc nobody will ever believe it again. - patcollins


That is why there really is no such thing as Faking it for the right reasons. If you are faking it you are doing it wrong.

Otherwise, one could argue that Pons and Fleishmans research on Cold Fusion was "for the right reasons"....we want clean abundant power, but their data was debunked, and anyone that dares say Cold Fusion in a grant proposal is laughed out of the department.

Have to stay with the tried and true "Honesty is the best policy" If your data don't stand up to scrutiny on their own the deserve to fail.

In the end… "the ends do NOT justify the means"

ANd flying around in your gulfstream and buying 'carbon offsets' is just giving money to wall street, and not doing anything about actually polluting less. It is just a tax deduction for fat cats, to get them in the good graces of the NGO's for their monetary contributions.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

While there is always some non-zero possibility that the overwhelming majority of the climate science community has the science wrong due to some conspiracy, there is no question that entities with substantial economic interest in continued CO2 emissions have been actively funding activities to slant the popular discussion in their preferred direction:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Here is a clear reason to be suspect of a lot of content on one side of the question; much of it is nothing but marketing and has no relevance whatsoever to the veracity of current climate change theory.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

After following this thread I have to say no one has changed my opinion.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> After following this thread I have to say no one has changed my opinion.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


I seriously doubt anyone has changed anyone's opinion. I believe this, as well as many charged topics, is a visceral reaction and no amount of "talk" can change that reaction. We find reasons to explain how we feel about the topic. We just "know" something is wrong almost instantly, far too fast for data to assist in the reaction.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Here is a clear reason to be suspect of a lot of content on one side of the question; much of it is nothing but marketing and has no relevance whatsoever to the veracity of current climate change theory.
> 
> - GregD


 I Love it… the Drexel study (funded by the government and published in Climactic Change) is evidence that the source of the money… is the CLEAR REASON TO SUSPECT the results…..

Yet those flat earth deniers that point tothe UN purveyors of Carbon trading schemes and government funding….. is "nothing to see here, move along"

Both of the above is about "buying results" that support your cause.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I Love it… the Drexel study (funded by the government and published in Climactic Change) is evidence that the source of the money… is the CLEAR REASON TO SUSPECT the results…..
> 
> Yet those flat earth deniers that point tothe UN purveyors of Carbon trading schemes and government funding….. is "nothing to see here, move along"
> 
> ...


Is your point that the linked study found "the Kochs and Exxon were the major dark money contributors" is not correct? This is a financial study, not a carbon study or UN anything.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I Love it… the Drexel study (funded by the government and published in Climactic Change) is evidence that the source of the money… is the CLEAR REASON TO SUSPECT the results…..
> 
> Yet those flat earth deniers that point tothe UN purveyors of Carbon trading schemes and government funding….. is "nothing to see here, move along"
> 
> ...


I don't understand the source of your confidence that that government is singularly focused on promoting one side of the question. But if that is the case then it is certainly appropriate to watch for bias in the results. But do you challenge this remark from the content:

*Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.*

I think it is pretty clear that ExxonMobil funded what was essentially an advertising campaign to promote one side of the climate change question. They made no effort to hide these activities and the CEO at the time was quite vocal about his position. More recently the CEO has changed and the company is no longer overtly anti-current-climate-science-theory. Speculation about what ExxonMobil is doing currently may be biased by the funding source of the investigator, but that doesn't change the well established history: ExxonMobil was overtly marketing one side of the climate science question.

It is my understanding that Koch even now is overtly "climate change is bunk". Like ExxonMobil, in the past they made no effort to hide their funding of "climate change is bunk" marketing campaign. That fact is beyond the scope of whatever bias the investigator may have. Whether they are continuing this funding covertly is a open question and the investigator's bias could indeed influence the investigator's assessment.

ExxonMobil previously, and Koch even now, are clearly on one side of this issue. Their economic interest is clearly on that one side of the issue. By comparison I see very little indication that the US government has such a clear bias on this issue.

There is no question that some of the "climate change is bunk" content in the public sphere is marketing material funded by Koch and ExxonMobil. The point, which you completely avoid, is that such content makes absolutely no substantive contribution to a meaningful analysis of whether climate change is bunk or real. A general impression of climate change based on casual listening to mass media is not reliable; biased parties have spent money to promote their view. The true answer can only be determined from working the details of the data.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The bureaucracy always expands to been the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

The government regulators are about CONTROL, to make choices for you.

When you look at the news and evidence… it is always that teh USA is responsible for global warming. Some point out the rapid expansion of Coal in China and India for power, and how their pollution blows away what the US produces.

However still all efforts at Kyoto or Copenhagen, exempt the BRIC (Brazil Russia India and China)....Hmmm thought there was a GLOBAL climate change issue.

As such all the data is skewed and used to "push the US off the cliff" 
Obama supports this, and despises the idea of the USA being in a position as a superpower, and repeatedly wants us to be "Just one of 190 other countries"

Thus you will find that most of teh climate research is paid for Through US global initiatives and the UN which all want control.

The Government today is as Benevolent as Andrew Jackson was to the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears.

Not saying teh Koch or Exxon funded research is lilly pure…. but I do not take/accept the contrarian view that everything the government does is about rainbows and unicorn tears, and just all for our own good. WHile I am not building some doom bunker, I don't believe the government represents us any longer, and have suspicion regarding their selective funding based on their history of "protecting us"

Here are a few historical actions for government funded science
---------------------------

http://www.bbsradio.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/archive_config.pl?md=read;id=2351
1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occurred within poverty-stricken black populations.

1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. *Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg* cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.

1942 Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty. 
lets stick more recent:

1987 Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation.

1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

1994 With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.

1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War .

1995 U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research.

1995 Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections.

1996 Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents.

1997 Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Both of the above is about "buying results" that support your cause.
> 
> - DrDirt


Yes, if it happened it must at least be possible.

However, the logical flaw that you work to death is the presumption that because something does happen implies without question that it must always happen. This is a great marketing technique. Scientifically, it is complete BS, as I'm sure you know well. It would seem that when you use this flawed logic you do not even intend your remarks to reflect an objective view of the topic.

As a counter example, please know that I work for a major oil company, as I have for my entire career. My *entire livelihood* is directly funded by the activity causing global climate change. If enough people stop buying oil I'm out of a job, and possibly it could even bankrupt my pension.

And yet I advocate that people examine the evidence objectively and clearly. I'm not really sure how much confidence is appropriate to place on current climate change theory. I have found that the sampling of arguments I have reviewed supporting current climate change theory fare much better in my critical review than the arguments against. Unfortunately, most of the arguments against current climate change theory that I have seen seem to be articulated by technical lightweights. I have not yet found the technically competent sources that can skillfully articulate the critical weaknesses of current climate change theory.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Here are a few historical actions for government funded science
> ---------------------------
> 
> - DrDirt


I like your list. Many harsh truths that we should always be mindful of.

But I find you extrapolate to conclusions that are not supported by this data.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

*"Here are a few historical actions for government funded science"*

If only there were some good science they did as well!

You can't blame the entire US government for those actions.

*"The Government today is as Benevolent as Andrew Jackson was to the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears."*
This is way over the top, thousands of natives died being moved. For a similar affect the US government would need to kill or allow to die via exposure and disease…at least *45million people*. Vivid! Not even close to being applicable, but definitely vivid. That just isn't enough to discredit the US involvement in science.

If I may paraphrase Greg D…Your conclusions are cray-cray.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

DrDirt,

I just don't understand how you can ignore so much data.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

You both ignore the actual point.

You want to attack the skeptics because the proponents/oponents have a vested interest.

The funders of the climate control movement also have a vested interest, that is NOT about health or welfare of citizens

So one group funds research to say the sky is falling to take control, and build power and influence as they "dole out what rights you will have"

The other group funds research that mostly just asks questions… rather than 'disproving', because…. wait for it…. they are protecting their livlihoods, power, influence.

Which group is the right or wrong one?

Interesting news this morning - - in Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2664.html
News report 
*Climate change brings needed rain to Africa*
Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time, but has been the source of intense debate in recent years. In the case of the Sahel area of Africa, climate change means 4 more inches of desperately-needed rainfall per year than in the past, according to a new study by climatologists in the Journal Nature Climate Change. The main cause of the increase is rising greenhouse gas emissions, it finds.

The Sahel is an area about four times the size of Texas that stretches across Africa along the southern edge of the Sahara Desert. Past droughts in the area that killed thousands prompted the Live Aid concert in 1985 to fund relief efforts.

*Some climate experts say this and other positive effects of CO2 emissions are too often ignored.*

-----------------------
Suppose it begs the question - - - IS CHANGE UNIVERSALLY BAD? 
is STOPPING the climate from changing, the answer to the worlds problems? Or are we in a better position to adapt, recognizing that the CHANGE…. helps some places and hurts others.

This goes to the heart of "what should we do".... does moving the USA to 1990 emissions levels, while the rest of the world continues to expand the use of brown energy, actually ACCOMPLISH anything?

it is like sitting in a cigar bar, clouded with smoke, and claiming you are healthy because you personally didn't have a cigar in your hand. We are all breathing, using, feeling the same air. Weather and atmosphere have no borders.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> This goes to the heart of "what should we do".... does moving the USA to 1990 emissions levels, while the rest of the world continues to expand the use of brown energy, actually ACCOMPLISH anything?
> 
> - DrDirt


We talk about income disparity in the US and the folks that want the minimum wage raised ignore the fact that those on minimum wage here still have it far better than those in the countries that use "brown" energy. The UN is all for the US giving up a piece of its pie to the rest of the world, when they talk about income disparity they don't mean within the US, they mean between the US and other western countries and the 3rd world.

This is one of the easiest ways there is to accomplish it.

The UN always wants the US and other western countries to enter into agreements with third world countries that they know will break the agreements anyway but the western nations will not. (Land mines was one such treaty). This is what you get when they put someone like Qaddafi in positions such as head of the human rights commission.

Whenever someone tells me something is for my own good I am always suspicious of if to some extent, who the messenger is and how they can benefit determines how much.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> You both ignore the actual point.
> 
> You want to attack the skeptics because the proponents/oponents have a vested interest.
> 
> ...


I think *you* miss the point; at least my point.

I want to attack no one. There is no "them", there is only "us" and for better or worse we are all in this together. I want a substantive public discussion based on the best available analysis of the best available data in the naive belief that such a process will produce a result closer to the least-worst outcome than the most-worst outcome.

When we start having that discussion the actors on both sides of the question promoting their self interest over everything else will be more readily exposed.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I think *you* miss the point; at least my point.
> 
> I want to attack no one. There is no "them", there is only "us" and for better or worse we are all in this together. I want a substantive public discussion based on the best available analysis of the best available data in the naive belief that such a process will produce a result closer to the least-worst outcome than the most-worst outcome.
> 
> ...


This I agree with, but if you look at your posts, it is always that the Government is right…. and that the skeptics are wrong… not for their science, nor questions, but BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING SOURCE….

In your post #253 you say "Here is a clear reason to be suspect of a lot of content on *one side of the question*; much of it is nothing but marketing and has no relevance whatsoever to the veracity of current climate change theory."

So I read that as "ONLY" one side is suspect, because they have a vested interest… which subsequently posits the idea that the OTHER side must be sacrosanct.

That is hipocritical… dollars are not inherently good nor evil, but EVERYONE that is funding science is not doing so for Altruistic purposes.
Nor are they doing it because the want to destroy the planet.

there is a middle ground…. and not the White hat versus the Black hat positions. Fortunately/unfortunately…. the world is actually a gray area.

We should endeavor to be less impactful.
Buying and selling carbon credits is not an environmental solution, it is a way for bankers to 'skim' the economy for money, and for the same fatcats to BUY the right to pollute using offsets.

So the policy proposal actually makes inequality WORSE. Heading towards a Hunger Games kind of society where a bunch of freaks inside the beltway live like the roman senate, while the rest of the country burns and toils to support thier opulent lifestyles - - - because they can AFFORD to pollute, travel by SUV and LIMO and Chartered Gulfstream… everyone else should live in a Yurt and cook over a bull chip fire.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *Which group is the right or wrong one?*
> The one that actually describes what is happening, not the ones trying to maintain their jobs.
> 
> *Suppose it begs the question - - - IS CHANGE UNIVERSALLY BAD?
> ...


Of course not, Alaska and Canada will become more temperate. That is good for them. The rest of the country may become hotter and drier.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> This I agree with, but if you look at your posts, it is always that the Government is right…. and that the skeptics are wrong… not for their science, nor questions, but BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING SOURCE….
> 
> - DrDirt


So let's not do that going forward and focus instead on the science and the questions.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We talk about income disparity in the US and the folks that want the minimum wage raised ignore the fact that those on minimum wage here still have it far better than those in the countries that use "brown" energy. The UN is all for the US giving up a piece of its pie to the rest of the world, when they talk about income disparity they don t mean within the US, they mean between the US and other western countries and the 3rd world.
> 
> This is one of the easiest ways there is to accomplish it.
> 
> ...


That is a reasonable approach to anything, Pat.

I have to say though that people in other countries having it worse than here isn't the question. It is all relative. I heard someone on FOX Noise saying poor people here have Refrigerators and phones! Try renting an apartment without a fridge. Not doing something because other countries don't is a chicken way out.

I suspect most of us try to live our lives to our own standards. Within the US we should do that as well. It doesn't matter what China does as long as we do what we feel is proper within our borders. I don't like us attacking others all the time, so we could start to work with companies that follow our lead on the economy. Our companies benefit from the lax Chinese policies, so they should have to follow US regulations wherever they are. If you are incorporated here you follow the rules all the time.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> In your post #253 you say "Here is a clear reason to be suspect of a lot of content on one side of the question; much of it is nothing but marketing and has no relevance whatsoever to the veracity of current climate change theory."
> 
> So I read that as "ONLY" one side is suspect, because they have a vested interest… which subsequently posits the idea that the OTHER side must be sacrosanct.
> - DrDirt


You do that all the time. If I complain about Republicans you try to obfuscate by talking about Dems. You can't seem to just settle a topic. Especially without these vivid projections. Hunger games, are you kidding. I hope so.

I just read that we don't have on-line tax filing (having a pre-filled form we just approve or modify as needed) because of Tax preparation companies lobbying against it. That is a case of fat cats maintaining their income instead of what would probably be better for the whole country. The climate debate is the same. It is barely discernible as a gray issue when 98% of the color is white and only 2% is black.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Getting back to the science and questions…

Climate science and climate change are large complicated topics. There are probably many different opinions on the best way to characterize the "crux" of the matter. Indeed there are likely several critical points at issue.

At this moment, for me, the "hockey stick" seems to be one critical point at issue:









This plot comes from the pro-climate-change-is-real site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

The features of this temperature reconstruction that, from what I can tell, are used by the "climate change is real" group to support their most important conclusions are:

1. The dramatic change in the slope of temperature vs. time starting in about 1900.
2. The factors capable of driving climate change that were/are at play over this entire time period.

The most important question is whether the dramatic change in the slope of temperature vs. time starting in about 1900 is real or is an artifact of issues with the reconstruction. The most certain data used by the reconstruction are the actual temperature measurements since 1900, and likely older data is more uncertain than recent data. The least certain data are the temperature "proxies" used to estimate temperature changes prior to 1900.

This result has been challenged in the literature. If you want to gain an appreciation for the science, go to the web page which provides references and read the papers. The easier question to consider is what, if anything, the underlying data observations tell us about average global temperature. The harder question to consider is what are the different ways that characteristics of the average global temperature could have been different from the reconstruction while still being consistent with the underlying data, and what is the likelihood that it happened that way.

I think it is most appropriate to defer question #2 above until after full consideration of question #1.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> It is barely discernible as a gray issue when 98% of the color is white and only 2% is black.
> 
> - RobS888


Aren't you exaggerating? I thought the studies supported 97% and 3%.
<grin>


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

How much of this goes without detection?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I just found this - very interesting indeed. Started out about concerns of global warning and has taken many turns since.

Global warming - in a fashion - is real. I am from the Cleveland area (yes, I got over it). 25,000 years ago, my house would have been under 5-10 miles of ice - hard to heat. At the same time, it is thought that Antarctica was lush and green. That has taken 25,000 years of change - tectonic plate movement, magnetic pole changes, some serious volcanoes, maybe a meteor or 2, maybe more. There has been testing from samples at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that indicates levels of acid rain that would burn your skin - millions of years ago - but my bet that it had nothing to do with our factories or car exhaust.

Here's my point - the idea that whatever graphing, charting, and data that we have amassed over the last 200 or so years could indicate a change that could (if we put in terms of a person) leave a scar, could be a pimple that lasts 24 hours of earth time (or 1.5 seconds), could even be a death sentence - or merely a bruise from a bump. We don't know, we do not have data to make certain of anything because we don't have a million plus years of data to correlate.

We do know that change is inevitable. What that change will be has yet to be determined. Whether people live through it, we will see - but the earth will live on. People have the ability to destroy all the people on the earth but they cannot kill the earth. Then again, a well placed meteor of the right size can do it overnight. All life on this planet is actually very fragile.

I do not lose sleep over it, and love to make sawdust - but it is fascinating. Am I crazy about it no, do I think we should be responsible, absolutely, do i think that we should change varnish, refrigeration , and everything else - no. Are these things done to control and exploit - absolutely.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

One more thing - did research on West Virginia. When it was clear cut (all the trees cut down for lumber), Harper's Ferry would flood - up to 20+ feet in some cases. Now that we have replanted WV and have been responsible about lumber in the state, when we had 17" of rain, Harper's Ferry did not flood. Could we have a rain that does cause flooding - sure, but if we think before being stupid, we actually can take care of what we have.

Extremes in anything tend to give us the biggest problems. Balance is a good thing.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It is barely discernible as a gray issue when 98% of the color is white and only 2% is black.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


That one percent error ruins our entire argument!


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I just found this - very interesting indeed. Started out about concerns of global warning and has taken many turns since.
> 
> Global warming - in a fashion - is real. I am from the Cleveland area (yes, I got over it). 25,000 years ago, my house would have been under 5-10 miles of ice - hard to heat. At the same time, it is thought that Antarctica was lush and green. That has taken 25,000 years of change - tectonic plate movement, magnetic pole changes, some serious volcanoes, maybe a meteor or 2, maybe more. There has been testing from samples at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that indicates levels of acid rain that would burn your skin - millions of years ago - but my bet that it had nothing to do with our factories or car exhaust.
> 
> ...


The rate of change can have important consequences depending upon your expected life span. On the time scale of the Earth the entire human species is but a flash in the pan. But what happens over the next 50 years can have a big impact to me and mine.

Trees don't run very fast (the Lord of the Rings trilogy notwithstanding). But they do run faster than glaciers. My understanding is that Lost Maples State Park here in Texas is a patch of native maple trees common in the northern US that are descendants of trees that got chased down south by glaciers of the last ice age and by some happenstance have managed to hold on in spite of the subsequent change in climate.

It is also my understanding that many natural ecosystems are as productive as they are because there has been lots of time for the flora and fauna to optimize themselves to the ecosystem. A sudden big change can have a dramatic impact. The introduction of non-native plants and animals in some ecosystems is one such sudden big change and in many places it has had a huge impact.

I do not loose sleep over it either. But science has given us a lot of benefits over the past 200 years, and if is currently in a position to minimize the future bad effects cause largely by the industry that supports me I think the prudent *and conservative* thing to do is take full advantage of the science.

But first we need a clear understanding of exactly where the science *is*.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> How much of this goes without detection?
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Well it is brietbart, so probably none at all. Does this invalidate any data they produce, in your opinion?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I just found this - very interesting indeed. Started out about concerns of global warning and has taken many turns since.
> 
> Global warming - in a fashion - is real. I am from the Cleveland area (yes, I got over it). 25,000 years ago, my house would have been under 5-10 miles of ice - hard to heat. At the same time, it is thought that Antarctica was lush and green. That has taken 25,000 years of change - tectonic plate movement, magnetic pole changes, some serious volcanoes, maybe a meteor or 2, maybe more. There has been testing from samples at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that indicates levels of acid rain that would burn your skin - millions of years ago - but my bet that it had nothing to do with our factories or car exhaust.
> 
> ...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120620-green-antarctica-trees-global-warming-science-ancient/
*Antarctica was green. 15 million years ago, NOT 25,000. *

That type of error kind of invalidates the rest of the comment.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> How much of this goes without detection?
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


There are many examples of lying cheats trying to pass off what they have done as science. There are many examples of honest, earnest people bungling the science in spite of their best efforts. Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether the science holds up or not, regardless of who did it or what their motives were. But to determine that you would need to ignore this "shocking" revelation that a research team is trying to pump up the significance of their work and simply evaluate the quality and implications of the work.

Many science frauds and blunders are discovered by researchers that believe and want to build upon the previous work. One recent example I cited above (#246).


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> One more thing - did research on West Virginia. When it was clear cut (all the trees cut down for lumber), Harper s Ferry would flood - up to 20+ feet in some cases. Now that we have replanted WV and have been responsible about lumber in the state, when we had 17" of rain, Harper s Ferry did not flood. Could we have a rain that does cause flooding - sure, but if we think before being stupid, we actually can take care of what we have.
> 
> Extremes in anything tend to give us the biggest problems. Balance is a good thing.
> 
> - dbray45


Are you saying human activity had an effect? Wow!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> It is barely discernible as a gray issue when 98% of the color is white and only 2% is black.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


See and if I were being a climate scientist.. I could ACCURATELY say that your difference between 2 and 3% means your "Prediction was wrong by 50%"

That kind of half baked statistical crap is used all the time to drive regulations…...

Something interesting to note is that eventually science does "get it right" and correct missteps or faulty hypothesis.

However the original SCIENTIST… seems to never be the one to come forward and say they were WRONG, and evolve on the issue.
You can bet that even though the scientists are all looking at the same data… Michael Mann, the creator of the hockey stick will not be the one to come out and say "it isn't CO2" that will come from somewhere else, assuming the 'peer review' process doesn't silence them… or have them drink Hemlock for corrupting minds.

I think Evans explains the skeptics case (not the deniers case) pretty well… he also posts a good discussion of how me moved from being a government climate change cheerleader on what he called the gravy train, to a skeptic.










https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case

The climate warming crew points to CO2 impacts being *amplified* by increased water vapor, while the skeptics say you have a damping effect

I think as we look at the 'resilience' to pollution for the past 150 years… that the carbon sinks of the ocean and our clouds, do serve to 'mitigate' effects rather than amplify them.

That much like a ball will bounce less high each time…. (damping) helps to explain why there is a pause in warming even though CO2 is much higher.

The models predict "runaway" behaviour… more like the ball in Men in Black, that you bump it and it cascades to destroy the earth. Less likely.

key in both though is that CO2 and climate are linked, and increases are tied to increasing climate… but more like a hammer (CO2) and a Nail (temperature)... you hit it hard and it moves a bit. but the friction in the wood 'slows it down'..

The model prediction says if you tap the nail with the hammer, the nail will accelerate through the wood and end up at the center of teh earth. That version is the Sky is falling, HYPE part and it is wrong


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I think Evans explains the skeptics case (not the deniers case) pretty well
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent. I will look into that, maybe over this weekend!


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> See and if I were being a climate scientist.. I could ACCURATELY say that your difference between 2 and 3% means your "Prediction was wrong by 50%"
> 
> That kind of half baked statistical crap is used all the time to drive regulations…...
> 
> ...


DrDirt -

Really? Is that the best you've got? So in the *unlikely* event that this case falls apart under critical scrutiny and more recent data, you will consider the skeptic's case refuted?

I've only done a quick skim, and while it contains a bunch of data and footnotes, not so many references. The few argument constructions I saw were not what I was expecting. At first glance this does not appear to be a champion of the cause that warrants serious consideration but more of a benchwarmer that is only a weak straw-man. But if *you* consider it convincing *I* will give it a go.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Based on only a quick glance this guy looks more capable than Evans

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

And his position gets significant attention from the other side:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

True - - I didn't say that Evans walks on water …..

I said "I think Evans *explains the skeptics case* (not the deniers case) *pretty well*… he also posts a good discussion of how me moved from being a government climate change cheerleader on what he called the gravy train, to a skeptic.

So rather than listing the bibliography… it points to what holes pushed him into the skeptic case.
Yes Spencer does a good job.
I found it funny that the NASA scientists "REFUSE" to share a stage, because " doing so is giving him a platform"






This is where there was good debate between Spencer and Denning at the ICCC conference…with a Q/A session for both together on stage. it is an hour but the session at ~ the 33 minute mark talking about the forcings, and the pause in climate, when CO2 is high and climbing.

Dr. Spencer gets asks "what would cause you to change your mind"

To me it is a great and ACTUAL debate/discussion of opposing ideas. Finding it has actually been refreshing to my 'sensibilities' about the more obvious trend of silencing the opposition. (unfortunately is it 4 years old July 2011)


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Yes Spencer does a good job.
> 
> - DrDirt


How could that be? *All of his funding is from US government agencies:*

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

He can't possibly be honest. Clearly he's a mole. His mission is to undermine the opposition from the inside.

Just kidding.


----------



## stefang (Apr 9, 2009)

I sure hope that global warming comes to Norway, we could use some good weather here.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> See and if I were being a climate scientist.. I could ACCURATELY say that your difference between 2 and 3% means your "Prediction was wrong by 50%"
> 
> - DrDirt


Math fai!

Our predictions would be off by 1%.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I sure hope that global warming comes to Norway, we could use some good weather here.
> 
> - stefang


Hey Mike,

I sat on a plane beside a tall ship sailing master from Norway. He told me global warming was making it colder in parts of Norway! Is that true?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> See and if I were being a climate scientist.. I could ACCURATELY say that your difference between 2 and 3% means your "Prediction was wrong by 50%"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Nope… sorry try again.

If you say 2 and the"answer" is 3, you are off by 50%.... it is a BS way to look at things but this is indeed how people pushing legislation abuse statistics.

They do that crap to prove effectiveness of speed limits…..take a small sample e.g. Fatalities on I 80 in Pennsylvania in june.

and say look there were 6 deaths before the "55 Limit" and 4 the year after…. we "*Cut fatalities by 1/3*" 
That absolute number is correct, but likely not representative of the effectiveness law as a whole - - maybe there were still 2 cars involved, but fewer passengers?? Even though the same number of accidents.

Lies…. damn lies… and statistics.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> See and if I were being a climate scientist.. I could ACCURATELY say that your difference between 2 and 3% means your "Prediction was wrong by 50%"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Sorry, math and reading fail. We were both presenting how many climate scientists do actually believe. The difference was 'tween 97 & 98% agreement about climate scientists agreeing about the change. Not the actual science error. You can torture it anyway you want, I still say 98 to 97 is a 1% error. My error was 1%.

You are 100% wrong on this topic and can only try to obfuscate the issues! Discredit the scientists, discredit the schools, discredit the governments of the entire world! Just silly to me.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Oh, this is so appropriate to this thread.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I (as climate scientists and liberals like to to) CHOSE, the portion that 'Told a better story'

While we are talking about the same difference….. making a "Bogus Headline… that 2 vs 3 being 50% wrong" is intentionally misleading.

So if you want to downplay…. you say 97 vs 98 is nearly nothing…. buried in the noise!

If you instead want to sensationalize you say 3 not 2… 50% error… the issue is bogus.

So still .. Lies… damn lies… statistics. The Stats can be twisted and abused to make a case. Both interpretations are "mathematically Correct" but only one is accurate.

I make the point that people torture statistics to make bull******************** cases… nice to see that you are a sheep and don't belive that manipulation is even a possiblity… Good for you !!

You should just let Greg argue the case…...
Global warming is this competing view… not the "Deniers"

The 1.1 C Impact from doubling CO2… everyone agrees with. However the Government alarm model says that the feedbacks… e.g. it gets hot, Methane is released, Water vapor in the atmosphere etc… will AMPLIFY global warming of CO2 by 300% (3X)
Skeptics point to history and see that the oceans are giant heat sinks. there are some areas hotter, but some colder, and teh satellite data shows heat still reflected into space… so the earth tends to DAMPEN the response.

I believe the world is not like standing on a bowling ball… where a perterbation in CO2 send the climate in a cataclysmic spiral 3X the rate of CO2… and teh fact that CO2 is at record levels, and temperature is not… lends to the skeptics being right.
Nobody is saying the climate doesn't change… the question is what fraction is man made… and what can the USA do to stop it all by themselves/if the BRIC will be exempt? should we be tanking our economy to chase this while everyone else puts pollution into overdrive, such that nothing we do ourselves could ever make a dent in the added CO2 from India and China combined?.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I would just like to point out that at 400 ppm CO2 is 0.040% of the atmosphere and at 250 ppm it was 0.025%. And we want to argue whether or not the difference between 98% and 97% means anything…..


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I (as climate scientists and liberals like to to) CHOSE, the portion that Told a better story
> 
> While we are talking about the same difference….. making a "Bogus Headline… that 2 vs 3 being 50% wrong" is intentionally misleading.
> 
> ...


And yet historically not as much CO2. If we didn't exist your explanation would be fine. However we are here and we are having a huge effect. The US needs to act on its own and only deal with countries that do likewise. It has to start somewhere. This argument of we can't do it alone is not very patriotic and not well, not accepting of the power of the US. Did you know the US Navy is the largest consumer of fossil fuel?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I would just like to point out that at 400 ppm CO2 is 0.040% of the atmosphere and at 250 ppm it was 0.025%. And we want to argue whether or not the difference between 98% and 97% means anything…..
> 
> - patcollins


Pat,
Those seem like small concentrations, however the CO2 doesn't poison the air it makes it retain more heat, yeah?

Aside from the affect on the planet, what effect will increased CO2 have on us? Our bodies gauge how much oxygen we get by how much CO2 is in our blood. That is why blowing into a bag helps to stop hyperventilating. The bag fills with CO2 or at least a higher concentration than in the blood.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Oh, this is so appropriate to this thread.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Very helpful!


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Rob - prove it

Greg - One thing that scientists have hypothesized and actually makes sense, for every degree the earth warms up, the oceans will rise. Every inch (which is very significant) increases the surface area of water to the atmosphere. The increase in temperature combined with the increased surface area, the more moisture is absorbed into the atmosphere. This action in itself, cools the atmosphere and increases rain and snow increase around the world. It is a huge cycle with many iterations. When a volcano erupts violently, it has much of the same effect. God has put a whole bunch of checks and balances into our world.

When CO2 increases, plants produce more oxygen, if you cut down all the trees, you have problems.

Before we got to this country, there were forest fires that could cover 100s of square miles.

On the east coast there was a variety of sequoia that required fire in order to transform from a bush to a tree.

Fire is required to germinate the western sequoia.

When a major volcano erupted in the 1800s, it is estimated that the dust cooled the earth 10-15 degrees. This resulted in much of the earth not having a summer - there was massive starvation because of little to no crops but the earth recovered and so did we.

Yes we need to be intelligent instead of stupid BUT, the idea of regulating to control and using science as the rationale is not a good path. Remember back in the late '50s and early '60s when people would throw their trash everywhere? We started to get smart and realized that littering and being disgusting was stupid. The idea that opening a can of oil based varnish is going to kill the earth, while we cut down a a huge amount of trees to make a park - kind of baffles me.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Rob, you're welcome.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob - prove it
> 
> Greg - One thing that scientists have hypothesized and actually makes sense, for every degree the earth warms up, the oceans will rise. Every inch (which is very significant) increases the surface area of water to the atmosphere. The increase in temperature combined with the increased surface area, the more moisture is absorbed into the atmosphere. This action in itself, cools the atmosphere and increases rain and snow increase around the world. It is a huge cycle with many iterations. When a volcano erupts violently, it has much of the same effect. God has put a whole bunch of checks and balances into our world.
> 
> ...


Prove what exactly?

Interesting, you point to a short term event (a volcano), list the dire consequences, so you are cognizant about climate being changed. So extrapolate from a single input to a continuos input. Does human activity over a year produce as much air pollution as the ash from Tamboura?

I think I see the problem, you can't scale your actions to millions of people. It isn't *a* can, it is millions of cans. It isn't just the oil you consume it is a what 330 million consume.

One can point to garbage and say look garbage, look how fast it grows. You can't do that with CO2. So we need other evidence of its accumulation.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Let's put this in perspective. The pollution - as bad as it has ever been - in LA has been seriously bad for LA. But it only affects the LA area.

A short term event - like the Krakatau eruption in 1883 did this:

- The explosions were heard on Rodriguez Island, 4653 km (2891 miles) distant across the Indian Ocean, and over 1/13th of the earth's surface.

- Ash fell on Singapore 840 km to the north, Cocos (Keeling) Island 1155 km (717 miles) to the SW, and ships as far as 6076 km (3775 miles) west-northwest. Darkness covered the Sunda Straits from 11 a.m. on the 27th until dawn the next day. Distance from LA to NYC - 2785.5 miles.

- Giant waves reached heights of 40 m above sea level, devastating everything in their path and hurling ashore coral blocks weighing as much as 600 tons.

- At least 36,417 people were killed, most by the giant sea waves, and 165 coastal villages were destroyed.

- When the eruption ended only 1/3 of Krakatau, formerly 5×9 km, remained above sea level, and new islands of steaming pumice and ash lay to the north where the sea had been 36 m deep.

- Every recording barograph in the world documented the passage of the atmospheric pressure wave, some as many as 7 times as the wave bounced back and forth between the eruption site and its antipodes for 5 days after the explosion.

- Tide gauges also recorded the sea wave's passage far from Krakatau. The wave "reached Aden in 12 hours, a distance of 3800 nautical miles, usually traversed by a good steamer in 12 days".

- Blue and green suns were observed as fine ash and aerosol, erupted perhaps 50 km into the stratosphere, circled the equator in 13 days.

- Three months after the eruption these products had spread to higher latitudes causing such vivid red sunset afterglow that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration. Unusual sunsets continued for 3 years.

So, to answer your question - YES

And I was wrong, it dropped the earths temperature 1.2 degrees C. Temperatures did not return to normal until 1888 - 5 years later.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

My big blocks of discretionary time are devoted to other things (installing a marble back splash in the kitchen) so I only get back to this thread when I have smaller bits of time. And getting into the details takes some time.

One of the "details" that appears to be critically important seems to be the hockey stick shape of the temperature record, that the rate of temperature increase over the recent 60 years or so is so much higher than at any time over the past thousand years.

One facet of that is, what exactly is the recent rate of temperature increase? It seems that the satellite temperature data interpreted at U. of Alabama Huntsville by Spencer and Christie seem to show consistently slower temperature increase than the "other" big satellite interpretation and some other temperature measurements. Here is a discussion of that and a recent paper.

This is a rather "clean" issue; the data set is modern and extensive, and is central to the phenomena of interest. The absence of a satisfying reconciliation would be an important indication limitation of the state of the science at this point in time; not that the science is completely uncertain, but an indication that there remains some important uncertainties.

This issue is also a counter-example to the assertions that a) government funding results in only outcomes that support current climate change theory, and b) that challenges of current climate change theory are excluded from the literature. Spencer and Christie are funded exclusively by US government agencies, they get papers published in the peer-reviewed literature, and they argue strenuously and consistently against much of the current climate change theory. There are plenty of snarky and/or disparaging comments about Spencer and Christie by those with the opposing view, nevertheless this "inconvenient" data is respected and there are serious efforts to reconcile the data and the theory. The process seems to be working as it should.

Lunch time is over. Back to work. I hope to look a bit further into this issue. If it remains unresolved (I suspect it is), it will be important to consider exactly what the implications are for this "inconvenient truth".


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Let s put this in perspective. The pollution - as bad as it has ever been - in LA has been seriously bad for LA. But it only affects the LA area.
> 
> A short term event - like the Krakatau eruption in 1883 did this:
> 
> ...


Wrong eruption. Tambora released almost 4 times the volume (38 cubic miles to 11 cubic miles. Mt St Helen's was less than 1 cubic mile!) and caused the Year without summer.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004301-tambora-vs-krakatoa-which-was-worse

According to this 38.2 billion lbs of CO2 are added to the atmosphere each year by all nations. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-dioxide-emissions-rise-to-24-million-pounds-per-second/

How do we convert cubic miles to lbs? keep in mind the 38.2 billion lbs is just CO2. I found one site that said a cubic mile would weigh about 3.4 billion lbs. Not sure if that is correct. That means we spew almost 1 Krakatoa of CO2 into the air each year. Maybe Dr Dirt would know how much a cubic mile weighs.

Also, it shows the US as the second largest polluter of CO2.

One big event seems to have huge effects on the weather for a few years, but what is the effect of large long term changes, hmmm?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Only relevant in the 'does science effectively regulate itself / what's the pressure to conform' realm, I thought this a very good read.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/01/gay_marriage_study_faked_how_grad_student_david_broockman_uncovered_a_huge.html?wpisrc=obinsite

Not to give away the punchline, but it provides insight of a specific instance of pressure to 'not question' findings of paper co-attributed to a well respected colleague in the world of social sciences. Again, not relevant to climate change, just an insight I otherwise hadn't been privy to before.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Only relevant in the does science effectively regulate itself / what s the pressure to conform realm, I thought this a very good read.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/01/gay_marriage_study_faked_how_grad_student_david_broockman_uncovered_a_huge.html?wpisrc=obinsite
> 
> ...


That item was mentioned earlier. Yes, there *are* pressures to conform, but often there are *also* internal pressures to resolve the conflict. And in this instance the process worked.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I know it was mentioned, thank you. This is an actual specific instance where it worked, yes, I know, I can read.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Maybe Dr Dirt would know how much a cubic mile weighs.
> 
> - RobS888


Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
CO2 has a Molecular weight of 44g/mole…. 12 for carbon and 16 for each oxygen.

Using teh Ideal gas law 1 mole (44g) at atmospheric pressure occupies 22.4Liters.

So all we have to do is calculate how many Liters are in a cubic mile.

There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter.
There are 4,168,181,843 cubic meters in a cubic mile.

So now lets do the math!

4,168,181,843 cubic meters X1000 Liters/1 m^3 = 4,168,181,843,000 liters

4,168,181,843,000 liters X 1 mole of gas/22.4liters = 186,079,546,562.5 Moles

186,079,546,562.5 Moles X 44 grams/1moleX 1kg/1000grams =8187500049 kilos

8,187,500 Metric Tons.

You asked for Pounds though…. so there are 2205 pounds in a metric ton.

So 8.2Million Metric Tons X 2200 pounds/ton = *18 Billion Pounds in a cubic mile of CO2 (at 1 atmosphere).*

I added the @ 1 atmosphere, because as the "air" becomes thinner at high altitude the pressure is lower…. At 40,000 feet where the airliners are flying… Atmospheric pressure is 0.19 Atmospheres. So your fixed cubic mile volume would weigh 20% of the sea level value because there are physically fewer molecules per unit volume.
So the 18 billion pounds at sea level is only 3.6 billion pounds at 40,000 feet.

relevent if the volcano calculation is talking about CO2 emission into the upper atmosphere….. in that case 1 mole is NOT 22.4 liters, it would be a larger number.

----------
Interesting note from Robs CBS reference….

The overwhelming majority of the increase was from China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet's top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions.

So *only* the USA and Germany have made reductions. Sure we register as #2 on the list but China is DOUBLE what we generate, and is exempted from Kyoto and Copenhagen because they abuse the concept of "developing nation"

Why are we the only ones actually doing anything? is it us sipping tea with our pinkies in the air because only we accept any role/responsibilit… or do we have our heads up our….?? while China laughs all the way to the bank.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Thanks DrDirt, I was really looking for the weight of a cubic mile of, I guess dirt or ash or whatever comes out of a volcano.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Rob - sorry about having the wrong volcano - it doesn't matter really, didn't someone say that it was just a single event versus an ongoing problem even though it does much greater damage for many years and still recovers? Oh, I'm sorry, that was you.

My point is still the fact that even though we do a lot of stupid things, the earth can compensate for most of it if not all of it. As someone said, we have reduced our carbon footprint - BUT - we have moved almost all of our manufacturing to other places like China. We no longer make steel, or very little, all we do is assemble what other people manufacture.

Now, if we wanted to be REALLY responsible, we have the technology to make steel and other things - cleanly - we should, but wait, that costs more and we cannot do that, it is better to let someone else do it.


----------



## Jim Jakosh (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm glad I lived when I did. I feel the people will destroy the planet by their reckless living before nature ever does.
I feel sorry for my children and grand children. We used to play out all day any where in town and our parents never worried about us. Now there are so many human predators out there kids have to be watched all the time and it is getting worse every day. Common sense, morality, respect, and responsibility are gone. Just plain sad compared to what it used to be!!....................................Jim


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob - sorry about having the wrong volcano - it doesn t matter really, didn t someone say that it was just a single event versus an ongoing problem even though it does much greater damage for many years and still recovers? Oh, I m sorry, that was you.
> 
> My point is still the fact that even though we do a lot of stupid things, the earth can compensate for most of it if not all of it. As someone said, we have reduced our carbon footprint - BUT - we have moved almost all of our manufacturing to other places like China. We no longer make steel, or very little, all we do is assemble what other people manufacture.
> 
> ...


I understand. I just wanted to show that we release almost 1 Krakatoa a year in just CO2. It is too bad we can't see it.

Interesting point, if we moved most of our manufacturing to China, we should get a portion of their CO2 production.

Bill Maher says it would take 5 earths for everyone on the planet to live like we do. That is scary.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Bill Maher is an idiot - he should move to the moon.

No, we do not own any of the CO2 that China produces - why - The Chinese govt heavily subsidizes and controls the manufacturing in that country. If they wanted to produce cleanly, they easily could and would. The govt there does not put the same value on health and life (except for themselves) as we do.

The people in this country do a lot to protect our resources, much more that others because we do care. The govt here needs to stand up and start bringing manufacturing back to this country - and subsidize the cleaner aspects instead of taxing the crap out of our manufacturing processes and bankrupting our industries.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> I feel sorry for my children and grand children. We used to play out all day any where in town and our parents never worried about us. Now there are so many human predators out there kids have to be watched all the time and it is getting worse every day. Common sense, morality, respect, and responsibility are gone.
> 
> - Jim Jakosh


Jim, that's not the case where I live: kids outdoors, walking to and from school, and townspeople working together for their schools, local parks, kid sports teams, etc. etc. I see it every day, and my town (and county) can't be the last. Blue States get the attention, Red States get ridicule in the national media, that's just the way it is.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Bill Maher is an idiot - he should move to the moon.
> 
> No, we do not own any of the CO2 that China produces - why - The Chinese govt heavily subsidizes and controls the manufacturing in that country. If they wanted to produce cleanly, they easily could and would. The govt there does not put the same value on health and life (except for themselves) as we do.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think he is an idiot, but your opinion Is noted.

We do some to protect the environment, but usually only because the government mandates it. If you took away the regulations we would eclipse China in all pollution.

China should lose their most favoured status over the cyber crap they pull on us.
And we should put tariffs on any product from heavily polluting countries.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

We didn't eclipse China before in pollution and we produced more. If China were to loose that status, WWIII would start, they cannot exist without it.

The EPA has not allowed any new power generating plants in the US in over 50 years except for wind and solar. This is the driving force of all of the energy conservation - our infrastructure cannot handle the loads. We have been able to convert away from coal but there has not been any expansion (that I am aware of) that is noteworthy.

I do not have a problem with wind and solar but I have been becalmed on a sailboat and I have been awake at night, these are not good power generation events. I do not have a problem making my home energy efficient. It is good to do.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> The EPA has not allowed any new power generating plants in the US in over 50 years except for wind and solar.
> 
> - dbray45


I think that statement is entirely inaccurate. See:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15751
Specifically, 2 coal plants came on line in 2013.

In spirit it may not be far off. I have heard, over the years, a lot of complaints here in Texas that EPA regulations are threatening our electricity supply by preventing the building of new coal-fired generation plants (back when natural gas was expensive) and by requiring expensive upgrades to certain existing coal-fired plants. So yes, EPA regulations do impose some limits on what can be done and probably result in electricity prices being higher than they might be otherwise.

But that is the whole purpose of having regulations, to prohibit activities that are economically attractive because the resulting social cost of the activity is deemed to be unacceptably high.

But in many cases in order to accurately determine the social cost of an activity it requires a fair bit of good science and also a very clear-headed, objective, public discussion of that science.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

If regulation is the imposing of congressional and executive branch will on industry, it's not just a stopper to activity. Rather, economic activity that isn't attractive can be propped up by regulation. Subsidies for wind and solar, for example, are imposed by regulating agencies (IRS, EPA, etc. etc)


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Thanks DrDirt, I was really looking for the weight of a cubic mile of, I guess dirt or ash or whatever comes out of a volcano.
> 
> - RobS888


That calculation is the weight of 1 cubic mile of CO2… not dirt nor ash


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> If regulation is the imposing of congressional and executive branch will on industry, it s not just a stopper to activity. Rather, economic activity that isn t attractive can be propped up by regulation. Subsidies for wind and solar, for example, are imposed by regulating agencies (IRS, EPA, etc. etc)
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Yup. For example, that is why there is ethanol in your car's gas tank.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Sooo anybody see the brewing discussion from "Science" magazine.

A new NOAA study went and readjusted all the temperature measurements to ERASE the level off/pause in Global warming, so the administration can happily claim that Global warming has NOT stopped.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full

Now this could be an example of REAL scientists doing what they are supposed to do, as there is actual debate happening.

Many scientists have been working to 'EXPLAIN why there has been none of little warming for the past 2 decades… and now NOAA publishes that….. *"there ain't been no stinking pause"*

The response from Georgia Tech is particularly salient.

Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.

But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that *makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead.* But the study's readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren't buying the new claim.

"While I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on," Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.

And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the *adjusted data doesn't match other independent measures of temperature.*

"*The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets," she said. "The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.*"
The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency's National Climatic Data Center, *found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements* of sea temperatures.

Hmmm the government ….....paying the government…......... to generate data that … supports government regulation.

NICE!!

making the decrease in warming into an increase…. EXACTLY the argument Greg and I were having at post 42 regarding the same stuff done to the South America data…... about "correcting" measurements to show the OPPOSITE of reality.

Sounds a lot like the Anglican E-mail Climate gate… talking about how to use "tricks" to "HIDE THE DECLINE"


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Sooo anybody see the brewing discussion from "Science" magazine.
> ...
> 
> - DrDirt


So a just-published paper comes out with a "new and improved" result of some sort. It is nothing more than one more drop in a bucket/pond/ocean of evidence of varying quality. While it can be fun to bloviate one way or the other right after publication, the true merits of the paper will only become evident after a fair bit of time and thoughtful consideration.

The scientifically important questions are first whether the adjustments are sensible and if so how the results relate to the other temperature measurements/indicators. Anything not focused on these issues is someone trying to sell something.

Getting the temperature record right is not an easy thing. Lots of interpretation is necessary and the best result is going to have significant uncertainty.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

I googled Judith Curry and found her blog. Poking around I read her post, Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics in which appears this bit:

In most cases dealing with claims which emanate from scams, paranormal beliefs, pseudo-science or just ignorance, skeptics have shown great patience and fortitude in allowing proponents the opportunity to make their best case before carefully debunking the proffered evidence and arguments. Skeptics generally were fastidious in providing point by point critiques to each challenge. There was a common understanding that for valid beliefs evidence could be lined up and presented so that the average person could understand and follow the reasoning. Credentials did not matter so much as evidence and reason.

In my view, *these* are the key behaviors to look for. Any presentation that fails to exhibit these behaviors is at least flawed and is potentially fraudulent.

So little public discussion resembles these behaviors. Quite the opposite. So much content seems specifically intended to be very different from this. That ilk is primarily BS and completely untrustworthy.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

That calculation is the weight of 1 cubic mile of CO2… not dirt nor ash

- DrDirt
Correct, but i only have one source for the weight of a cubic mile of earth. I was hoping based on your handle you might know.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Quick question… why 17 years with no warming? Did something happen 18 years ago? I saw that Rubio said that on politifact.

We seem to have hotter years each year than the one before. Why only look at 17 years of data?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Greg - I missed that - thank you - 2013? wow


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Quick question… why 17 years with no warming? Did something happen 18 years ago? I saw that Rubio said that on politifact.
> 
> We seem to have hotter years each year than the one before. Why only look at 17 years of data?
> 
> - RobS888


Because that is the size of the "Flat spot" to date. So everything was marching upward in temperatures, until ~1998… and warming flatlined…. even though CO2 has increased continuously.

Scientists are trying to understand why temperatures stopped rising lock step with CO2.

So NOAA… just went into the ocean temperature data, and changed the data…. and now say "See" it was warming all along.

yet ocean and satellite data are pretty definitively FLAT and have remained so..

REMAINED is key, which is where the "14 hottest years have been since 2000" discussions come from. But Climate scientists have struggled with how we went from the Red line to the Yellow one….. why isn't warming still marching onward?










--------edit

I put in the graph…. but pics don't load anymore, must be disabled by administrators, or there is a problem.

the usual html language is there, but no pic.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Is this where you say "Hmmmmmm!" ???


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Is this where you say "Hmmmmmm!" ???
> 
> - dbray45


I only do that with cerebrally challenged posts.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

The 17 years is cherry picking and I'm sure you know it. It is lying with statistics.

18 years ago we had an El Niño that pushed up the temps. Since then it has been rising as before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/26/ted-cruzs-claim-that-there-has-been-zero-global-warming-in-17-years/

If you remove the '98 El Niño what does the graph look like?

EDIT:

Why doesn't the red line pass through the lines before 1996? Wouldn't the line be flatter if it did and go closer to the present?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

The Paris Climate Summit.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

https://theglobalwarmingfraud.wordpress.com/

Duh


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> https://theglobalwarmingfraud.wordpress.com/
> 
> Duh
> 
> - waho6o9


If that is your impression of an informed and logical discussion of the topic, I cannot help you. I doubt anyone can.

I suspect each and every assertion in that post is refuted here, and with far more logic and data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

There *are* some valid criticisms of current climate change theory, but you would need far better information on the topic before you could even see them.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> The 17 years is cherry picking and I m sure you know it. It is lying with statistics.
> 
> ...


not "MY" graph

I showed where the warming trend dropped off…
The so called "Hide the decline" work of the Anglican University E-mails.

The REal scientists are actually trying to understand why the warming stopped/slowed… while CO2 continued to rise.

This aactually is fun… Now I am part of the 97% while Rob is a 3 percenter, claiming the pause never happened.

Cool!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

It is true that teh oceans are a huge heat sink that can store heat…. but they stored heat in the 90's also.

So that doesn't explain why the surface temperatures flattened.

That actually supports the skeptics that teh "Feedbacks" around CO2 increases in the atmosphere are 'DAMPENED' by the Oceans, and water vapor, and not amplified 300% as the climate alarmists proclaim..

Do note that both the skeptics and teh Alarmists all show an increase in temperature from CO2.

Just that Skeptics say temps track at 50% of the CO2… not 300% of CO2 concentrations.
Both point to a challenge…. but one version is about "running around with their hair on fire asking for more grants"


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

NEWS FROM THE YEAR: 2059

Ozone created by electric
cars now killing millions in
the seventh largest Country
in the world, Mexifornia,
formerly known as
California.

White minorities still
trying to have English
recognized as the third language.

Spotted Owl plague threatens
Northwestern United States
crops and livestock.

Baby conceived naturally!
Scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to
reinstate heterosexual
marriage.

Iran still closed off;
physicists estimate it will
take at least 10 more years
before radioactivity
decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for
global help after being
taken over by Jamaica.
No other country comes
forward to help the
beleaguered nation!

Last Castro finally dies
at age 112; Cuban cigars
can now be imported
legally, but President
Chelsea Clinton has
banned all smoking.

George Z. Bush says he
will run for President in
2060.

Postal Service raises
price of first class stamp
to $17.89 and reduces
mail delivery to
Wednesdays only.

Average weight of
Americans drops to
250 lbs.

85-year $75.8 billion study:
Diet and exercise
is the key to weight loss.

Global cooling blamed
for citrus crop failure
for third consecutive
year in Mexifornia and
Floruba.

Japanese scientists have
created a camera with such
a fast shutter speed they
now can photograph a
woman with her mouth shut.

Abortion clinics now
available in every High
School in United States.

Senate still blocking
drilling in ANWR even
though gas is selling
for 4532 Pesos per liter
and gas stations are
only open on Tuesdays
and Fridays.

Massachusetts executes
last remaining
conservative.

Supreme Court rules any
punishment of criminals
violates their civil rights.

A Couple Finally Had
Sexual Harmony .
They had simultaneous
Headaches.

Average height of NBA
players is now nine feet
seven inches with only 5
illegitimate children.

New federal law requires
that all nail clippers,
screwdrivers, fly
swatters and rolled-up
newspapers must be
registered by January
2060.

IRS sets lowest tax rate
at 75 percent.

Floruba voters still
having trouble with
voting machines.

Now, send this to
whomever you want and
as many as you want,
then, guess what…
NOTHING will happen.
No miracles, no money,
absolutely nothing,
except you might make
someone smile or be
very , very scared.

I Love This Country!

It's The Government That
Scares Me!
Stop organized crime.
Re-elect no one.

----------
Beer does NOT make you fat.

It makes you LEAN.


----------



## wncguy (Jan 26, 2012)

AlaskaGuy 
Okay now that is funny! 
Yes I will pass it on.
Thanks.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

In the truth is stranger than fiction…. and "EVERYTHING is now NORMAL" so no Hating…

How I had hoped this was a piece from SNL or The Onion… but nope!! it is real!

So we cannot be a bigot, about the guy that just feels his hand shouldn't be there and cuts it off to FULFIL the view of who he/she is "Meant to be"... 
Amputation is "just like plastic surgery"

--------

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/06/10/deliberately-disabled-the-trans-abled/

It's being called "Body Integrity Identification Disorder", and the people who do have a body part or sense *removed deliberately, as "trans-abled".*

The condition is somewhat similar to those who feel they aren't of the right sex, that they were born male but really feel female, or vice versa, and some of whom go through sex-change operations to become "trans-gendered"

In the case of BIID, the people feel there is something wrong with their body and they just don't feel "right" and shouldn't have two functioning legs or arms etc.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

"New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)" 
From News Busters


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> "New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
> 
> The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)"
> From News Busters
> ...


Bob Woodruff the climate scientist?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I showed where the warming trend dropped off…
> The so called "Hide the decline" work of the Anglican University E-mails.
> 
> The REal scientists are actually trying to understand why the warming stopped/slowed… while CO2 continued to rise.
> ...


I don't see a flattening at all. I see a rise then a dip then a slow rise. In your graph each spike is followed by a decrease that rises to the level of the spike. The past few years are higher than any on your graph. Yet you claim a 17 year pause. Just ridiculous.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Global warming AKA climate change is the biggest lie ever told. Yes, there are charts to dispute either side of the equation. However, we live in an environment (the universe) that is cycle driven. There were no cars, coal mines, oil fracking and mining when ice age occurred. It was caused by asteroids or perhaps volcanic activities. If you want to save the earth and the "universe", start looking for a viable person who has an answer to our political problems instead of the idiots they put in front of us and say "pick one".


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Global warming AKA climate change is the biggest lie ever told. Yes, there are charts to dispute either side of the equation. However, we live in an environment (the universe) that is cycle driven. There were no cars, coal mines, oil fracking and mining when ice age occurred. It was caused by asteroids or perhaps volcanic activities.
> 
> - mrjinx007


A very strong conclusion based on so very little understanding.

What would you think if someone that never picked up a woodworking tool came into your shop and told you you didn't know how to make those items, that your shop was just a showcase, and that the items were made in China. That is what you just did. Many very smart people have spent their entire professional career studying climate and the related physical processes and data. They know a lot about climate that you don't, just like you know a lot about woodworking that many others don't.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

Climate change…...Will cause more flaming threads than anything else except you know which table saw.

There is huge amounts of "natural" climate change…even recently. Look at The Little Ice Age and the medieval warm period or the changes that caused the Anasazi Indians in the southwest. There are also well documented effects of large volcanic events such as the Yellowstone volcano causing major changes. These are things that happened in a relatively short time of 1000 years.

We also have the man made sources which are being blamed for everything….and do have some effect but in my mind hard to say how much.

The question has become too political. Without a global effort the effects to reduce the man-made sources will not be effective. How far do we damage the U.S. economy while China pollutes and takes over our economy.

The other part of the man made is population levels. You can graph the population versus CO2 and get a nice correlation. Reduce population and reduce pollution????

We need to spend time and money figuring out how to live with climate change because it is coming and we can not stop it. What would happen when we get a major volcanic eruption which causes changes for a couple of years…how many will starve. There are several volcanoes that are past due for eruption….

We need to work on reducing pollution without destroying this country economically and develop plans for living with climate change.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Redoak, very good discussion points.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Climate change…...Will cause more flaming threads than anything else except you know which table saw.
> 
> There is huge amounts of "natural" climate change…even recently. Look at The Little Ice Age and the medieval warm period or the changes that caused the Anasazi Indians in the southwest. There are also well documented effects of large volcanic events such as the Yellowstone volcano causing major changes. These are things that happened in a relatively short time of 1000 years.
> 
> ...


I wasn't aware Yellowstone had erupted in the past thousand years.

Your points are well taken, however I have to point out that it seems we produce as much CO2/year as Krakatoa produced ash. If a volcano's affect is to be feared, what about the amount of CO2 we produce every year?


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

The effects of a volcano due to ash and subsequent cooling for a couple of years would be devastating. What if we had a 25-50% decrease in crop yield for a year or two?

Many people would starve.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

"...it seems we produce as much CO2/year as Krakatoa produced ash."

There has to be a limit as to what the earth can assimilate re: CO2, and a Krakatoa Eruption worth of ash, over the span of hours (vs 365 days) seems to be past that limit.

The models attempt to predict the impact of CO2; how much we're creating is know, but the the planet's climactic reaction isn't.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> http://www.globalwarminglies.com/
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


That's a joke, right?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

The new British Energy and Climate Change secretary, Amber Rudd, admitted that the pause would have to continue for another 50 years before they would admit they are wrong.
That is no joke.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Here's hoping for anouncement in 2065!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The new British Energy and Climate Change secretary, Amber Rudd, admitted that the pause would have to continue for another 50 years before they would admit they are wrong.
> That is no joke.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I don't see a pause, look at the charts! That 17 year hiatus is a joke. Cherry picking of the worst kind.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://www.globalwarminglies.com/
> 
> - AlaskaGuy
> 
> ...


The sad thing is it probably wasn't meant as a joke.

I fear the deniers believe, as the first line of the linked site said, it is a myth. They *know* it can't be them causing it.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Funny thing about CO2, the more there is, the more plants use it to make Oxygen. Makes the plants greener. The other side of the coin, at night, plants can actually produce CO2, if my memory serves me correctly.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Yup, plants use it, we use it to regulate our breathing, & it helps regulate the temp of the planet. Do we have as many square miles of plants as say 1,000 years ago? If not, part of the CO2 absorption of the planet is gone.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

"One fact the Global Warming Con-Artists will not tell you is that mankind collectively accounts for only about 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. There is no money in trying to warn about a natural cycle that cannot be stopped. Blame mankind and then there is a pile of money to be made on research, fines, and taxes. It becomes a industry of scam artists. We are plagued with this type of corruption everywhere." 
**What would you think if someone that never picked up a woodworking tool came into your shop and told you you didn't know how to make those items, that your shop was just a showcase, and that the items were made in China. That is what you just did. Many very smart people have spent their entire professional career studying climate and the related physical processes and data. They know a lot about climate that you don't, just like you know a lot about woodworking that many others don't.*
Not my thinking.

-Greg D. *


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

It is all about money for research.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Cow farting is the number 2 cause of global warming!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

It's politics, not science,


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

We need more money because now we think it is the sun


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I heard today the expression, "Green on the outside, Red on the inside." Radical environmentalists was the context. I've encountered a few, also some ridiculous deniers that refuse to listen to anything. Terribly polarized society we live in, and a whole bunch of 'low education' talking heads out there.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Here is a good education on chaotic dynamics and Lorenz butterfly as it relates to weather prediction.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I knew Russia had something to do with this. 

Or maybe it didn't happen at all based on this data.

This is like a debate between an atheist and theist.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Cow farting is the number 2 cause of global warming!
> 
> - mrjinx007


Must be German cows.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It is all about money for research.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Since Jennifer Marohasy is funded by climate deniers doesn't that invalidate what she says?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Who are the climate deniers that are funding Ms. Marohasy?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

It is German… They want to tax ranchers. Now, if someone could come up with an apparatus (fart catcher/fart catalytic converter?) to capture that fart and turn it into clean air, I bet they will get a tax exemption.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Here is the translation:
Environment Minister Hendricks wants to ban cows farting
German Economic News | Published: 23:08:14, 01:12 clock | 64 Comments
Germany receives 2015, more than five billion euros as agricultural subsidies from the EU. But cows that emit huge amounts of methane gas, are almost as harmful to the climate as car exhaust. But the real reason cow disaster is the EU's absurd agricultural subsidies.
Methane (CH4) is a zig-times more harmful for the climate than carbon dioxide (CO2). A single dairy cow produces 300 to 500 liters of methane a day . This is the global climate killer number two, so estimates of the World Bank . Nevertheless, the farmers are supported with billion euros to keep the existing system upright.

To reduce greenhouse gas Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks of the SPD wants to the methane gas emissions in the digestion of cows in focus take. "This area is not negligible," Hendricks said when visiting a pilot project in Kleve overlooking the emissions in agriculture. In attempting stall the North Rhine-Westphalian Chamber of Agriculture each 48 cows are held in three groups. With different floors and lining methods will be tested there, as emissions are reduced in ruminants can. For more corn instead of grass fodder, there were around ten percent less methane emissions.

Agriculture accounts eight percent of greenhouse gas emissions from in Germany . 26 percent are accounted for by livestock, especially on methane emission during the digestion. Since 1990, agricultural emissions have declined by 23 percent, partly because of the unity of the animal population initially fell significantly.

The aim is by 2020 to reduce the total emissions in Germany by 40 percent compared to 1990. So far, it only runs on minus 33 percent addition, therefore Hendricks looking everywhere additional savings, in November the Federal Cabinet to decide an action plan.

Critics see the biggest mistake of the agricultural policy in the EU subsidies . As part of the "support schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy", is in the relevant EU regulation governed the "direct payments to farmers". The national ceiling for Germany amounts to more than five billion euros for 2015.

Instead of funding environmental levies and emission taxes are required.

"The forthcoming reform of European agricultural policy must be aligned in climate policy . The existing subsidy system encourages over land premiums agricultural production is extremely damaging to the climate and undifferentiated. The subsidy system should be abolished and replaced by a system of environmental levies and emission taxes. The taxes or charges must be levied on the emission of greenhouse gases and on the use of climate-relevant inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) and are applied equally to organic farming and conventional farming, "the foodwatch Report "Klimaretter Bio?"

The agriculture in the emissions trading to include, is not practical . Too different are the emissions of individual holdings. The quantities of emissions vary greatly depending on the respective differences in livestock farming, the soil conditions and other factors.

There is particularly bad news for supporters of organic meat. It has a miserable climate footprint: Traditional pork is responsible as an ecological beef or organic dairy products for far less greenhouse gases. A kilogram of beef from organic production caused four times the amount of greenhouse gases like a kilogram of pigmeat from a conventional, efficiently run operation.

A consumer of organic beef is responsible for one year as many greenhouse gases as someone with the same amount of non-organic pork in four years, calculated foodwatch.

In Australia, the problem is solved pragmatically : There started a vaccination program for cattle to sheep , in order to minimize the flatulence of animals. The scientists want to reduce methane emissions by 20 percent per animal. With around three million vaccinated animals, this corresponds to a saving of 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The approximately 114 million sheep and 27 million cattle produce by flatulence and belching methane emissions in the equivalent of 60 million tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to around 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, reported abcnews .


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Who are the climate deniers that are funding Ms. Marohasy?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Google is your friend?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Here is the translation:
> Environment Minister Hendricks wants to ban cows farting
> German Economic News | Published: 23:08:14, 01:12 clock | 64 Comments
> Germany receives 2015, more than five billion euros as agricultural subsidies from the EU. But cows that emit huge amounts of methane gas, are almost as harmful to the climate as car exhaust. But the real reason cow disaster is the EU s absurd agricultural subsidies.
> ...


Ok, that is man made as well. I didn't realize you had changed your stance. Glad to have you on the proper side now!

So we have CO2 produced by humans and methane produced by cows raised by humans for food. What part isn't man made again?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I knew Russia had something to do with this.
> 
> Or maybe it didn t happen at all based on this data.
> 
> ...


Well, except there is proof for man affecting the climate! I've heard cows are really bad.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I tried to find some dirt on her but couldn't.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

As much as I dislike Fox or any MSM.. This is the american version of fart tax.

I suppose dinosaur fart caused their extinction.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I mean really, we have rough estimates of how long (how many millions of years) the dinosaurs roam the earth. We also have an estimate of how many and the size of each animal. So, we should be able to calculate how much they farted each day and how that changed the climate to the point that they froze to death while grazing. Now, that is called environmental impact on universe. The thing for me as a layman is that, we have a tendency to think linear instead of multi-dimensional. The idea that mankind can change the course of universe by changing the earth's function just doesn't make sense.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> It is German… They want to tax ranchers. Now, if someone could come up with an apparatus (fart catcher/fart catalytic converter?) to capture that fart and turn it into clean air, I bet they will get a tax exemption.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Didn't you know if you tax someone the problem goes away.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

So, should we kill all the cows or tax ranchers?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

How about vegetarians? We need to tax them more.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Yes, tax the hell out of vegetarians. Look what they have done to California. They've use up all the water growing veggies and now you can't ever water your lawn.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Rob, it seems you do not have and answer. I would like to see your research not do it for you.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

AlaskaGuy, you should add this to the funny joke you posted. 
- "NATO allies bombed portions of Hindu India and Nepal capital of Kathmandu for continuing to maintain a vegetarian diet which pose a threat to the international community and US national security." 
- International terrorist groups have agreed to go vegetarian in an effort to hasten the coming of Muslim Messiah and the concomitant end of the world. Vatican issued an order to all Bishops to encourage Christians around the world to consume twice as much meat to offset Islamist extremist agenda.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I tried to find some dirt on her but couldn t.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Dirt isn't required to be suspicious of her opinion. The fact that she worked for right wing think tanks is enough for me


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Here is a question - There is a tremendous amount of cows being cloned - do these produce more or less gas than "real" bovine?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I mean really, we have rough estimates of how long (how many millions of years) the dinosaurs roam the earth. We also have an estimate of how many and the size of each animal. So, we should be able to calculate how much they farted each day and how that changed the climate to the point that they froze to death while grazing. Now, that is called environmental impact on universe. The thing for me as a layman is that, we have a tendency to think linear instead of multi-dimensional. The idea that mankind can change the course of universe by changing the earth s function just doesn t make sense.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Wow! So much wrong in one post. The dinosaurs are believed to have died off from a very large meteorite that hit the Gulf of Mexico. If they froze to death it was from the sun being blotted out. I doubt they had much to graze on at the end that wasn't rotten.

Where does the universe come into this, this is about the Earth?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It is German… They want to tax ranchers. Now, if someone could come up with an apparatus (fart catcher/fart catalytic converter?) to capture that fart and turn it into clean air, I bet they will get a tax exemption.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> Didn t you know if you tax someone the problem goes away.
> ...


Could we tax global warming deniers? ;-)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> So, should we kill all the cows or tax ranchers?
> 
> - mrjinx007


Neither, reduce CO2 2,300%.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Here is a question - There is a tremendous amount of cows being cloned - do these produce more or less gas than "real" bovine?
> 
> - dbray45


It is cloned gas and has no real impact.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> It is German… They want to tax ranchers. Now, if someone could come up with an apparatus (fart catcher/fart catalytic converter?) to capture that fart and turn it into clean air, I bet they will get a tax exemption.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> Didn t you know if you tax someone the problem goes away.
> ...


A corrupt government that lies to us on a daily bases and walks all over the constitution can tax anybody or group they feel like when ever they want.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It is German… They want to tax ranchers. Now, if someone could come up with an apparatus (fart catcher/fart catalytic converter?) to capture that fart and turn it into clean air, I bet they will get a tax exemption.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> Didn t you know if you tax someone the problem goes away.
> ...


I'm sure that is true, but what country are you talking about.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

No worries ladies and gentlemen… The farting issue has been resolved!
After this incident
this happened
You just can't make this stuff up.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Beano for cows, could be a growth industry!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beano_%28dietary_supplement%29


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

The dinosaurs roamed the earth for 65 million years. Estimated 20 million roamed America. By that estimate, how long before cow fart cause the climate to change?

Earth is a part of the universe. If mankind alters the earth, mankind has altered the universe.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> Could we tax global warming deniers? ;-)
> 
> - RobS888


Global Warming Liberals should self-tax at a higher rate.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Those of you who believe that climate change/global warming is cause by man should lead by example.

You could turn off you computers. Computer use electricity. The making of electricity must contribute to the climate change/global warming problem.

I have a whole list of things you could do to lead by example but since your going to turn your computer off there's not much sense in listing them, you won't be able to read them anyway.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Did you know that the energy used to produce, deliver and dispose of junk mail produces more greenhouse gas emissions than 2.8 million cars? You can dramatically reduce your junk mail through the service of our nonprofit partner 41pounds, which will contact dozens of direct mail companies to remove your name from lists, including catalogs you specify. The cost is $41 for everyone in your household for five years.

With the world's growing reliance on the Internet, the office is becoming a major driver of climate change. The energy required to power all the world's computers, data storage, and communications networks is expected to double by 2020. ePlusGreen offers free technology that monitors and can help to minimize energy usage from computers and office networks, thus reducing carbon emissions.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The dinosaurs roamed the earth for 65 million years. Estimated 20 million roamed America. By that estimate, how long before cow fart cause the climate to change?
> 
> Earth is a part of the universe. If mankind alters the earth, mankind has altered the universe.
> 
> - mrjinx007


By that rational, when I cut a piece of wood, I'm changing the universe. Weak, very weak.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Could we tax global warming deniers? ;-)
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


We already do, by recycling and being environmentally conscious.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Those of you who believe that climate change/global warming is cause by man should lead by example.
> 
> You could turn off you computers. Computer use electricity. The making of electricity must contribute to the climate change/global warming problem.
> 
> ...


Silly, very silly. My computer and 2 24 inch led LCD monitors cost about $40/year before I got solar panels. Probably $10/year now.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Did you know that the energy used to produce, deliver and dispose of junk mail produces more greenhouse gas emissions than 2.8 million cars? You can dramatically reduce your junk mail through the service of our nonprofit partner 41pounds, which will contact dozens of direct mail companies to remove your name from lists, including catalogs you specify. The cost is $41 for everyone in your household for five years.
> 
> With the world s growing reliance on the Internet, the office is becoming a major driver of climate change. The energy required to power all the world s computers, data storage, and communications networks is expected to double by 2020. ePlusGreen offers free technology that monitors and can help to minimize energy usage from computers and office networks, thus reducing carbon emissions.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


What would prove to you that man is a major contributor to global warming?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

No, no, no… When you cut a piece of wood you are doing what the universe allows you to do otherwise we all will be instinct. This to me (a layman) is what Lorenz discovered (by accident) of chaos theory. Here is a video to clear that up in my feeble mind; if we are able to change the natural course of the universe by .000001%, then we are able to change the pattern in which universe is designed to flow even though we are not but an mosquito on a elephant's ass as it relates to the universe. If we are able to change the course of the universe by cutting down a tree, or ants creating a new colony by excavating a new nest, or an eagle catching a fish, then the universe is at our mercy. But, the opposite is true. Once we are able to alter the natural flow of anything, then we have to deal with the natural consequences of chaos it produces. The chaos is designed to eliminate the distractions and allow the attractors to continue their natural movements. So the new pattern our "footprint" supposedly creates, not only affect the planet, but the universe as a whole. 
By the way, where is the originator of this room, Russel? I bet he is sitting on his rocking chair laughing his butt off from everyone who has engaged in this conversation. It was originated by a copy and paste "original" post. gods bless him.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Nope, you were right, changing the earth changes the universe. I just mudded my attic, what new direction will the universe take? Will it be dust or some other form, I can't wait to see.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

We already do, by recycling and being environmentally conscious.

hahahahahaha.

That's not self taxing, that's not doing all you can do.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We already do, by recycling and being environmentally conscious.
> 
> hahahahahaha.
> 
> ...


It sure seems taxing sometimes ;-}


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Fiction or truth; you decide:
Before the "Matrix" took over this society, this is what the news looked like.
People listened to it, analysed it, and sat around their kitchen table and discussing it, came to a consensus or made a conclusion before going to bed.
After "Matrix" took over," ""this is what the news looks like."":http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio/#/shows/2015-06-18/pope-francis-calls-for-action-on-climate-change/110344/@00:00
They put two or three "experts with PhD degrees" in front of us… They expressed their "expert" views (some for and some against) and we are forced to take a side before going to bed.
I mean, who is to argue with an expert with a PhD or an "expert" in a field of study we barely or moderately understand? Our best option is to: choose a side you ignorant, uneducated idiot. That will make us sophisticated enough to know what we are talking about at the water fountain when we are talking to a cohort who watched the same program (pathetic).By doing so, we become a mouthpiece for one side or another and abdicate from our own natural reasoning. It is the best defense against human self-reliance; to make them feel stupid. Guess what folks, you are not stupid nor inferior to someone with triple masters degrees and doubled decked with 5 PhD's. All we have to have is common scenes.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

You want to be the "master of universe"? Change one of the balls therein by .000000000000000000000001 degree and I will worship you as a god.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> Did you know that the energy used to produce, deliver and dispose of junk mail produces more greenhouse gas emissions than 2.8 million cars? You can dramatically reduce your junk mail through the service of our nonprofit partner 41pounds, which will contact dozens of direct mail companies to remove your name from lists, including catalogs you specify. The cost is $41 for everyone in your household for five years.
> 
> With the world s growing reliance on the Internet, the office is becoming a major driver of climate change. The energy required to power all the world s computers, data storage, and communications networks is expected to double by 2020. ePlusGreen offers free technology that monitors and can help to minimize energy usage from computers and office networks, thus reducing carbon emissions.
> 
> ...


I've been running you question over and over and I can't think of a single thing.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> No, no, no… When you cut a piece of wood you are doing what the universe allows you to do otherwise we all will be instinct. This to me (a layman) is what Lorenz discovered (by accident) of chaos theory. Here is a video to clear that up in my feeble mind; if we are able to change the natural course of the universe by .000001%, then we are able to change the pattern in which universe is designed to flow even though we are not but an mosquito on a elephant s ass as it relates to the universe. If we are able to change the course of the universe by cutting down a tree, or ants creating a new colony by excavating a new nest, or an eagle catching a fish, then the universe is at our mercy. But, the opposite is true. Once we are able to alter the natural flow of anything, then we have to deal with the natural consequences of chaos it produces. The chaos is designed to eliminate the distractions and allow the attractors to continue their natural movements. So the new pattern our "footprint" supposedly creates, not only affect the planet, but the universe as a whole.
> By the way, where is the originator of this room, Russel? I bet he is sitting on his rocking chair laughing his butt off from everyone who has engaged in this conversation. It was originated by a copy and paste "original" post. gods bless him.
> 
> - mrjinx007


No, Russel not sitting on his rocking chair laughing at us. He's out in his shop gluing up 1×8 pine boards from a tree that some evil person cut down and laughing at us.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Did you know that the energy used to produce, deliver and dispose of junk mail produces more greenhouse gas emissions than 2.8 million cars? You can dramatically reduce your junk mail through the service of our nonprofit partner 41pounds, which will contact dozens of direct mail companies to remove your name from lists, including catalogs you specify. The cost is $41 for everyone in your household for five years.
> 
> With the world s growing reliance on the Internet, the office is becoming a major driver of climate change. The energy required to power all the world s computers, data storage, and communications networks is expected to double by 2020. ePlusGreen offers free technology that monitors and can help to minimize energy usage from computers and office networks, thus reducing carbon emissions.
> 
> ...


Ok, thanks for being honest.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Fiction or truth; you decide:
> Before the "Matrix" took over this society, this is what the news looked like.
> People listened to it, analysed it, and sat around their kitchen table and discussing it, came to a consensus or made a conclusion before going to bed.
> After "Matrix" took over," ""this is what the news looks like."":http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio/#/shows/2015-06-18/pope-francis-calls-for-action-on-climate-change/110344/@00:00
> ...


?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Where the "97% Consensus came from"

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, *examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.* We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. *Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position *that humans are causing global warming.

So even though the FACTS were that 2/3 of climate papers took NO POSITION on warming being man made.

They used the "open endorsement/rejection" to make the numbers work.

And just decided that 0.7 Against / 32.6% endorsed… and we have teh media claim that 97% of Climate Scientists agree.

So the just "Threw away" 2/3 of the papers of the 20 year period! because they were just presenting facts, not political opinions.

They also ignore the fact that many papers are from the same group of authors…. the study only was counting PAPERS.. not % of SCIENTISTS. So if you had 10 papers in the group…. you were suddenly counted as "10 scientists" in the media lie.

SO that is the LIES…. and statistics playing with percentages to tell the story you want to tell.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Where the "97% Consensus came from"
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
> 
> ...


BS. There is no lie. They were very clear about the methodology. You have objections to how they characterize the results, fair enough; as with any characterization some details are left out which you happen to think are critical. But your characterization of this as a "lie" is itself characterization with far less justification.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Where the "97% Consensus came from"
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
> 
> ...


Indeed the PAPER is quite explicit.

However the story as YOU and ROB like to debate that 97% of SCIENTISTS support AGW…. is BS

97% of the 1/3 of published PAPERS….. that take a point of view… say Human Caused.

The PAPER doesn't say 97% of scientists agree…. but that is what the Press and the Liberal Politicians have coopted.
And what you personally have repeated here on this blog…. just Parroting the distortion that the politicians and press portray.

The study is technically correct…. but the "Talking points" are BS.

But if you are going to make sweeping conclusions based on only 1/3 of the data and throwing the "inconvenient data" away….. then how accurate are the conclusions really?

EDIT
Perhaps instead of Accurace of their conclusions…. I should say honestly "Representative" of the population of people.
Publications is not a measure of the "Voting" Scientist.
This is like claiming how racist parts of the country are by studying # of Google searches.
You get an "Accurate" number… but what does it really mean?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/28/the-most-racist-places-in-america-according-to-google/


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I have a question or two.

Does "anthropogenic global warming" attribute ALL global warming to human activity? Or is it just some? I believe there are natural rhythms to the weather, but our activities are having a huge affect on them.

So, do the other 64% describe global warming, but not take a position on what is causing it? If that is the case we are really screwed.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Many very smart people spent their whole lives trying to prefect alchemy. And still to this day lead is lead and gold is gold.



> Global warming AKA climate change is the biggest lie ever told. Yes, there are charts to dispute either side of the equation. However, we live in an environment (the universe) that is cycle driven. There were no cars, coal mines, oil fracking and mining when ice age occurred. It was caused by asteroids or perhaps volcanic activities.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Many very smart people spent their whole lives trying to prefect alchemy. And still to this day lead is lead and gold is gold.
> 
> - SirIrb


True, however that was based on pretty bad science. Not sure how that compares to the current climate science. The science, not what the media says about the science.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Just trying to get the concept across that not everyone who is labeled as smart today labors on something that is genius.

Newton worked on Alchemy, he was a smart guy. It didnt work. Everyone at that time thought it was a great pursuit. Today looking back we see them as foolish, for the most part. Lead is lead, gold is gold. What will people think of the smart people who labor on climate change in 400 years?

Just a thought.


> Many very smart people spent their whole lives trying to prefect alchemy. And still to this day lead is lead and gold is gold.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Just trying to get the concept across that not everyone who is labeled as smart today labors on something that is genius.
> 
> Newton worked on Alchemy, he was a smart guy. It didnt work. Everyone at that time thought it was a great pursuit. Today looking back we see them as foolish, for the most part. Lead is lead, gold is gold. What will people think of the smart people who labor on climate change in 400 years?
> 
> ...


Logical, they would think they were logical in their testing and their assumptions based on the data. Newton was pretty logical on his observations about the physical world and mathematics. I seem to recall he went pretty religious later in life.

Alchemy was a mixture of Myth and a little science. Comparing Alchemist to today's scientist is pretty rude.

I bet even Dr. Dirt would feel a little insulted by that.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

There is a parallel in what we think today and what we discover and believe tomorrow. 
Rude?-Not at all.



> Just trying to get the concept across that not everyone who is labeled as smart today labors on something that is genius.
> 
> Newton worked on Alchemy, he was a smart guy. It didnt work. Everyone at that time thought it was a great pursuit. Today looking back we see them as foolish, for the most part. Lead is lead, gold is gold. What will people think of the smart people who labor on climate change in 400 years?
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> There is a parallel in what we think today and what we discover and believe tomorrow.
> Rude?-Not at all.
> 
> - SirIrb


Again, you're comparing myth and science.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> There is a parallel in what we think today and what we discover and believe tomorrow.
> Rude?-Not at all.
> 
> - SirIrb


There is a parallel. When there is a consistent scientific process exploring a question, that effort produces the best assessment of the situation. The climate science has followed that process and has constructed a substantial body of evidence strongly suggesting that global climate change driven by human activities is happening. No doubt significant uncertainties remain. By contrast the vast majority of widely publicized anti-climate-change noise is obvious rubbish. There is only a small bit that seems the least bit technically substantive, and those bits tend to point out some selected weaknesses of the case for AGW. On balance the *technically substantive* case for AGW appears to be far more comprehensive than the *technically substantive* case against_.

The US National Academies have pointed out this *years* ago. Sure, at some point in the future we will know more and some of the current ideas may be replaced by more accurate ones, but AGW is the most best guess we have today. Get over it. No amount of non-technical, uninformed ranting and conspiracy theorizing will change that. *If AGW is substantively wrong, that realization is going to be determined by climate scientists doing the science*.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I am sorry that I missed this one from the start.
I have some reading to do. I am a geologist and geographer, not that it has anything to do with this debate.

Madts.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

"AGW is the most best guess we have today. Get over it. No amount of non-technical, uninformed ranting and conspiracy theorizing will change that."

Wow, there's the arrogance that eminates so freely from the extreme left. A mostly interesting discussion up to this point, but now a dead one to me.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Wow, there s the arrogance that eminates so freely from the extreme left. A mostly interesting discussion up to this point, but now a dead one to me.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


What did you find so fatally arrogant?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

If you want to see how a bunch of very smart people can come up with really bad forecasts based on statistics, complex mathematical equations and historical data and screw up the whole world, look no further than federal reserve, Wall Street, the banking system and all the smart country club politicians. AGW among other things will be placed on the very back end of the burner once the next financial crisis hit the fan shortly.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> If you want to see how a bunch of very smart people can come up with really bad forecasts based on statistics, complex mathematical equations and historical data and screw up the whole world, look no further than federal reserve, Wall Street, the banking system and all the smart country club politicians. AGW among other things will be placed on the very back end of the burner once the next financial crisis hit the fan shortly.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I see absolutely no relationship between financial institutions, which are nothing more than figments of our collective imagination, and climate science which is controlled by physical laws.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I wasn't trying to correlate the two together. Just saying very smart people just like the rest of us can be wrong, greedy, deviant, self-serving, evil, "dumb", etc.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If you want to see how a bunch of very smart people can come up with really bad forecasts based on statistics, complex mathematical equations and historical data and screw up the whole world, look no further than federal reserve, Wall Street, the banking system and all the smart country club politicians. AGW among other things will be placed on the very back end of the burner once the next financial crisis hit the fan shortly.
> 
> - mrjinx007


All of the institutions you mentioned are quite old, so the science isn't that great. The Federal reserve performs a valid function, a slight perusal (newer meaning, not original meaning) of US history would show that. Banks and Wall street are governed by greed and any "science" they use is to further that. Based on profits they seem to have it dialed in pretty well.

Lets do a little comparison, show me the education a wall street trader needs and I'll show what a science doctorate requires. I think you will see that if greed was the motivation they are in the wrong bidness.

I'm not sure Global Warming is on the front burner.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

"Banks and Wall St. are governed by greed and any science they use is to further that." Their "Greed" pales in comparison to the Federal Government. The Government takes our freedom along with the greed.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

My nephew is currently pursing his PhD in economics and interns at ECB. His goal is either IMF economist or ECB economist. Here is the requirement for IMF:
The Fund requires candidates to have five to fifteen years of professional experience with economic policy issues at the national level. This experience is usually gained in a central bank, ministry of finance, or international financial institution. Experience in a research institute or academia is also acceptable, provided that the candidate has been exposed to policy making, possibly by working as a consultant for any of the institutions mentioned above. The ability to conduct technical discussions and to write reports in English is essential. Fluency in additional languages such as French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, or Arabic would be an asset.
Educational Requirements
A Master's or a Ph.D. degree in macroeconomics or related field, such as political economy, international economics, monetary theory and banking.

Professor Draghi worked for Goldman Sachs prior to becoming ECB president. He was also an Italian banker prior to that. Dr. Ben Shalom Bernanke is now an advisor to a hedge fund firm. 
Most of the executive wall street investment bankers are highly educated people as well. Now, I do realize some of the lower employees (traders) have equivalent or less than MA's. But, when it comes to trading, you just have to follow certain rules and technical indicators which requires training. 
In contrast, a lot of high school dropouts count very smart people as well. Snowden, David Karp, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Woody Allen and Steve Jobs (collage dropout). Most of them had one thing in common as do most dropouts today; they bucked at the system, they reused to just swallow whatever the teachers tried to shove down their throat, they questioned the teachers and as the result got into trouble for it. 
Academia is fine and necessary but what it perceived/determines is not "gospel truth". 
P.S., my nephew speaks 4 languages.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Some of your examples seem to be wrong.

*Gates was attending Harvard:*
Gates took a leave of absence from Harvard to work with Allen at MITS in Albuquerque in November 1975. They named their partnership "Micro-Soft" and had their first office located in Albuquerque.[44] Within a year, the hyphen was dropped, and on November 26, 1976, the trade name "Microsoft" was registered with the Office of the Secretary of the State of New Mexico.[44] Gates never returned to Harvard to complete his studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Gates

*Albert Einstein went to college after high school:*
In 1895, at the age of 16, Einstein sat the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich (later the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH). He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination,[20] but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.[21] On the advice of the principal of the Polytechnic, he attended the Argovian cantonal school (gymnasium) in Aarau, Switzerland, in 1895-96 to complete his secondary schooling. In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades, including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6.[24] Though only 17, he enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Zürich Polytechnic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

*Steve Jobs had money problems:*
In the Fall, Jobs enrolled at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. Reed was an expensive college which Paul and Clara could ill afford. They were spending much of their life savings on their son's higher education.[41] Brennan remained involved with Jobs while he was at Reed College.[32] She also met his Reed friend Daniel Kottke for the first time.[40] Brennan (who was now a senior at Homestead) did not have plans to attend college, and was supportive of Jobs when he told her he planned to drop out of Reed because he didn't want to spend his parent's money on it (neither her father nor Jobs' adoptive parents had gone to college). He continued to attend by auditing classes ( including a course on calligraphy44), but since he was no longer an official student, Brennan stopped visiting him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steve_Jobs

Your characterization of these people seems to be way off. None of the 3 above quite high school or even college for the crazy reasons you mentioned.

Edison went to school for 3 months and then was home schooled. His education ended over him appearing addled to his teacher, not because of some refusal of the topics covered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

4 of your 7 examples are completely wrong. Your fantasies are hereby *REJECTED*.

Also, thanks for listing those IMF job requirements, could you list the requirements for a wall street trader now…as requested.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> "Banks and Wall St. are governed by greed and any science they use is to further that." Their "Greed" pales in comparison to the Federal Government. The Government takes our freedom along with the greed.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Thanks for *your* opinion.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

It is not an opinion. Look at what has happened to date. Keep your head in the sand or maybe you are a Statist and think this is a good thing.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It is not an opinion. Look at what has happened to date. Keep your head in the sand or maybe you are a Statist and think this is a good thing.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


It is definitely your opinion, or someone's opinion you are parroting.

I can't google the facts to support/refutetiate :-} that opinion. Not like googling a foundation to see what they do.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

An opinion is formed on facts. Big Government takes our money and grows bigger and bigger and it takes our money/freedom to support it. The government always takes and produces nothing.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Did you miss this part?
Gates did not have a definite study plan while a student at Harvard39 and spent a lot of time using the school's computers. Gates remained in contact with Paul Allen, and he joined him at Honeywell during the summer of 1974.[40] The following year saw the release of the MITS Altair 8800 based on the Intel 8080 CPU, and Gates and Allen saw this as the opportunity to start their own computer software company.[41]* Gates dropped out of Harvard at this time.[42] He had talked this decision over with his parents, who were supportive of him after seeing how much Gates wanted to start a company.[39]*


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Did you missed the word "Failed" in your reading?
*He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination,[20] but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.*


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Did you miss this part?
*Jobs's youth was riddled with frustrations over formal schooling. At Monta Loma Elementary school in Mountain View, he frequently played pranks on others.[37] Though school officials recommended that he skip two grades on account of his test scores, his parents elected for him to skip only one grade.[37][38]*


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Do you see a *drop out* there?
*Brennan (who was now a senior at Homestead) did not have plans to attend college, and was supportive of Jobs when he told her he planned to drop out of Reed because he didn't want to spend his parent's money on it (neither her father nor Jobs' adoptive parents had gone to college). He continued to attend by auditing classes ( including a course on calligraphy44),*

It seems some folks have an agenda to skim through things just to present an opposing view for the sake of argument; fine with me.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I think you missed this part of my post as well.
* Now, I do realize some of the lower employees (traders) have equivalent or less than MA's. But, when it comes to trading, you just have to follow certain rules and technical indicators which requires training. *


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Trading is a very tedious job. You sit in front of the computer and watch 2 or 3 stock that you have some fundamental information on. The trader determines his stops and exit strategies before executing the trade. There are some basic concepts that have to be followed. For example, the trader's projected gain should equal to 3x his projected loss. This strategy allows the trader to actually make money when she is wrong 55% of the time. Various indicators such as scholastics, bolingers and moving average convergence/divergence are used in conjunction with other trading discipline. This does not require a PhD unless there is one for patience and focus. It is the most boring job in the world.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> An opinion is formed on facts. Big Government takes our money and grows bigger and bigger and it takes our money/freedom to support it. The government always takes and produces nothing.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Thank you for your opinion.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Did you miss this part?
> Gates did not have a definite study plan while a student at Harvard39 and spent a lot of time using the school s computers. Gates remained in contact with Paul Allen, and he joined him at Honeywell during the summer of 1974.[40] The following year saw the release of the MITS Altair 8800 based on the Intel 8080 CPU, and Gates and Allen saw this as the opportunity to start their own computer software company.[41]* Gates dropped out of Harvard at this time.[42] He had talked this decision over with his parents, who were supportive of him after seeing how much Gates wanted to start a company.[39]*
> 
> - mrjinx007


Still don't see where he quite high school, and where does this come in?

they bucked at the system, they reused to just swallow whatever the teachers tried to shove down their throat, they questioned the teachers and as the result got into trouble for it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Did you missed the word "Failed" in your reading?
*He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination,[20] but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.*

- mrjinx007
[/QUOTE]
yes for that school, but then went to another one, graduated, then went on to college and then teaching.

Where did this come in?

they bucked at the system, they reused to just swallow whatever the teachers tried to shove down their throat, they questioned the teachers and as the result got into trouble for it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Did you miss this part?
> *Jobs s youth was riddled with frustrations over formal schooling. At Monta Loma Elementary school in Mountain View, he frequently played pranks on others.[37] Though school officials recommended that he skip two grades on account of his test scores, his parents elected for him to skip only one grade.[37][38]*
> 
> - mrjinx007


Where did this come in?

they bucked at the system, they reused to just swallow whatever the teachers tried to shove down their throat, they questioned the teachers and as the result got into trouble for it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Do you see a *drop out* there?
> *Brennan (who was now a senior at Homestead) did not have plans to attend college, and was supportive of Jobs when he told her he planned to drop out of Reed because he didn t want to spend his parent s money on it (neither her father nor Jobs adoptive parents had gone to college). He continued to attend by auditing classes ( including a course on calligraphy44),*
> 
> It seems some folks have an agenda to skim through things just to present an opposing view for the sake of argument; fine with me.
> ...


I see a drop out of college to save his parents money.

Where did this come in?

they bucked at the system, they reused to just swallow whatever the teachers tried to shove down their throat, they questioned the teachers and as the result got into trouble for it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I think you missed this part of my post as well.
> * Now, I do realize some of the lower employees (traders) have equivalent or less than MA's. But, when it comes to trading, you just have to follow certain rules and technical indicators which requires training. *
> 
> - mrjinx007


I asked about the traders, the average workers to compare to the average doctorate, most researchers, but not all have at least one graduate degree.

If you aren't up to it, I can surely understand, based on your refutiations :-}


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Trading is a very tedious job. You sit in front of the computer and watch 2 or 3 stock that you have some fundamental information on. The trader determines his stops and exit strategies before executing the trade. There are some basic concepts that have to be followed. For example, the trader s projected gain should equal to 3x his projected loss. This strategy allows the trader to actually make money when she is wrong 55% of the time. Various indicators such as scholastics, bolingers and moving average convergence/divergence are used in conjunction with other trading discipline. This does not require a PhD unless there is one for patience and focus. It is the most boring job in the world.
> 
> - mrjinx007


and yet they helped crash the world economy, go figure. The job doesn't really matter. Just how far off your comparison was and some crazy idea that really smart people quite high school because:

they bucked at the system, they reused to just swallow whatever the teachers tried to shove down their throat, they questioned the teachers and as the result got into trouble for it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Seriously, you're arguing Gates course load at Harvard to show he dropped out of high school!!!!!

Am I the only one to find this ridiculous?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Try to contain this kid in his 2nd grade class. Watching it to the end might prove to be good therapy.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Try to contain this kid in his 2nd grade class. Watching it to the end might prove to be good therapy.
> 
> - mrjinx007


This in no way supports your claims about the others quitting high school.

Advise from a genius isn't necessarily applicable to everyone, in fact probably most can't follow it to the same conclusion he/she did.

You have a notion that is wrong, but you won't let go of it and you are torturing facts to try and support it.

I really don't know what to say to you now, except have a nice day.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Thanks Rob. I know we think differently and I am glad of it. The world would be intolerable and at best weird if we all thought the same. You have a great day too my friend.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Another way to help save the earth.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

*Latest victim of global warming: loaves of bread will be smaller in future, warn scientists *

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11690772/Latest-victim-of-global-warming-loaves-of-bread-will-be-smaller-in-future-warn-scientists.html


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/earth_entering_new_and_exciting_extinction_phase.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/earth_entering_new_and_exciting_extinction_phase.html
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


I followed that link and I suggest a name change from soi-disant "thinker" to acclaimed idiot.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *Latest victim of global warming: loaves of bread will be smaller in future, warn scientists *
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11690772/Latest-victim-of-global-warming-loaves-of-bread-will-be-smaller-in-future-warn-scientists.html
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


You should see how small my gluten free loaves of bread are! And they cost more. No bread for me at $6/loaf.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I wonder if we will have the same problem baking corn bread.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> *Latest victim of global warming: loaves of bread will be smaller in future, warn scientists *
> 
> You should see how small my gluten free loaves of bread are! And they cost more. No bread for me at $6/loaf.
> 
> - RobS888


But the loaves are nice and heavy at least!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

*New study: Electric cars may be worse for the environment than gas-powered*

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-study-electric-cars-may-be-worse-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered/article/2566847


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *Latest victim of global warming: loaves of bread will be smaller in future, warn scientists *
> 
> You should see how small my gluten free loaves of bread are! And they cost more. No bread for me at $6/loaf.
> 
> ...


Nope, not heavy at all. Full of holes!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *New study: Electric cars may be worse for the environment than gas-powered*
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-study-electric-cars-may-be-worse-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered/article/2566847
> 
> - DrDirt


Poor source for anything…Top Gear did a segment back in 2010ish on how just the batteries for the Prius were terrible. Nickel was mined in Ont. shipped to UK, converted into a froth, then shipped to Japan, then of course shipped back to NA. Pretty funny stuff.

EDIT: the Washingtonexaminor is a poor source. Top Gear is just entertainment.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Bread story - ever eat Gluten Free bread? They can be very heavy and akin to eating a cinder block.

So, let me get this straight, they are predicting the grain size in the next 25 years and making bread based upon what? This is from the people that are genetically modifying these plants on a daily basis to grow the seeds that they want. Isn't this pushing the cart after shooting the horse?

They are creating the hypothesis and making the experiment prove what they want it to be.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I make my own beer and grow my own grain and hop for it. It would be hard to grow enough wheat for bread though. With the deer, birds and mice feasting on it, one would have to grow twice as much as one's need. I travel through farm lands once a week and I hate it. At this time crop dusters are spraying heavy amount of poison and the smell is sickening. It's amazing how much poison they use in farming but I guess they have no other choice.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Bread story - ever eat Gluten Free bread? They can be very heavy and akin to eating a cinder block.
> 
> So, let me get this straight, they are predicting the grain size in the next 25 years and making bread based upon what? This is from the people that are genetically modifying these plants on a daily basis to grow the seeds that they want. Isn t this pushing the cart after shooting the horse?
> 
> ...


We get gluten free dough from an on-line store called Jules bakery. It works out to be better and cheaper than store bought gluten free bread. It is a pretty much a 1 to 1 replacement for regular dough.

Is it a company predicting this or an independent group? I thought yeast made bread grow.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Yeast is yeast. Gluten is a protein that is in wheat, barley, and rye - it is what makes bread "gooey".


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Genetically modified organisms, man messing with mother nature. Now that's a real threat to man's survival.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Yeast is yeast. Gluten is a protein that is in wheat, barley, and rye - it is what makes bread "gooey".
> 
> - dbray45


Sure, but when it comes to size wouldn't yeast have a bigger effect? I mean unleavened bread is like a cracker.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Genetically modified organisms, man messing with mother nature. Now that s a real threat to man s survival.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


We have been modifying plants and animals for a really long time. Dogs have the greatest range of size of any species on the planet, they didn't get that way on their own. We did it to them. We can just do it better now.

Interesting dog fact: when left alone or running feral, dogs over a few generations will breed down to a 35lb brown dog. I guess that must have been the size of the Asian wolf that formed the original breeding stock.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Interesting dog fact: when left alone or running feral, dogs over a few generations will breed down to a 35lb brown dog. I guess that must have been the size of the Asian wolf that formed the original breeding stock.
> 
> - RobS888


Not sure I believe that one, I think it would depend on the original stock. Imagine a pack of Great Danes and Yorkies. Hey I think I just invented the next designer dog, the Great Yorkie.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Should they get past the size difference and mix with some other dogs in a few generations they would start to look like a medium sized brown dog.

If the Great Dane and Yorkie are capable of mating genetically it is because they have a shared genetic heritage. Unrestrained breeding of random breed will return to that, shall we say, basic template.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2015/06/27/the-green-mirage--and-con-job-n2018077?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Interesting read ^


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2015/06/27/the-green-mirage--and-con-job-n2018077?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
> 
> Interesting read ^
> 
> - waho6o9


I stopped reading after the 19 year lie.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

I am going back to Big Foot research. There is more truth there than with the AGW bunch.


----------



## BurlyBob (Mar 13, 2012)

Fear not Obama and the EPA are doing everything to same the planet !!!! And in the process destroy the USA.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I am going back to Big Foot research. There is more truth there than with the AGW bunch.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


That explains so much!


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes it does!


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Gluten is a protein. With Celiac desease, the body sees it as an invader but instead of attacking it, the body attachs itself.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Gluten is a protein. With Celiac desease, the body sees it as an invader but instead of attacking it, the body attachs itself.
> 
> - dbray45


Yup, it is considered an autoimmune disease now.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Fear not Obama and the EPA are doing everything to same the planet !!!! And in the process destroy the USA.
> 
> - BurlyBob


Just out of curiosity what percentage destroyed are we now? I mean he doesn't have much time left…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Fear not Obama and the EPA are doing everything to same the planet !!!! And in the process destroy the USA.
> 
> - BurlyBob
> 
> ...


I think 17.43%

But Research shows that 47.23 % of statistics are made up on the spot 
Mmmmmm Monday morning!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

That isn't so bad then. I thought it would be 74.23% the way some people go on about it.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming.










Roger Revelle, who later apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase called global warming
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming.
> 
> Roger Revelle, who later apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase called global warming
> http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam.html
> ...


What is it called when you only tell part of a story? Oh yeah *LYING* by omission.

A little history…
The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by *Joseph Fourier in 1824*. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by *Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838*, and reasoned from experimental observations by *John Tyndall in 1859*. The effect was more fully quantified by *Svante Arrhenius in 1896*.[12][13]

In *1917 Alexander Graham Bell *wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."14[15] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

*Guy Stewart Callendar: Starting in the late 1930s*, Callendar began publishing papers on anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels and their impact on temperature, incorporating information on CO2 production from coal burning, rising levels of carbon dioxide over time, and the uptake of CO2 by oceans and the biosphere.

*Starting in the 1950s, Canadian and American physicist Gilbert Plass* (1920-2004) echoed Callendar's conclusions that human impacts on the atmosphere have begun a period of global warming. Plass used a more sophisticated theoretical understanding of infrared absorption, and was an early user of computers to model the atmosphere.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/155263/

That article lies about when the greenhouse effect was researched. It claims it hasn't been proven. In the 40s it was noted that CO2 had an effect on all electromagnetic radiation. More CO2 less energy passes.

It lies about when it started by only 100 years and lies about the author retracting his research and conclusions. He asked that people calm down and watch for a decade or two.

Do you actually believe this?

What economic downturn and what cooling?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Interesting fact, Maryland is a hot bed for Bigfoot sightings.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Interestingly, I met a fellow a couple weeks ago that hears them knocking on trees and sees tracks every time he goes into the woods near my Tree Farm near Randle,WA. I'm not paying attention or too hard of hearing :-((


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Interesting fact, Maryland is a hot bed for Bigfoot sightings.
> 
> - patcollins


I saw a bigfoot with a Chinese menu in his hand, he was Walking through the Inner Harbor in the rain. He was looking for the place called Lee Ho Fook's, Going to get a big dish of beef chow mein!

True story.


----------



## rwe2156 (May 7, 2014)

If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

It didn't get the message from the democrats?


> Change that - from Washington


?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?
> 
> - rwe2156


Because ice formation in Antarctica is a complex process:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?
> 
> - rwe2156
> 
> ...


I really like that site, especially the Most used myths page. We have had most of them on this thread!


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?
> 
> - rwe2156
> 
> ...


Related question why do all the global warming alarmists pounce with "The ice cap is shrinking" line when it is?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Related question why do all the global warming alarmists pounce with "The ice cap is shrinking" line when it is?
> 
> - patcollins


Is that question exactly as you intended it?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?
> 
> - rwe2156


Maybe it is trying to regrow that 100 mile long iceberg that broke off a while back. They put locator beacon on it because it was too inconvenient for ships to have to make 100 mile detours around it when it was in the shipping lanes ;-)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?
> 
> - rwe2156
> 
> ...


Do they track them? That would be funny to see where any large icebergs are.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I found this for Newfoundland.

http://www.icebergfinder.com/


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> If GW is happening why is the ice cap in Antarctica growing?
> 
> - rwe2156
> 
> ...


That was several years ago. I remember them saying how inconvenient it was to have it drifting in the shipping lanes between Antarctica and Cape horn. I wondered if they put several locators on it? Never could find out much more about it. Having one location in the middle of a 100 mile long floating detour seems a bit pointless ;-)) I'm not sure if this is the same one I heard about or not, but it is 100 miles long ;-)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Maybe it is trying to regrow that 100 mile long iceberg that broke off a while back. They put locator beacon on it because it was too inconvenient for ships to have to make 100 mile detours around it when it was in the shipping lanes ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


There are some NASA sights that have the raw location data. They said they used satellite, beacons and fly overs to track the really big ones.

When I think of a hundred mile iceberg saint Brendan's tales don't sound so far fetched.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> When I think of a hundred mile iceberg saint Brendan s tales don t sound so far fetched.
> 
> - RobS888


Nothing seems far fetch anymore. I think Bigfoot is an alien beast checking on us. Aliens drop them off in that form so we can't capture them. If they were here full time we would have found more evidence than just a few tracks, hairs and blood containing unidentified primate DNA. I'm sure the space invaders are our offspring that escaped the inhospitable planet in the future. They finally totally mastered Einstein's theories including time travel. They return frequently to observe and document how we screwed up earth in order to avoid making the same mistakes again. They may be nearly out of hospitable planets to run to? ;-(( They stopped by here one night about 20 years ago. I was headed out to look at their ship. I had an aggressive dog to keep thieves out of my tools in my work van. When they made that dog yelp, stop barking and go lay down, I chickened out and didn't go see their ship. Now, run with that one Steven Spielberg ;-))


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Related question why do all the global warming alarmists pounce with "The ice cap is shrinking" line when it is?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> ...


More or less, as you know if the ice cap was shrinking the argument would be "look the ice cap is shrinking, it is mans fault" but if it is growing the answer is "that doesn't mean anything, it is complicated".

Just as after hurricane Katrina the rhetoric spouted was "it is only going to get worse, expect this every year" to "the lack of large hurricanes hitting the US doesn't mean anything"

Not really commenting on the validity of either argument, just the technique of the argument.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> When I think of a hundred mile iceberg saint Brendan s tales don t sound so far fetched.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Wow, you missed you calling in life. You should have been a fictional book writer. You could have made a millions.


----------



## cebfish (Jan 15, 2011)

most of the people who believe in global warming believe in evolution so why do you not think the earth will not make changes . if global warming is man made the world would have been gone at the height of the industrial age at the turn of the last century . i am one of the inbreeds who think global warming is bull******************** and a money grab thank you very much


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Thank you Mr. Cebfish and an Amen.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

cebfish is correct on all counts.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Cebfish is wrong on all counts. As he says inbreeding is the cause. Try thinking with an open mind. What if he is wrong and nothing gets done What will be left for the Grandchildren? I am not willing to take that chance. If I am wrong so what. We will still have a cleaner world.

Madts.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Cebfish is wrong on all counts. As he says inbreeding is the cause. Try thinking with an open mind. What if he is wrong and nothing gets done What will be left for the Grandchildren? I am not willing to take that chance. If I am wrong so what. We will still have a cleaner world.
> 
> Madts.
> 
> - madts


Sometimes we can't help ourselves and in an attempt to do something without knowing enough we, as humans, do the exact wrong thing.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> most of the people who believe in global warming believe in evolution so why do you not think the earth will not make changes . if global warming is man made the world would have been gone at the height of the industrial age at the turn of the last century . i am one of the inbreeds who think global warming is bull******************** and a money grab thank you very much
> 
> - cebfish


Hard to deny half the Arctic ice cap was gone by the end of the cold war. Fact declassified by Navy submarine division. There is no doubt the earth will continue to evolve and change. There have been at least 2 or 3 mass extinction events over the last few billion years. Most likely, it is too late for man to do anything about the one that appears to be looming in the future. Earth will certainly pass critical mass if it has not already passed it before we could avert it if we even have the ability or could muster the will .

Lack of ability to analyze and of critical thinking is not necessarily the product of inbreeding. Fully a third of the population suffers those deficiencies. Some psychologists considered it a personality defect, but a third of the population certainly deserves to be considered a trait, not a defect. Prof Bob Altemeyer at the U of Manitoba did much research on the population that predominately exhibits this trait during his career.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

For more reading on why talking about these issues is a waste:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731145935.htm

I always thought some responses were just too fast to be considered.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> For more reading on why talking about these issues is a waste:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731145935.htm
> 
> ...


That article is consistent with the findings of Prof Bob Altemeyer at the U of Manitoba. His research was an extension of the research started after WWII to determine if the US could come under the influence of a leader like Hitler.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> For more reading on why talking about these issues is a waste:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731145935.htm
> 
> ...


Wow… the tripe that passes as SCIENCE….
----------------------
Using eye-tracking equipment and skin conductance detectors, the three researchers have observed that conservatives tend to have more intense reactions to negative stimuli, such as photos of people eating worms, burning houses or maggot-infested wounds.
---------------------

So Conservatives were apparently more likely to be disgusted/repulsed by nasty things… while libs I suppose look at people eating worms and think Good Protein Source? lets have another sip of wine.

----------------------
Combining their own results with similar findings from other researchers around the world, the team proposes that this so-called "negativity bias" may be a common factor that helps define the difference between conservatives, with their emphasis on stability and order, and liberals, with their emphasis on progress and innovation.

"Across research methods, samples and countries, conservatives have been found to be quicker to focus on the negative, to spend longer looking at the negative, and to be more distracted by the negative," the researchers wrote.

The researchers caution that they make no value judgments about this finding. *In fact, some studies show that conservatives, despite their quickness to detect threats, are happier overall than liberals. *
--------------------------
So Not unsurprising, that liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others, and conservatives actually detect threats faster and live happier lives…

I'm ok with that analysis.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Wow… the tripe that passes as SCIENCE….
> 
> So Not unsurprising, that liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others, and conservatives actually detect threats faster and live happier lives…
> 
> ...


Actually, I was just adding the article to show that to me some reactions seem too quick to be reasoned responces. You can defend and abuse the science in the same post if you are ok with that type of thing. Looks silly to me.

Could you show where you got: 'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others' I didn't see that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Actually, I was just adding the article to show that to me some reactions seem too quick to be reasoned responces. You can defend and abuse the science in the same post if you are ok with that type of thing. Looks silly to me.
> 
> - RobS888


That is one of the conclusions Altemeyer proved in his many years of research. Critical thinking and association of actions with their consequences are absent in the right wing authoritarian thought processes. There were studies to see if a lower IQ contributed to this thought process. There was no correlation; however, at age 10, a significant lower IQ was an indicator of the personality type. It is quite interesting that would be present in adolescence but not later in adulthood.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> There were studies to see if a lower IQ contributed to this thought process. There was no correlation; however, at age 10, a significant lower IQ was an indicator of the personality type. It is quite interesting that would be present in adolescence but not later in adulthood.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I suspect it is because the IQ testing results in adolescent thought processes are strongly influenced by upbringing. and social circumstance

Regardless a "genius" will be spotted as a genius.. but those that have not had pre-K education, are going to be at a lower reading level, and have poorer problem solving skills.

As adults that "missing head start" fades as an intelligence measure


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> There were studies to see if a lower IQ contributed to this thought process. There was no correlation; however, at age 10, a significant lower IQ was an indicator of the personality type. It is quite interesting that would be present in adolescence but not later in adulthood.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


--------
Here Rob

In 2006 a Pew study of public opinion in the US found that 47% of Republicans reported themselves to be "very happy" compared to just 28% of liberal democrats. Republicans have reported themselves to be happier than Democrats every single year since the general social survey began in 1972 and the relationship does not seem to be mediated by whether Democrats or Republicans are in power:
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-paradox-of-unhappy-liberals-and-happy-conservatives-in-happy-welfare-states

So Republicans have been happier for a decade before Reagan…. even through the Carter years


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Here Rob
> 
> In 2006 a Pew study of public opinion in the US found that 47% of Republicans reported themselves to be "very happy" compared to just 28% of liberal democrats. Republicans have reported themselves to be happier than Democrats every single year since the general social survey began in 1972 and the relationship does not seem to be mediated by whether Democrats or Republicans are in power:
> http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-paradox-of-unhappy-liberals-and-happy-conservatives-in-happy-welfare-states
> ...


Self reported happiness surveys are laughable compared to actual studies. Where is this:

'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others' I didn't see that.

You showed that Conservatives say they are happier, but where in my link or in your studies does it show:

'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others' This is just your opinion. I will take a study over your fear based opinion any day.

Please stick with proving these points about liberals.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Where is this:
> 
> 'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others' I didn't see that.
> 
> ...


http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/5-reasons-liberals-are-such-unpleasant-people-to-be-around/
Why are liberals so unpleasant to be around?

1) They're unhappy: Study after study shows that conservatives are happier people than liberals. The difference can be staggering.

In 2004, people who said they were conservative or very conservative were nearly twice as likely to say they were very happy as people who called themselves liberal or very liberal (44 percent versus 25 percent). Conservatives were only half as likely to say they were not too happy (9 versus 18 percent).

Unhappy people are generally disagreeable because when you're miserable, you tend to become very selfish. If you want an example of how that works, go hit yourself on the hand with a hammer and while you're writhing in agony, see how much time you spend thinking about helping other people as opposed to wishing you hadn't smashed your own hand.

2) Liberals don't care as much about tradition: Although it goes without saying that people who worship change for change's sake don't care very much about customs, you might wonder why that would make such a big difference. Well, as Thomas Sowell has noted, "Civilization has been aptly called a 'thin crust over a volcano.' The anointed are constantly picking at that crust."

In many cases, societal conventions represent the accumulated wisdom of previous generations. Through trial and error, they discovered that there are certain things you can do that help keep a society running well. There are reasons why people get together and sing Christmas carols in the town square, refuse to insult people immediately after they die, treat marriage as sacred, and don't turn funerals into campaign rallies. Because liberals tend to think they're smarter than all those old dead people simply by virtue of being liberal, they tend to ignore those conventions and create disorder and havoc around themselves in the process.

3) Liberals see people who disagree as evil: Liberals see themselves as part of a Manichean struggle in which they're trying to create Utopia on earth while they're being opposed by people who want to do evil for evil's sake. In other words, liberals are about as complex as your average comic book from the fifties. As Charles Krauthammer has said,

* To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

When you attribute disagreements with Barack Obama to racism, opposition to gay marriage to homophobia, standing against abortion as hatred of women, and a desire to balance the budget to loathing of the poor, you have a hopelessly simplistic view of the world that makes you utterly impervious to reason. Stupid, you may be able to educate, but evil, you have to defeat - and liberals are seldom picky about the means or the manners they use while trying to do so.*

4) Liberals aren't very religious: Liberals are overwhelmingly either atheists or agnostics, people who don't take their religious beliefs very seriously in the first place, or people who allow their ideology to completely subvert their religious beliefs. This is no small matter because religion is one of the great civilizing forces. That's not to say that even sincere practitioners of a religion always do the right thing because as Rick Warren has noted, "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints." However, if you take human beings with open minds, put them in a pew and expose them to "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" long enough, it will curb their nature and make them into much better people than they otherwise would have been.

5) Liberalism encourages arrogance: Liberals tend to believe they're brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything they've actually done, but just because they're liberal. When you completely divorce a person's self image from his behavior, it produces terrible results - like liberals who hurl abuse at conservative women while believing that they're feminists or selfish left-wingers who've never given a dime to charity, but believe themselves to be much more compassionate than people who tithe 10% of their income.

Now, on some level, liberals know this is all a big sham. But, even that can be problematic because unstable high self-esteem actually causes more bad behavior and violent behavior than low self-esteem. As Roy Baumeister noted in Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty,


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> There were studies to see if a lower IQ contributed to this thought process. There was no correlation; however, at age 10, a significant lower IQ was an indicator of the personality type. It is quite interesting that would be present in adolescence but not later in adulthood.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


So the kids at the lower end climb out of the bottom? Did the study follow the kids into adulthood to see if they did improve? Strange that so many of them became conservatives.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/5-reasons-liberals-are-such-unpleasant-people-to-be-around/
> Why are liberals so unpleasant to be around?
> 
> 1) Opinion…
> ...


Again self reported and opinion, and happier means just that. it doesn't mean liberals are unhappy, that is a simplistic interpretation.

EDIT:

Where is the study proving this:

'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others'


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284666655&sr=1-1#reader_097795630X

Page 346
The doctor will see you now  Interesting it is linked to development during the first 6 years of life!!(final three sentences)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> There were studies to see if a lower IQ contributed to this thought process. There was no correlation; however, at age 10, a significant lower IQ was an indicator of the personality type. It is quite interesting that would be present in adolescence but not later in adulthood.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Autistic tendencies in high IQ children can make testing them quite difficult. If environmental factors were a cause, the indicator should not be consistent. Altemeyer's research demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and association of actions with their consequences in the right wing authoritarian thought processes to be genetic. Not all right wing authoritarians are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. Sociopathy is often confused with right wing authoritarian personality and results from environmental exposures, but it is not limited to the right. It occurs in left wing authoritarians also.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284666655&sr=1-1#reader_097795630X
> 
> Page 346
> The doctor will see you now
> ...


If you look around you can find a doctor that will write anything you want written or appear as an expert witness to support any position you choose in court. I searched to find the opposite of a right wing authoritarian personality. A doctor whose name long escapes me said it was "a mature adult." Just because one doctor wrote that, does that make it true? Probably not ;-) I never did find a definition of an opposite personality.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284666655&sr=1-1#reader_097795630X
> 
> Page 346
> The doctor will see you now  Interesting it is linked to development during the first 6 years of life!!(final three sentences)
> ...


Looks like more opinion, and seriously even his title is biased. Show a peer reviewed STUDY that proves this:

'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others'

Even this guy must have some studies he based his opinion on right… right?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Autistic tendencies in high IQ children can make testing them quite difficult. If environmental factors were a cause, the indicator should not be consistent. Altemeyer s research demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and association of actions with their consequences in the right wing authoritarian thought processes to be genetic. Not all right wing authoritarians are psychopaths, *but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. * Sociopathy is often confused with right wing authoritarian personality and results from environmental exposures, but it is not limited to the right. It occurs in left wing authoritarians also.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


If you look at teh school shooters… they are not right wing authoritarians…. so that "ALL" is BS.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> If you look around you can find a doctor that will write anything you want written or appear as an expert witness to support any position you choose in court. I searched to find the opposite of a right wing authoritarian personality. A doctor whose name long escapes me said it was "a mature adult." Just because one doctor wrote that, does that make it true? Probably not ;-) I never did find a definition of an opposite personality.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Same goes for professors… too many in Academia do research that only supports their personal points of view.
Science has become "for hire" rather than a search for truth.

that is where their "Study" based on "eye movements for revolting imagery" is no more authoritarian than other doctors books and writing. They just have a title, so they can "Authoritatively" say who is happier, or quicker to judge.

Better than your Mature Adult… is the old saying - - Paraphrasing "If you are young and not liberal you have no heart, but if you are old and not conservative you have not brain."


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Looks like more opinion, and seriously even his title is biased. Show a peer reviewed STUDY that proves this:
> 
> 'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others'
> 
> ...


Look it up and prove your own hypotheses… or are you too lazy, since you cannot even post a project in almost 2 years.
Just look at Al Sharpton defending the mayor and the Baltimore Riots. You burn down the local CVS because of police brutality?..... yet claim some sort of moral justifation for these actions?

Or now CNN morons… who think it maybe its time to remove the Jefferson Memorial from Washington DC
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/24/cnns-don-lemon-maybe-we-will-rethink-jefferson-memorial
Seems Authoritarian to me…..not Rational nor progressive in thought, trying to erase history.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Autistic tendencies in high IQ children can make testing them quite difficult. If environmental factors were a cause, the indicator should not be consistent. Altemeyer s research demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and association of actions with their consequences in the right wing authoritarian thought processes to be genetic. Not all right wing authoritarians are psychopaths, *but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. * Sociopathy is often confused with right wing authoritarian personality and results from environmental exposures, but it is not limited to the right. It occurs in left wing authoritarians also.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


That is a personality type not necessarily a political philosophy; however, most do lean towards the conservative right. Prof Bob Altemeyer has been accepted by his peers as one of the world's foremost authorities. Dismissing him and that as * "ALL" is BS* further proves the point that any kind of rational discussion of scientific facts and their impact on the world we live in is pointless. Too bad 1/3 will take us all down with them ;-((


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Autistic tendencies in high IQ children can make testing them quite difficult. If environmental factors were a cause, the indicator should not be consistent. Altemeyer s research demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and association of actions with their consequences in the right wing authoritarian thought processes to be genetic. Not all right wing authoritarians are psychopaths, *but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. * Sociopathy is often confused with right wing authoritarian personality and results from environmental exposures, but it is not limited to the right. It occurs in left wing authoritarians also.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


What I dismiss as BS is YOUR claim that EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT HAS EVER BEEN A SOCIOPATH is a right winger…. is provably false. (that is why I* bolded* the objectionable passage)

I attacked the Absolutism of "ALL"

You are really defending the statement "*but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. *" 
Really?

I did not argue that ALL of his research is BS…. but the claim that ALL psychopaths are right wingers… that is crapola of the first degree.

Dahmer… Gacey…. Manson… those are not right wingers… sorry for the inconvenient truth.
Nor were the columbine shooters.
Or the Holmes the Batman shooter in the theater.

Kaczynski had a 167 IQ but the Unabomber was FAR from a right wing authoritarian.

But all are arguably psychopaths.

You are really defending the statement "*but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. *"??

EVERY SINGLE ONE…. ever?

Really?

If so - - maybe it isn't me that has an issue with science.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Autistic tendencies in high IQ children can make testing them quite difficult. If environmental factors were a cause, the indicator should not be consistent. Altemeyer s research demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and association of actions with their consequences in the right wing authoritarian thought processes to be genetic. Not all right wing authoritarians are psychopaths, *but all psychopaths are right wing authoritarians.. * Sociopathy is often confused with right wing authoritarian personality and results from environmental exposures, but it is not limited to the right. It occurs in left wing authoritarians also.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Again, that is a psychological definition, not a political definition.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

This post is what is wrong with Lumberjocks today. After 500 post the ******************** is still flying and NOBODY is getting any smarter and NOBODY is giving any.

What does that remind you of. Give it up and go get a job as a politician.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Well, madts don't read it and go one to other things.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I will be moving on over, to try to clean this world whether through global warming or pollution. I think that EARTH deserves a chance. Oh and Jerry good luck to your grand Kids.

Madts.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

It is the Sun, son.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

It is the Sun, son.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Looks like more opinion, and seriously even his title is biased. Show a peer reviewed STUDY that proves this:
> 
> 'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others'
> 
> ...


I accept your apology, since you can't back up what you post and are now attacking me for not having any projects. You got caught BSing and now are trying to spin away by attacking me and pointing at the Baltimore "riot". Very weak. I thought better of you than to turn juvenile like this.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This post is what is wrong with Lumberjocks today. After 500 post the ******************** is still flying and NOBODY is getting any smarter and NOBODY is giving any.
> 
> What does that remind you of. Give it up and go get a job as a politician.
> 
> - madts


I thought posting why we can't shift our positions would help.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Same goes for professors… *too many in Academia do research that only supports their personal points of view.*
> Science has become "for hire" rather than a search for truth.
> 
> - DrDirt


Please prove any of this with something other than anecdotal references Give me some proof. Peer reviewed of course or it is just your cynical opinion.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> This post is what is wrong with Lumberjocks today. After 500 post the ******************** is still flying and NOBODY is getting any smarter and NOBODY is giving any.
> 
> What does that remind you of. Give it up and go get a job as a politician.
> 
> - madts


I considered that about 30 years ago for a couple minutes. A pointless pursuit ;-((

I agree with Rob, it definitely demonstrates why positions will never change.

It also demonstrates why man is wrong. He believes and acts like he is the climax species on this planet.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This post is what is wrong with Lumberjocks today. After 500 post the ******************** is still flying and NOBODY is getting any smarter and NOBODY is giving any.
> 
> What does that remind you of. Give it up and go get a job as a politician.
> 
> ...


Weird that dr dirt was all over you for saying All psychopaths are right wing, but has no problem posting and failing to support: 
'liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others'

Or using a book as a reference that paints liberals as having a mental disease.

The fact they are so close together points to intellectual dishonesty, not just being hypocritical. I think I'm going to ignore his coffee lounge comments now.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Weird that dr dirt was all over you for saying All psychopaths are right wing, but has no problem posting and failing to support:
> liberals are bitter unhappy people, that are perpetually aggreived, and play the victim and wish to impose mandates on others'
> 
> Or using a book as a reference that paints liberals as having a mental disease.
> ...


Now that there is funny…. Some douche just posts "show me a peer reviewed study" over and over.

Rob and Topa put up a study claiming that All Psychopaths are right wing Authoritarians… EVERY Single ONE!!

that somehow Never in the history of our little blue planet has there been a Left Wing Psychopath, is somehow gospel because somebody with a 'title' said it (supposedly).

Then "how dare I" reference a book that paints liberals with a broad brush.

Lets look at the left wing positions - - - 
Sanctuary Cities… because we don't care about 5 times deported drug criminals, shooting our populace, so long as we are properly 'Welcoming' and refuse to comply with federal laws.
(I am being very specific…. the feds said HOLD THIS PARTICULAR PERSON as a danger…. San Fran Police tell feds GFY, and release him)

lets abolish Columbus Day and replace it with indiginous peoples day…. (of course Columbus never actually set foot in North America)

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (as did Washington)... so lets remove the monuments from D.C. (see CNN, Don Lemon and Asheigh Banfield)

Reparations

Pro Life=Anti Woman

The Race Card… If you don't like the ACA… it must be because you hate the black guy in the oval office.

Eugenics

All are examples of grievance merchants, and wish for mandates for others to follow

Much like Bakeries and Pizza Parlors that don't cater gay weddings. (~130K dollar fine, and a gag order against discussing the decision with the press)

The driving out of the Mozilla CEO for political donations

The Banning of Reruns of the Dukes of Hazzard… because there is a flag painted on the roof of the car. So it must be a Pro Slavery Show?

Robs presents a study that says *Conservatives are happier than Liberals*
I show the Pew research that shows that only 28% of liberals see themselves as happy…..Sooooo 72% are UNHAPPY.
See how math and science work?

Talk about intellectually dishonest…. you won't even support the findings of your own links that you claim prove *your* point.

Liberals are Unhappy - - - Check

Grievance merchants - - - Check

ANd Demand everyone else observe their mandates like….
Gun Control

Zero Tolerance policies

Free Speech 'Zones"

Meatless Mondays

Etc. etc. etc.

Libs are bitter and want to dictate how everyone else lives.
Not unlike Al Gore, flying his gulfstream and a new 9 million dollar/6500 sq. foot California beach house….telling us to reduce our carbon footprints.

Libs (in power) fight against vouchers, but send their own kids to private schools


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

For a little balance…

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

Should you listen to someone that admits he spent 1/2 day on google researching global warming?

Also, why listen to a physicist about global warming? We don't listen to climate scientists about physics.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Uhm, we don't listen to climate scientists either.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Uhm, we don t listen to climate scientists either.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


I noticed!

So a physicist should be ignored as well. Correct?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Rob and Topa put up a study claiming that All Psychopaths are right wing Authoritarians… EVERY Single ONE!!
> 
> - DrDirt


I have done a lot of reading about psychology. i can't put my finger on the exact source right now. I'll see if i can find it later.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I think you missed the point, Rob.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob and Topa put up a study claiming that All Psychopaths are right wing Authoritarians… EVERY Single ONE!!
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Someone is getting pretty confused about who posted what.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I think you missed the point, Rob.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Really, could you explain it to me.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

You're quite busy pissing on everyone's comments at present, meaning you don't have time to actually read and contribute to actual dialogue.

But I'll try.

My comment was humor, Rob.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> You re quite busy pissing on everyone s comments at present, meaning you don t have time to actually read and contribute to actual dialogue.
> 
> But I ll try.
> 
> ...


The category of attempted humor was obvious, the actual humor wasn't, could you explain why you think that was funny?

Also, are you sure you want to say everyone's comments?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Same goes for professors… *too many in Academia do research that only supports their personal points of view.*
> Science has become "for hire" rather than a search for truth.
> 
> - DrDirt
> ...


Always funny to think the idea that "you enter into a college major…. and select an area of research based on personal interests" Somehow needs some statistical study to prove it.

But try this (even though it has a 'Thank you captain obvious' ring to it)

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-1/mehra.html
"A researcher's personal beliefs and values are reflected not only in the choice of methodology and interpretation of findings, but also in the choice of a research topic. *In other words, what we believe in determines what we want to study*. Traditional positivist research paradigm has taught us to believe that what we are studying often has no personal significance. Or, that the only reason driving our research is intellectual curiosity (which is a valid reason on its own). *But more often than not, we have our personal beliefs and views about a topic - either in support of one side of the argument, or on the social, cultural, political sub-texts that seem to guide the development of the argumen*t."

Berg, D. N. & Smith, K. K (Eds.). (1988). The self in social inquiry: Research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berthoff, A. (1987). The teacher as RE-searcher. In D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 28-38). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Brown, J. R. (1996). The I in science: Training to utilize subjectivity in research. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS).

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Eger, M. (1993). Hermeneutics as an approach to science: Part II. Science and Education, 2, 303-328.

Mehra, B. (2001). Research or personal quest: Dilemmas in studying my own kind. In B. M. Merchant & A. I . Willis (Eds.), Multiple and intersecting identities in qualitative research (pp. 69-82). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum.

EDIT-----------------------

Similarly that personal Bias… Sometimes leads to problems and claims of fraud/even revocation of PhD's from institutions.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/28/science/retractions-scientific-studies.html

e.g. Physics Discoveries at Bell Labs

Between 1998 and 2001, Bell Labs announced a series of major breakthroughs in physics, including the creation of molecular-scale transistors. A panel found that 17 papers relied on fraudulent data, and blamed one scientist, J. Hendrik Schön. It did not fault Mr. Schön's co-authors. *In 2004, the University of Konstanz in Germany stripped Mr. Schön of his Ph.D.*


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Humor, Rob. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, maybe more, as there was a twinge of sarcasm too. But either way, I digress… There's no fight here, nothing to run roughshod over, no amount of verbal vomit that can mitigate your continued overreaction to a simple comment.

Dirt, I really enjoyed your comments, thanks for taking the time.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Humor, Rob. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, maybe more, as there was a twinge of sarcasm too. But either way, I digress… There s no fight here, nothing to run roughshod over, no amount of verbal vomit that can mitigate your continued overreaction to a simple comment.
> 
> Dirt, I really enjoyed your comments, thanks for taking the time.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Sarcasm was obvious, but where was the humor? How was it funny? I believe your attempt was to belittle the comment not to be funny.

I'm seeing that probing proves you have as little as others in this thread.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Sarcasm was obvious, but where was the humor? How was it funny? I believe your attempt was to belittle the comment not to be funny.
> 
> I m seeing that probing proves you have as little as others in this thread.
> 
> - RobS888


perhaps you are just unhappy….?? 

The Satirist and Sage of Baltimore:
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic."
― H.L. Mencken, Minority Report


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.

H. L. Mencken

Must hurt to be afraid so much. Always searching for the safety of yore.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

There are climate scientists in this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> So a physicist should be ignored as well. Correct?
> 
> - RobS888


We seem to be expected to listen to Bill Nye 'the Science Guy' as he travelled with Obama to the everglades…yet:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/24/how-bill-nye-the-science-guy-became-obamas-climate-guy/

Not, that Nye is actually a scientist. He trained as an engineer, and worked at Boeing in that role, before trying out his comedic skills in a Seattle Steve Martin lookalike contest - the beginnings of his comedy career. But he says his engineering background is more than sufficient to make sense of the issue.

So long as we must ONLY ever listen to degreed climate science majors?
Not contestants in a Steve Martin, look-alike contest?

Of Course … Obama Himself is a Nobel Laureate


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

So you're the one having difficulty with reading comprehension, but I "have as little as others in this thread"?

Think, type, interact. It's pretty simple Rob.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> So a physicist should be ignored as well. Correct?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Your post makes no sense, you just invalidated those 35 Nobel laureates opinions.

Discuss listening to the physicists or not, why bring up Bill Nye? More distraction? and Smitty said I had verbal vomit!

I have no problem with sticking to the people what is edumacated in a subject, whereas you just want to poke as many liberals in the eye as you can.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> So you re the one having difficulty with reading comprehension, but I "have as little as others in this thread"?
> 
> Think, type, interact. It s pretty simple Rob.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Are you having trouble identifying reading comprehension and typing too fast? The missing word was substance in case the context was too hard.

So where was the humor? It should be easy to explain. If there was some that is.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Rob, the word is "too," as in too fast.

Missing words, typos, and likely foaming at the mouth, all while demanding a footnote to a quip. There really is no joy in your life. Just try to double check your work before burping up another 'last word' retort.

I really do wish you well.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Since this is going nowhere, I suggest that we also discuss banning guns.

Just making them, causes a lot of global warming. Think of all those warm barrels just cooling down, waiting to be finished. Then add to that all the energy used to make the bullets, etc. etc.

I rest my case and I am waiting for accolades.

Madts the Greatest.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob, the word is "too," as in too fast.
> 
> Missing words, typos, and likely foaming at the mouth, all while demanding a footnote to a quip. There really is no joy in your life. Just try to double check your work before burping up another last word retort.
> 
> ...


If you can't explain your humor, keep insulting I see.

I didn't ask for a footnote just an explanation. You either can't explain what you meant or could it be you are a punk taking pot shots? I'm betting on the latter.

Have a nice day. ( said with as much sincerity as your sign off).

EDIT: OMG! I forgot an 'a' in front of punk!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Your post makes no sense, you just invalidated those 35 Nobel laureates opinions.
> 
> - RobS888


Said nothing about the nobel laureates … so please elaborate, I'll get the popcorn out.

You make the case that we should ignore physicists… BECAUSE they are not Climate Scientists.

I pointed out that Bill Nye the "Science Guy" is an engineer, not a scientist…. and certainly not a climate scientist. But he is held out as the expert by the current administration.

Why listen to Al Gore on this issue? Yet he keeps being booked on speaking events.

Perhaps you can clarify why Physicists should be ignored when discussing Heat transfer.

The Nobel Physicist simply stated that when he was invited to be on a panel, he spent some time preparing, and was appalled by what he saw as the 'scientific basis being used'.

Not that that first day of investigation was ALL the work he EVER did.
Some people read what is there…. some just seem to see only what they want as a narrative.

Like your source, stating that the energy from global warming has been 2 "Little boy" Atomic bombs…. PER second, EVERY second for 50 years straight….. to equal a 0.1degree increase in ocean temperature.

172,800 atomic bombs per day for 50 years straight!!

Somehow i believe that 1.57 BILLION atomic bombs would warm the ocean *more* than 0.1 degrees… so it seems a bit off.

I read a bit more critically… think about the WAG analogies made solely to panic people, and decide if it passes the smell test.

You seem to read headlines, and think oooh shiney!!!... Squirrell!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

EDIT: Deleted.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

You invalidated Geralds post about the 35 Nobel Laureates, so thanks for that.

Pointing out other people to ignore that speak on the topic is silly, give them the respect their credentials deserve, no more, no less. A physicist that says he's spent no more than a day or two researching climate change deserves none since his opinion was set after a day or two. You assume/speculate that he did more research. That wasn't what he said.

I don't read the news or watch any news shows, so nothing is "shiney" (based on Smitties grammarian posts, your misspelling shiny invalidates your post).

I've never seen Al Gore's documentary or seen him speak, so you will have to ask someone else about his value.

Where is my post that shows 2 atomic bombs per second for 50 years?

I suggest you are confused… again.

Do you want to insult or make a point? I doubt we can convince each other of anything, to me your mind is broken and based on your insults, broken is the highest assessment I would get from you.

We could try to be reasonable and discuss a topic…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> You invalidated Geralds post about the 35 Nobel Laureates, so thanks for that.


Please explain… popcorn is waiting


> *I don t read the news or watch any news shows*, so nothing is "shiney" (based on Smitties grammarian posts, your misspelling shiny invalidates your post).


That is kind of pathetic…...



> Where is my post that shows 2 atomic bombs per second for 50 years?


Your posted link #540



> We could try to be reasonable and discuss a topic…
> 
> - RobS888


He said in 2008 he spent a day or two to prepare for the panel discussion.

FROM YOUR LINK
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

He said this










You simply ASSUMED… that for the next 7 years he never read another thing on the subject.
That is parsing…. and is intellectually dishonest.

Further down in the Same Article *your expert* made this "analysis" (cough cough)










So I assumed that you provided your link with the hopes that we would look at it and read it as it would somehow prove or support your case to ignore him because he is just a physicist

... but it seems you didn't actually read beyond the title… you just knew it was something that was Contrarian about the author of Geralds post. then went "Squirrell"


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

You invalidated Geralds post about the 35 Nobel Laureates, so thanks for that.
*Read the thread and you might be able to follow!*

Please explain… popcorn is waiting

I don t read the news or watch any news shows, so nothing is "shiney" (based on Smitties grammarian posts, your misspelling shiny invalidates your post).

That is kind of pathetic…...
*Not since the Ebola hysteria it isn't.*

Where is my post that shows 2 atomic bombs per second for 50 years?

Your posted link #540
*Awesome! I didn't read that far, of course I wasn't reading to discredit, but show how little time he had behind his opinion. Are you saying the ocean couldn't absorb that much heat? Do you have a problem with the math? should be easy for you to discredit*

He said in 2008 he spent a day or two to prepare for the panel discussion.

You simply ASSUMED… that for the next 7 years he never read another thing on the subject.
That is parsing…. and is intellectually dishonest.

*Why would I assume anything without proof? I went by what he said. Do you have proof of further research or are you ASSUMING? like the all caps?*

Further down in the Same Article your expert made this "analysis" (cough cough)

So I assumed that you provided your link with the hopes that we would look at it and read it as it would somehow prove or support your case to ignore him because he is just a physicist

*And it does, what part of self declared 2 days research isn't proof of his hasty opinion?*

... but it seems you didn t actually read beyond the title… you just knew it was something that was Contrarian about the author of Geralds post. then went "Squirrell"

*I read enough to see he didn't know what he was talking about. Also, it proves my point that these are gut feelings not well reasoned opinions.*

- DrDirt
[/QUOTE]

Next?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Pretty soon We will be seeing CAPS and then we will know that the ******************** has hit the fans. I see a war (Nuclear) by tomorrow at about noon. Combatants Rob vs. Drdirt.

Sign in to your local chanel.

Madts the Most Supreme Being
.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Pretty soon We will be seeing CAPS and then we will know that the ******************** has hit the fans. I see a war (Nuclear) by tomorrow at about noon. Combatants Rob vs. Drdirt.
> 
> Sign in to your local chanel.
> 
> ...


Was my taunting use of caps too subtle?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Rob you did not use CAPS you used Bold.

Big difference.

*Most invincible MADTS.*


----------



## Carli (Jul 1, 2015)

We have fossils galore in Wyoming. All kinds from sea creatures to mammoths and stuff in between.

I have to agree with you Moke on the last sentence in the first paragraph.

Enuf Said



> I was on a ship one time to visit Antartica. It was full of scientists, from all over the world but mostly Europe, they were all bound there on a one way ticket to stay and do research…..we sat at dinner with some guys from Denmark or Sweden, I can t remember which….they unanimosly said when the grant funding in America dries up for research, the problem will go away.
> 
> Undoubtedly there is some sort of climate change going on…..and being a stauch Republican, even I wouldn t blame a political party for the weather!!!! And by the way, they claimed about two years ago that there was more ice in Antartica than ever…....
> Mike
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob you did not use CAPS you used Bold.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> ...


Look more carefully…see it was too subtle.

EDIT:

No war tomorrow, I'm done. Time will tell in the end, so no point in fighting now. Especially since there are fossils galore in Wyoming!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Good, maybe discussion can continue now that the shouting is done.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

On Frontline tonight on the local PBS station, they ran a piece about Killer Bacteria

I could not help but think of this thread when they mentioned that Alexander Fleming warned of resistance to Penicillin developing in 1945. Nobody paid much attention and today what have been easily cured bacterial infections are increasingly becoming a death sentence just as they were up until the early 20th century.


----------



## rwe2156 (May 7, 2014)

DrDirt,

I don't know if you're right or wrong, but you described my (very) liberal sister and brother in law to a T.

Personally, I think there are different circuits in the liberal vs. conservative mind that transcends all the arguments and critcisms they have for each other.

World view is the operative word here, and they are just completely different.

Libs and Cons will never see the human condition vis-a-vis the world the same way.

All the rest (arrogance, intolerance, etc) is simply the result of the one human condition we all possess: PRIDE.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Maybe there are two worlds we live-in and we don't know it. Just because schizophrenic hear voices we can't hear dose it mean those voices don't exist? Even as individuals most people live two lives (public life and private life). Very seldom we see a person who's thoughts and actions are the same no matter what setting they are in. I think one's culture has a lot to do with being able to evaluate opposing ideas genuinely before accepting or rejecting it. In some cultures doing so is a sign of weakness and it is considered flipflopping. In other cultures it is a sign of humility and genuineness. Personally, there are less than a handful of hills I am willing to defend to death; the rest are open for negotiation. I am sure there are many people out there that refuse to label themselves liberal or conservative and thus refuse to be an instrument of divide and conquer ideology that has been benefiting from that concept for so many, many years.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Not to be distracting but lets get back to that illegal alien in SF that shot that woman 5 times. Turns out the weapon was a federal issued weapon - so he was deported and acquired a US federal government handgun then came back - or did he get it in SF?

And lets get back to Obama's assurance that he has deported more people than Bush - or has he deported 20 people 5 times or more. My thoughts here, if we are going to deport people, why do they keep coming back - oh, I forgot, our laws do not apply to them, they are from a different country.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

David,
Now that situation totally sticks in my craw.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Interesting that so many now in the media have been running stories about how Donald Trump was right.

Sure the statement was offensive…. but his whole paragraph was this…..

I don't see where his statement was incorrect.

Trump said: 
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

The families that are paying the Coyotes to sneak them across the borders at 3 AM, are not the best and brightest Mexico has to offer.
Nobody can 'blame' them for coming here to have a better life…. but they are the "huddled masses" that are coming for a new start. But they are not the cream of the crop. Those folks arrive legally.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

When they came through Ellis Island, they were screened for sickness. If you were not in good health, you were sent back or quarantined. The Mexicans coming here are not screened, they are given health cards and debt cards in which to live, paid for by our Social Security funds. They are given a Social Security # by our government and a driver's license - which in essence, visible citizenship and are taken to our polling places - and I do mean that to be plural, in buses, given names of who they are to be and who they are to vote for.

What more can you ask for - food, health, money - and don't have to work for it.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Anyone remember when that happened with Cuba? They emptied their prison population, put them on boats and pushed them up our way.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

The simple fact is, amnesty is not immigration reform. Something, anything, has to have a consistent / definable form before it can be reformed. Our southern border is a mess; we can all agree on that. Wonder when Congress might look at the border policy and decide what is good about it vs. what isn't working and actually apply some logic to a solution? Or even agree on what the outcome of reform should be? Continuing to grant amnesty for those that 'got through' isn't an answer.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

If the undocumented Democrats entering illegally were taking the politicians' jobs

the border would be secured in a nano second, for our own good of course.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Southern border invasion was another warning that was not heeded 40 years ago ;-(( Seems there have been too many that have resulted in disaster to count on the fingers of both hands in my lifetime ;-((


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> If the undocumented Democrats entering illegally were taking the politicians jobs
> 
> the border would be secured in a nano second, for our own good of course.
> 
> - waho6o9


Unfortunately that would not happen as the Rs would still demand cheap labor. Rs could filibuster to stop any reforms and to continue foreign national assaults on the Ds ;-)


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I think this laxed policy goes hand in hand with the corporatocracy system we are stuck in; it is part of the globalism agenda that took off with Bush Sr. If they can create an equilibrium in wages worldwide, everyone/Most goes to their own homeland. There is an equality in slavery; same wages, treatment and standard of living.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Southern border invasion was another warning that was not heeded 40 years ago ;-(( Seems there have been too many that have resulted in disaster to count on the fingers of both hands in my lifetime ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Seems that once the democrats got what they wanted with teh 1986 amnesty…. that whole "Secure the border" part was tossed by Tip O'neill
and every Dem and republican president and congress since.

Of course if you say how this affects education and crime are a problem… you are blackballed.

As Jeb Bush Said… illegal immigration is about love!

Not so sure the Corporations are driving immigration for cheap labor. Contractors and farmers do… but how many illegals work for AT&T or Apple or Exxon? they all go for the H1B visa applicants. Not Migrants from Mexico


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Smitty - I respectfully disagree with you. Reform is not required and not necessary for the borders - any of them. The Canadian border is locked up tight - been there many times. The problem is that the people that come from Canada are nice people, they work hard, and would vote after doing their research - as a result, the US locked that border tighter than a drum. This really shocked the crap out of the Canadians because they have always had our backs and stopped many terrorists before getting here.

The people that have been coming from Mexico and points south (and everywhere else) are exactly what the democrats want - I will not elaborate further.

If you were to enforce the laws that are on the books now, there would be no problems - reform is irrelevant and redundant. Saying that reform is required is a blame tactic and distraction.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The problems that we have are well though out. In this area, we started having a problem with water main breaks. The water company, about 20 years ago, told the public that the infrastructure was old and needed a bunch of repairs, requiring a rate increase. They got their increase and about 5 years later, same thing and again they got their rate increase - all the while only repairing pipe failures as they failed instead of proactively working on high failure areas and doing a rebuild - as their increases were supposed to pay for. Now they have real problems.

Put this on a larger scale and you have exactly what the federal government does on every policy. The problems are maintained only to give the rate increase a valid cause (which never gets fixed). If it were to be fixed, why do we require these folks - they would have no platform on which to run for office!


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

As a larger example, what happened to all of the money in the highway trust fund?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Not so sure the Corporations are driving immigration for cheap labor. Contractors and farmers do… but how many illegals work for AT&T or Apple or Exxon? they all go for the H1B visa applicants. Not Migrants from Mexico
> 
> - DrDirt


Certainly not high skilled jobs, but meat packing used to be a good job until illegals took it over or rather it was given to them by the CEOs looking for higher bonus packages.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Actually, David, we agree.

My comment was about the constant cry from leadership that reform is needed, when in fact if we were to enforce the laws that are on the books now (as you accurately state), there'd be no problem.

Sorry for the confusion, it's the same page, only mine was from a semantics perspective: "Can can't reform something that hasn't been formed," or throw out (in other words) laws as being ineffective when in fact they're not actually in place from a practical standpoint.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

"... [meatpacking] was given to [illegals] by the CEOs looking for higher bonus packages."

Come on, that's not true across the board and it's not helpful to a discussion. Do you think the CEO of Dearborn Sausage for example is rolling in bonuses because of illegals in Michigan? The rhetoric stifles discussion….

Yes, there is more opportunity north of the border. How can we process visitors / workers in an effective and more complete way? Do we want to as a nation? That's something to discuss, right?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Topa. True the meat packers rely heavily on illegals on the lines. But that total industry nationwide is only about 500k people. 
I had generally lumped together farmers and ranchers/livestock together

If you go to the farm level you see this more than at the actual Tyson foods plant. They are too big a target to blatantly duck the e-verify requirements. However the growers are all "private contractors". So they give Tyson "plausable deniability"

Suppose the growers organize via chambers/co-ops to get political influence… but it always seemed that farmers had no voice until they blocked the DC Mall with tractors for Farm Aid.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Current requirement for millions waiting in line to come to this country legally is:
1 million dollars investment in a place with 12% or more unemployment 
Hire at least 8 American citizens.
My numbers as it relates to % and hire maybe 1 or 2 off as it is out of memory. 
Why are these people waiting in line, I don't understand.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

here is a link to the requirements.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> "... [meatpacking] was given to [illegals] by the CEOs looking for higher bonus packages."
> 
> Come on, that s not true across the board and it s not helpful to a discussion. Do you think the CEO of Dearborn Sausage for example is rolling in bonuses because of illegals in Michigan? The rhetoric stifles discussion….
> 
> ...


Meat packing was a good, union, family wage job with benefits and retirement in post WWII when America was the world's creditor and exporter of manufactured goods. Now that we are the world's largest debtor and a major exporter of raw materials that is not longer true, not only in meat packing, but most major industries that have not been given to China, et al.. It is not rhetoric, it is fact. There will be will be occasional exception in most industries.

My late uncle retired from Hormel. Fortunately he got out with a good retirement just as the slide started. Tyson was reported in the news for staffing entire plants with illegals. Tyson was a significant contributor to Slick Willy's campaign. I believe they paid a little tax deductible fine and admitted no wrong doing.

DrDirt, none of the farmers or ranchers I grew up around were meat packers. Small farmers will never effectively organize. They are too stubborn and independent.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> My late uncle retired from Hormel. Fortunately he got out with a good retirement just as the slide started. Tyson was reported in the news for staffing entire plants with illegals. Tyson was a significant contributor to Slick Willy s campaign. I believe they paid a little tax deductible fine and admitted no wrong doing.
> 
> DrDirt, none of the farmers or ranchers I grew up around were meat packers. Small farmers will never effectively organize. They are too stubborn and independent.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yeah back in 01 Tyson was found 'not guilty'...as the rich usually are able to buy verdicts.

In Missouri (Tyson) most of the "immigrants" are legal refugees. there are a lot of Somalians working there… and the starting pay is between 9 and 10 dollars and hour.

For the kind of work, one would expect it to pay more, but the endless supply of cheap labor keeps costs down, and the big plants are able mostly to control local elections/sherrif issues and sanctuary city status.

But (just a feeling) that they didn't have a lot of pull in DC to set immigration policies nor oppose border security. Since even the "legal" immigrants will do the work for low wages.

Wages would have risen without 20 million illegals suppressing pay… and with a seeming endless stream of strong backs who will replace you if you ever complain, the road to any improvement is blocked.

Another struggle coming is from the chinese "Parachute kids"... and a rise in gang activity in California

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-06/violent-attack-raises-concerns-about-parachute-kids-china

This stat struck me as odd, given the discussion about mexicans in california:
Of the 15,000 or so foreign high school students in California in 2014, more than 9,200 were from China.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Yeah back in 01 Tyson was found not guilty
> In Missouri most of the "immigrants" are officially refugees. there are a lot of Somali refugees working there… and the starting pay is between 9 and 10 dollars and hour.
> 
> For the kind of work, one would expect it to pay more, but the endless supply of cheap labor keeps costs down, and the big plants are able mostly to control local elections/sherrif issues and sanctuary city status.
> ...


Tyson being found not guilty in 21st century American court doesn't say much about whether they are or not. After all, CBS's 60 Minutes reported how Healthsouth CEO Richard Scrushy walked away from his 2 decade multi billion dollar scam on Wall Street and a retired 98 year old Federal Judge was brought out of retirement to dismiss all of the cases lumped into class action against Merrill Lynch's criminal activities exposed by NY Atty Gen Elliot Spitzer.

The Chinese "Parachute kids" do not surprise me. If the left wing extremists and right wing extremists continue down their bickering path they have chosen for the last 40 years, there won't be much left of us, US in another 20 years.

This sort of reminds me of a friend who was a newspaper writer. He told me when he covered a political story he knew he had done a good job when both sides called the paper to complain ;-)


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I'll still respectfully call it rhetoric, something that is more of a broad-based opinion with political leanings (like a CNN headline) than discussion point. It's similar to inflama-phrases like big oil, big tobacco, trial lawyers, and big pharmaceutical companies. Those are never used in reasonable, open-minded conversations.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

New link, the first only worked one time ;-((

https://blu173.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=90b94d95-24bc-11e5-9777-d89d675c4976&attindex=0&cp=-1&attdepth=0&imgsrc=cid%3aX.MA1.1436204628%40aol.com&cid=1bbf89e96dcc7a24&hm__login=bobzim007&hm__domain=msn.com&ip=10.43.234.8&d=d325&mf=160&hm__ts=Thu%2c%2009%20Jul%202015%2003%3a46%3a50%20GMT&st=bobzim007%402&hm__ha=01_9b9f186f7188b2ea9ee690cd6e68bcdd98152284adb7e590a40d5b70dbdf0109&oneredir=1


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Bob, still says bad request.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I would like to say this about Trump. The guy is incredible. What he has done with his statements on Mexican illegals was brilliant and what he set out to do has worked. He knows what has been going on as a business owner for years. He has watched what the immediate savings of cheap labor has done to the long term product.

With that said, he threw a great big cinder block into the small boiling stew pot. He knew that the Democrats would jump all over it AND he knew that the Old line Republicans would do the same (RNC goes with them). He has just opened up a line of talking points that the others were unwilling to address. The great thing, as Trump sees it, is the press is backing the Democrats and blasting Trump, trying to drive him out. What they are doing is giving the Republican voting public an increasing reason to look at him closer and listen to him (Trump) more.

The next thing Trump is going to address, once this dies down, is the fact that we have a one party environment because the Dems and Reps are all on the same page.

He will bring EVERY serious issue to the top with or without the Republican Party being on board. The more they are not, the more he makes his point - all the while the press grabs every comment he makes. You can count on the fact that EVERY uttering is extremely thought out and strategically planned. In the process, every candidate that holds their tongues and say nothing on these topics increases his standing out as a force, the people are observing this as well.

Whether he actually becomes President is mute, he will bring the points to the top and get rid of the, "have you stopped beating you wife?" conquering methodology that the Democrats have successfully used for so long. The people that actually start to discuss these things with him might be able to actually compete with him - not seeing it yet.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

The guy is a total buffoon. His gestures have a lot in common with those of Mussolini, who was also a Buffoon, a dangerous one at that. In fact I see very little difference between the two.

Madts.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Madts. Do you disagree with him or just don't like him? How is he like Mussolini? El Duce was a fascist. How is Mr. Trump in with that genre?
I see more of fascism in this administration than any in my past 72 years.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Trump can't be bought, unlike the Dinos and Rinos. 

Uranium anyone?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

You may have some legitimate points there however, it is the MSM that elects the president (unfortunately). Look at what they did to Ross Perot and Ron Paul. They will smear the candidates and if necessary their family- whatever it takes and people swallow it hook, line and sinker. I remember them starting with Prote, "he doesn't look presidential because he is too short and his ears look weird and has a funny voice. How would he look like standing next to other world leaders??" When that didn't work, they went after his daughter and other family members. Same with Paul, every time he gained momentum, they started accusing him of being Nazi sympathizer and racist. Instead the kid whose great grandfather was a nazi sympathizer gets the job. Insofar as Trump, he is not a self-made billionaire nor is he a descent human being in my opinion. He could have been bankrupt several times in his career but because his bankruptcies negatively would affect the banks, they bailed him out. I remember at one time they had limit his spending to only $10,000.00 a day!
I think you are correct in that he is using these issues to stand out from the bunch but his motives have nothing to do with helping us the American people.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Obama's motives do not help the American people, his are to control, change the voter base to 30% illegals, do everything in his power to destroy our economy, destroy our way of life and culture, alienate our allies, and to enable ISIS.

What are Trumps motives? From what he says, he wants our economic power as a force to be back, he wants quality in manufacturing, he wants small businesses to prosper, he wants manufacturing to come back to the US, he wants the US to be respected again instead of mocked. What will he get out of this - filthy rich. I am good with that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Bob, still says bad request.
> 
> - mrjinx007


New American word on a T shirt: Ineptocracy

A system of government where the least capable are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

dbray45, what makes you think what he says = what he will do? Haven't be down this path before? Someone in congress came up with a bill to hold politicians accountable for campaign promises they make. It was knocked down so fast, it disappeared before it made the news. The opposition reasoning? It infringed on their freedom of speech.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I don't think Trump is a serious contender… lots of shady dealings (not unlike the Clinton Global Initiative) I don't see him making it through the primaries…

But he spoke the truth. - - - Anybody paying attention when they go outside and visit the bilingual Home depot can see that.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. "


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Jinx - Point taken - And you think anyone else in the race is better? Yes, let us look at what the politicians do, "Pass this health care plan and then we will read it and see what is in it?" - and they did. It is still unfolding as the biggest joke and money drain on the working people of the U.S. that they cannot afford.

Did you know that Congress voted a number of years ago that they get either a 10% or 15% raise per year (I cannot remember which)? After they passed it, they voted and passed another bill that automatically does gives then the raise every year so they are not scrutinized for voting on it.

Trump is not a politician, he is a business man - but he can do politics because he knows people. He knows what they want. Would I trust him if he was dating my daughter - nope, he is the antithesis of a politician - which makes him far more dangerous to them than to us. He is the consummate capitalist.

Compared to what is in office, he is a breath of fresh air - unless you are one of those people that don't want to work and want to just live off the government because you are "entitled" - I didn't say can't work, I said don't WANT to work - big difference there.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

One amendment I would like to see passed - No bill will be voted on until it is read by every member and discussed on the floor, line by line. If someone does not understand what the bill is stating, reword it so that it makes sense. If the President or a member makes a public statement like "if you like you doctor, you can keep him!" about a Bill, this becomes a part of the Bill and replaces the contrary text. If it is about taxes, and call the IRS, if you get different responses, the one that you think is best for you wins. The idea that you call the IRS and if the person tells you incorrectly - you are liable for their mistake - has got to go.

What this will do has many implications:
1.) they will be much shorter
2.) less smoke and mirrors
3.) less will be done


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

No, I don't look for any career politician to do anything positive for this country except for their own interest as you have elaborated. At the same time, I hate to think that we have been deprived to such a low level that Trump as president seems like a breath of fresh air. Personally, I like to see several parties come to existence and do away with this bifurcated snake head that basically represent the same body. A breath of fresh air for me would be 3rd, 4th, 5th party. This stagnant duo need some competition who put the love of the country first instead of self.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

One more note about Trump, unlike the politicians - he is focused, he knows what he wants out this. Politicians are pawns and do the bidding of those of the highest bidding - or they are just in the for the power.

Trump already has power, he has status, he has money, one thing that he loves more - he loves to WIN and he knows how to do it!

This is going to be fun to watch. Win, lose, or draw - he will change the game, he already has. He brings a whole new game board to this table, which goes by his rules.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

If someone does not understand what the bill is stating, reword it so that it makes sense.*
Well, "that depends on what "is" is" !


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The Constitution was written for a 2 party system, a third party would require an Amendment ratified by the states.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

That would mean that we have a Supreme Court that recognizes that "words" mean something! That would be a stretch.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

How did green party and libertarians fit into those two?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

dbray45: I have never read anywhere in the Constitution that there has to be two parties. There have been many times in my lifetime when more two parties were in the race.
Please point out where this is spelled out and in what article.
Thank you.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Technically, there are two parties - started out as the Tories and the Whigs and evolved into the Democrats and Republicans. Whether you are a "Green" "Independent" or anything else, you are going to have to decide whether you are voting with the Republicans or the Democrats.

You have two sides of the isle on the floor of the Congress - Republican or Democrat - if not, you are a "no vote".

You cannot live on the base salary of Congress, so you must get yourself into committees and sub committees which pay in addition to the base. This is how a Member of Congress goes from a $175,000 salary to $750,000 and more of a salary - they are controlled by the Democrats and Republicans.

It started, if I remember correctly, with the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

*Well, "that depends on what "is" is" !*
I used this to illustrate that majority of the folks in congress are lawyers. They write laws and argue law for a living. So, in this case with Bill Clinton, he was legally questioning the definition of "is". Now, we are talking about about 5000? pages when it comes to something like ACA.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

That is interesting David… I have to look it up because then, why would anyone spend the money to run as third party? That could be the reason Ron Paul ran as a R instead of L.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The Supreme Court took it took a new level last week


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

You gotta put your hat somewhere and you usually put it where it pays better.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

People that run as a third party do it for identification purposes but once elected, they have a choice to make or they starve - unless they are already wealthy. But then, neither party will let you in, so you are pointless in any discussions or writing bills.

For a new member, they are at the beck and call of senior members, until they are senior (and go with the party line)


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Select Committee on House Rules. They set how things get done, and it's Party-centric.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

What is important to liberals…. that at 15 your kid can get a sex change, paid for by the State… without parental notification nor consent.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/29513020/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations

The usual lib defense of stripping parental rights:

She said requiring parental consent would lead to more suffering and teen suicide attempts.

"Parents may not be supportive," Burleton said. "They may not be in an environment where they feel the parent will affirm their identity, this may have been going on for years." 
-----------------

Gee I feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that big brother would like me to "butt out" of my kids decisions as teenagers. because 15 year olds are known to be very serious and contemplative, and NEVER engage in destructive behaviour….. (dripping sarcasm)

I am not saying the procedure should be banned for teens… but Parents have a role and a voice in such matters.
\
But liberals like to just do things by force and call it "progressive"


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> The Constitution was written for a 2 party system, a third party would require an Amendment ratified by the states.
> 
> - dbray45


You can have as many parties as you want, but under our form of gov't, only two are really effective. In order for there to be multiple parties with a say in operations, you need to have a coalition gov't where all sides have a say in things. Under the current system, the 20% of us, US, in the middle are really left to make a choice of which is the lesser of 2 evil extremists. The trick is to cater to the party base to get on the ballot and still be main stream enough to get another 11% over the 40% party base.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> What is important to liberals…. that at 15 your kid can get a sex change, paid for by the State… without parental notification nor consent.
> 
> - DrDirt


And this is related to the topic of Climate Change how?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Greg. Of course it is. Horney 15 year old's put out a lot of heat. )

Madts.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> What is important to liberals…. that at 15 your kid can get a sex change, paid for by the State… without parental notification nor consent.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Read the title of the post… "Does Anything really matter anymore"

That since we hit 400ppm CO2…. we should all throw our hand up and say screw it.

Just offering us something to worry about more than Chinese Coal fired power plants.

Sex changes… Caitlyn Jenner - - seemed more interesting than three party politics… None of the above is about Global Warming, but it is nice you single me out for argument Greg.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Sex changes… Caitlyn Jenner - - seemed more interesting than three party politics… None of the above is about Global Warming, but it is nice you single me out for argument Greg.
> 
> - DrDirt


Your topic is distasteful. Care to ridicule teenagers with other medical conditions getting access to appropriate healthcare?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Sex changes… Caitlyn Jenner - - seemed more interesting than three party politics… None of the above is about Global Warming, but it is nice you single me out for argument Greg.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


If you want to blast liberals taking away parental rights why choose this example rather than California's new law eliminating exceptions for childhood vaccinations?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Sex changes… Caitlyn Jenner - - seemed more interesting than three party politics… None of the above is about Global Warming, but it is nice you single me out for argument Greg.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Do you have kids?
We have a society where you cannot give tylenol in school without parental consent, but gender reassignment with no approval….. and at taxpayer expense (even if parents had full coverage) is what our government focuses on INSTEAD of solving problems.

If you had bothered to read what my compliant was… it wasn't the type of operation, but that we are going to have CHILDREN make serious medical decisions without thier parents knowledge nor consent.

Consent has been handled other ways, like guardianship… legal emancipation etc.

Kids cannot get Tattoos…. but they can come home one day with hormone pills and their Johnson cut off, and parents have "NOTHING TO SAY about it" by law.

That is not a ACCESS to healthcare issue.
WHy this issue? because of its seriousness.

I don't equate a Mumps vaccine shot and gender reassignment as remotely equivalent decisions.

AND vaccinations have parental involvement.

But sure… other than that they are 'exactly the same thing' (cough cough)


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Korrect Komrade

General Patton comes to mind:


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Sex changes… Caitlyn Jenner - - seemed more interesting than three party politics… None of the above is about Global Warming, but it is nice you single me out for argument Greg.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Yes, 3, if it matters.

I see no useful comparison to school policies.

There are some very serious issues to having gender dysphoria. Do you know anyone with this condition? My understanding is that all the risks and consequences are fully considered before a course of treatment is selected. Also, my understanding is that surgery is late in the process if it is done at all. And whatever the course of treatment it is none of your business anyway. You are sensationalizing something about which you probably know almost nothing. Nothing wrong with that, but in doing so in this case you are also ridiculing real people with real issues. Leave them be.

Apparently Oregon's age of medical consent is 15, and this is a medical decision. Presumably they can also decide about abortion, sterilization, and plastic surgery, to name a few.

Right. There is very, very low risk of serious down side of a Mumps vaccine and yet still there are parents that get that decision wrong for their children. Parents are people and some people can make very poor choices.

Yes, ideally, every kid has a good relationship with 2 caring and functional parents. For them this law will have no consequence. Not every situation is ideal.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Apparently Oregon s age of medical consent is 15, and this is a medical decision. Presumably they can also decide about abortion, sterilization, and plastic surgery, to name a few.
> 
> Right. There is very, very low risk of serious down side of a Mumps vaccine and yet still there are parents that get that decision wrong for their children. Parents are people and some people can make very poor choices.
> 
> ...


The idea that we OK major surgery for minors as a matter of public policy, because "Some kids don't have good relationships".... *well golly gee whiz!*

Suppose they would need either emancipation… or patience until they turn 18 and are responsible for their own decisions. (the HORRORS!!!)

Schools in Washington will implant IUD's in your 11 year old daughter w/o parental consent too.

A spokeswoman for Washington's "Take Charge" program said, "...a young person does not need parental consent to obtain a LARC or any other contraceptive method. ... If the young person is not choosing abstinence, she would be able to select a LARC and have it inserted without parental consent."

Critics point out that public school students in Seattle are *not allowed to buy a soda or a candy bar at school* (Presumably because they are too IMMATURE to make good decisions?), but are now allowed access to contraceptives.

As far as vaccinations… it is still the parents call. Just that if they choose NOT to get immunized… junior cannot attend public school… So it is a Parental CHOICE.

The concept of Government cutting parents out and deciding the former cheerleader turned guidance counselor is qualified to make better choices for strangers children, then their parents …., is wrong.

There are bad parents… but gee… there are bad teachers.. ones that feed semen to 3rd graders, and have sex with students as well…. and arrnage for teenagers to kill their husbands.
That is not EVERYONE at school, but it isn't EVERY parent either!

That is not how the law should work. - - but it is what our 'elected officials' deem as the most important issues to be worked on, rather than Sanctuary cities, or global warming.

Destroying families is tops on the Progressive 'to do list'


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

> Your post makes no sense, you just invalidated those 35 Nobel laureates opinions.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Engineers are scientists, and Heat Transfer actually use to be a fairly major area of work for physicists before everything went all quantum mechanics.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Destroying families is tops on the Progressive to do list
> 
> - DrDirt


Poppycock. Just as same-sex marriage (a recent progressive priority) was never any threat whatsoever to my opposite-sex marriage, offering gender-related health care services to my 3 daughters without my consent while they were minors would never have been any threat whatsoever to my family.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

While not at all relevant to the science, bit is more on-topic:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/climate_scientists_despair_most_devastating_parts_of_esquire_s_jason_box.html


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Engineers are scientists, and Heat Transfer actually use to be a fairly major area of work for physicists before everything went all quantum mechanics.
> 
> - patcollins


In my experience it depends upon the particular engineer. Some are very scientific; others not so much.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

A modern day cowboy has spent many days crossing the Dakota prairies without water.

His horse had already died of thirst. He's crawling along the dusty ground, certain that he has breathed his last breath, when all of a sudden he sees an object sticking out of the ground several yards ahead of him.

He crawls to the object, pulls it out of the ground and discovers what looks to be an old briefcase.

He opens it and out pops a genie.

But this is no ordinary genie.

She is wearing an Internal Revenue Service ID badge and a dull grey dress.

There's a calculator in her pocketbook She has a pencil tucked behind one ear. 'Well, cowboy,' says the genie,

'You know how I work…You have three wishes.'

'I'm not falling for this,' said the cowboy,

'I'm not going to trust an IRS genie.'

'What do you have to lose? You've got no transportation, and it looks like you're a goner anyway!'

The cowboy thinks about this for a minute and decides that the genie is right.

'OK! I wish I were along side a lush spring with plenty of food and drink.'

*POOF*

The cowboy finds himself beside the most beautiful spring he has ever seen, and he's surrounded with jugs of wine and platters of delicacies.

'OK, cowpoke, what's your second wish.'

'My second wish is that I was rich…beyond my wildest dreams.'


*POOF
*
*

The cowboy finds himself surrounded by treasure chests filled with rare gold coins and precious gems.

'OK, cowpuncher, you have just one more wish.

Better make it a good one!'

After thinking for a few minutes, the cowboy says,

'I wish that no matter where I go, beautiful women will want and need me.'

**POOF***

He was turned into a Tampon.

Moral of The Story:

If the U.S. Government Offers To Help You, You Can Bet There's Going To Be A String Attached!!!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Sun going to sleep.
The changing Sun.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Off course, there are lies, and there are damn lies, and then there are statistics!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

dbray45,
I want to thank you for the education you provided for me as it relates to the third party in congress. I was totally ignorant of if; although it is not applicable to presidential candidates. I checked into the history in which it actually came to fruition from a one party candidate and branched out into 5 or so eventually (presidential). Very interesting. So, how can this be called "democracy" where representation is no where like parliamentary democracy in which almost all voices are heard? I am still a bit numb at this discovery and have to wrap it around my head for a while in order to grasp the intent of the founding fathers.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

The coming ice age?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

"Climate Change The Facts." Edited by Alan Moran. Chapter 21 "False Prophets Unveiled" is a good read.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> Destroying families is tops on the Progressive to do list
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


A physician (cough, cough) that inserts himself / herself into a family situation where parents and kids aren't really a family and initiates gender changing therapy is an idiot at best, and criminal otherwise. Can't imagine it actually happening, but either way, 15 is not an age of reason for such life issues.


----------



## Sigung (Nov 20, 2013)

Maybe the upcoming mini ice age predicted for 2020 will fix it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Destroying families is tops on the Progressive to do list
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


I spent the past week in Canada at a wedding. A cousin has a son that wants to become a girl, so this was discussed a bit. The health care system in Halifax where the son lives will pay for the operation only after you spend a year on hormone therapy at your cost (about $10,000). This seems to be a very good idea to me. If it really isn't for you, stop taking the shots. If you spend a year becoming the chosen sex and are happier then have the operation. I think parents would be happier with this approach as well.

My cousin said it is better to have the operation before puberty, so 15 is probably too old for many people. The consent part is weird to me since If you love your child and want them to be happy why wouldn't you let them have the change? It shouldn't be a surprise that they are struggling in/with their body.

P.S. What does this have to do with climate change?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Maybe the upcoming mini ice age predicted for 2020 will fix it.
> 
> - Jerry


That should bring the glaciers back ;-)


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Jinx - Only one thing I can say - Aint life grand? Seriously, the only reason I post on a few of these threads is to get people thinking about what is going on. If we are to become a socialist country, which may already be a foregone conclusion, we really need to open our eyes and see it for what it is.

From what I see, everything is completely upside down. 

The way that the laws are written for separation of church and state is totally out of context.
Health care is not a right, keeping healthy is a goal
Having the government dictate what you make is wrong on all counts
Having the federal government even remotely making decisions that affect us directly is wrong on all counts
Having the federal government enforce laws for some and not others is wrong
Having the federal government not do one of the most essential tasks that is supposed to do (secure our borders) is wrong
Having the the government undermine parents' decisions about their kids and even go so far as to spy on their parents is wrong
The government passing laws that make it impossible for our businesses to compete and then invite other countries in and give them preferential treatment is wrong
Having the President using the IRS and FBI to target and put down their political opponents is unlawful, but Clinton and Obama do it without challenge
Allowing illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses, Social Security, medical benefits (paid by Social Security) and then allowing them to vote - really? They already have the paper trail to be a citizen
Allowing non- US citizens to own property in this country - did you know that if you are a US citizen, you cannot own property in other countries - they will not permit it. Territories are permitted.
The federal government picks what states can enforce their own Constitutional laws under the US and their Constitution.
States cannot enforce their voting laws and require identification
The Supreme Court rules that "words" are not words. Last I checked, laws had to be specific, that is why we have constitutional lawyers - to make sure that the wording was correct, not any more, it is not the words but the "intent" - talk about a slippery slope this creates. Now, any law can be re-construed to mean anything they want.

The list goes on and on. When you start putting these things down on paper, you start scratching your head - is this really what we want? The US is seriously not what it was 20 - 30 years ago. All of the things that set us apart from the other countries, things that made us great, have been stripped away - piece by piece, well, now its whole sections at a once. The next step it to just rule the Constitution and Bill of Rights as "null and void"


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Did you know, the only difference between a communist state and a socialist state is that in a communist state, the government tells you what religion you may practice.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Yes, wasn't Bush Jr. who supposedly said the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper? Whether he did say it or not, he sure demonstrate it with his actions. I know what you mean about the change in the past 30 years or so. Back then, the word terrorist would make people mad not scared; especially if it was used for political gain and power grab.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Between the Clintons, Bush, Obama, Boehner, Palosi, the Supreme Court, it goes back the the LBJ days, our way of life has been eroded. Mostly because the people in office feel very strongly that "they" know what "we" need and we are too stupid to know for ourselves. The social engineering that has gone with it - that is scary. Americans have been losing their "can do" attitude and acquired a "do for me" attitude.

There is hope. I have heard some of the youngsters (18-25) that are not good with what is going on, and they are paying close attention. The trouble is when a candidate runs for office saying one thing, gets elected, and then does nothing.

I have a relative - what I call a youngster - that when she got out of school, she made the statement that she, "wouldn't mind if the government managed her money, after all, they know what is best!" Now that she has a little money, and is getting taxed, she doesn't feel that way. The problem is that when she believed the nonsense, she was able to vote - and she did. Now that she understands some of it, other people are voting the way she did (without understanding), in bigger numbers.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Destroying families is tops on the Progressive to do list
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Here is the "feel good agenda" 
*Study claims family dinners are elitist, put unnecessary pressure on mothers*
Emily Jashinsky

The study concludes that the resurgent emphasis on home cooking is "a tasty illusion, one that is moralistic, and rather elitist." 
Suggested solutions include healthy food trucks, monthly town suppers, shifting society's emphasis towards lunch, and *schools offering to-go meals *that families can heat up for dinner.

Mmmm schools making to go meals ought to bring test scores up more than STEM education right?

To me this shows the agenda of "government control… and a WE know best" position on raising kids.
--------------
Liberals - will have CPS take your kids if they are allowed to go to the park without a helicopter parent.
and use CPS as a weapon to enforce conformity. and even walking home from school is a crime.

Hawaii -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/robert-demond-probation_n_5415095.html

Maryland
http://abcnews.go.com/US/maryland-free-range-kids-custody/story?id=30278320

or nationally
The Safe Routes to School program recommends *children under the age of 10 not cross a street alone*. But if your child's route is less than a mile, it's a direct walk with sidewalks along the way and the only place to cross the street is via the crossing guard, this may not apply.

Progressives - are about diminishing the role of men as parents. 
(Hollywood plays along, as fathers are portrayed as homer simpson/peter griffen/Al Bundy) or as inept morons in commercials as dads are snowed and bilked for money by their kids as they eye roll and head for the mall.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/living/dumb-dad-stereotype/

well except for financial support….even if you were just a donor for a lesbian couple.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/

Or as a Rape VICTIM (age 14) as a child….but liberals see men as paychecks not people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/nick-olivas-alleged-rape-victim-_n_5773532.html

The term husband or wife is on its way to becoming "hate speech" because it isn't gender neutral
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-declare-war-on-words-husband-wife/article/2567925

and of course the school lunch police…. (while simultaneosly complaining about school funding)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/17/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/
When Jazlyn said she didn't eat what her mother had made her, Zambrano went to her teacher and demanded to know what happened. She said the teacher told her an official had come through that day to inspect students' lunches and that those who were lacking certain food groups were sent to the cafeteria. After she received her cafeteria food, the teacher told Zambrano, Jazlyn was told to put her homemade lunch back in her lunchbox and set it on the floor.

Zambrano said the teacher told her it was not the first time student lunches have been inspected, and that officials come "every so often."

*Progressives are all about suppressing family involvement… e.g. ANTI-Family. (quite different than gay marriage Greg)*

Are there bad parents? Sure there are.

But there are bad administrators…. teachers…. legislators…. also.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> *Progressives are all about suppressing family involvement… e.g. ANTI-Family. (quite different than gay marraige Greg)*
> 
> - DrDirt


Hey Doc, what fraction of the progressives that you know personally agree with all of the anecdotes that you listed?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

DrDirt, Amazingly enough, there are so many 18 years old who have been identified as sex offenders and have to post the sign on their front lawn of their dwelling because they had sex with their 17 years old girlfriend who happen to be their wife now. 
David, since Greek president caved-in to Brussels, here is the new laws to control the news and everything else:
Here are the new laws in Spain:

1. If you photograph security personnel and then share these images on social media: up to €30.000 fine (particularly if photo exposes violence used against a member of the public). This fine could increase depending on the number of Instagram or social media followers you have. 
2. Tweet or retweet information or the "location of an organized protest" can now be interpreted as an act of terrorism as it incites others to "commit a crime" (now that "demonstrating" in many ways has become a crime). Sound "1984"-ish? Read about Orwell and his time in Spain.

3. Snowden-like whistle blowing is now defined as an act of terrorism. If you write for a local publication, be careful what you print, whom you speak to, and whether the government is listening.

4. Visiting or consulting terrorist websites - even for investigative purposes - can be interpreted as an act of terrorism. Make sure you use "Tor" browser, reject cookies, and don't allow pop-ups. Not to mention, don't post it on your Facebook timeline!

5. Be careful with the royal jokes! Any satirical comment against the royal family is a new crime "against the Crown". For example, "What did Leticia and the Bishop have to say after they --" (SORRY CENSORED).

6. No more hassling elected members of the government or local authorities - even if they say one thing in order to be elected, but then go and do the exact opposite. Confronting them about this hypocritical behavior. Even if you see them in the street chatting to a street cleaner, dining at their favorite expensive restaurant, or having their shoes shined by that physics graduate who cannot find a decent job in the country, hassling them about their behavior is now a criminal offence.

7. Has your local river been so polluted by that plastic factory along the edge that all life has extinguished? Well, tough! Greenpeace or similar protests are now finable from €601-€30.000.

8. Protests in a spontaneous way outside Parliament are now illegal. For example if Parliament passes a hugely unpopular bill, or are debating something extremely important to you or your community, it is now finable from €601 - €30.000. Tip: Use Google Maps to protest just around the corner - but don't tweet the location!

9. Obstructing an officer in the course of their business, "resisting arrest", refusing to leave a demonstration when told, or getting in the way of a swinging baton are all now finable offences from €601 - €30.000.

10. Showing lack of respect to officers of the law is an immediate fine of €100 - €600. Answering back, asking a disrespectful question, making a funny face, showing your bottom to an officer of the law, or telling him/her that their breath reminds you of your dog's underparts is now, sadly, not advisable.

11. Occupying, squatting, or refusing to leave an office, business, bank or other place until your complaint has been heard as a protest is now a €100 - €600 fine (no more flash mobs).

12. Digital protests: Writing something that could technically "disturb the peace" is a now a crime. Bloggers beware, for no one has yet defined whose peace you could be disturbing.
People don't realize how fast a police state comes to be.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

A story about changes in the Arctic:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> DrDirt, Amazingly enough, there are so many 18 years old who have been identified as sex offenders and have to post the sign on their front lawn of their dwelling because they had sex with their 17 years old girlfriend who happen to be their wife now.
> David, since Greek president caved-in to Brussels, here is the new laws to control the news and everything else:
> Here are the new laws in Spain:
> 
> ...


Any links to support these claims?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Yes, Spain doing the same thing because they are next.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Yes, Sorry, it was Spain. FGreek is in the process. He told the people to say no, then went back begging for money. People will soon demand why and will be hushed.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> A story about changes in the Arctic:
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html
> 
> - GregD


So why didn't the climate dumbass drive 5 feet to the left ? (because being stuck is a better image)??

As he rails about how they nearly lost their ATV .. WHen I drive ATV's I would have chosen to cross the water where it is only a foot wide… not 15 feet of open water and scream about it.










Of course the NASA study in May this year says the opposite.

Who is lying?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Ice is either there … or not there for the last 35 years. If it is NASA lying about thier satellite data… then who in government should we trust as a real "scientist"?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

DrDirt, "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied."

Claud Cockburn


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Climate change is going to become front and center as the UN climate change summit Sep of this year nears.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> A story about changes in the Arctic:
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html
> 
> ...


Taylor and you are. Yet another classic example of cherry picking; attempting to characterize a complicated system by presenting one simplistic perspective on one tiny bit of data.

The data is below. In principle a 10% change may be of no significance, as Taylor alleges, or it could be profoundly significant. It kinda depends on the situation and that perspective is completely missing from Taylor's "analysis". There was a distinct reduction from 2005 to 2013; hard to say whether the more recent increase is return to "normal" or is a temporary peak.

To get an accurate picture one would need to reconcile *all* the data. Which is a lot of hard work. I will admit that I haven't done it myself, and I don't have an independent well-informed perspective on the topic. It appears that you haven't/don't either.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> A story about changes in the Arctic:
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html
> 
> ...


NASA released that chart? Or someone else?

If it is someone else's work then they are lying.
NASA seems quite certain that the sea ice is diminishing. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2237/

Interesting article on the oceans absorbing heat. 
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2308/


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So you are saying the Boston Globe "Did the hard analysis of all the data"? I really doubt that.

The graph you show looks like the average anomoly hovers right at zero…. even though your Boston Globe article paints a dire picture, of how the rivers are too shallow to navigate, and that the temperature has risen 500% more than the rest of the world on average.

the Blue/Gray seems a pretty sable sinus rythm.. no drop-off

Seems the "bottom is always ~16million square Km… nand the top is 22.5 million.

Looks like taylor is 100% correct.

He points out "Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average."

So is the official data More ice or Less Ice?
Some questions really are simple YES/NO issues.

I could make the same charge against the Globe article… that they just Cherry picked some data to make a point they wanted to make.

But The only thing complicated can be the cause and effect. The Satellite should be able to measure ice extent in a "non partisan way" and show it increasing or decreasing. That really isn't a sophisticated analysis that is required to make the claim.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> So you are saying the Boston Globe "Did the hard analysis of all the data"? I really doubt that.
> 
> The graph you show looks like the average anomoly hovers right at zero…. even though your Boston Globe article paints a dire picture, of how the rivers are too shallow to navigate, and that the temperature has risen 500% more than the rest of the world on average.
> 
> ...


The Boston Globe article is just one story about one situation. It is certainly not an independent, well-informed assessment of climate change. Just a human interest story.

If you look at the entire graph (not all of it shows up on Lumberjocks) the anomaly is much more negative than positive from 2005-2013.

It is disingenuous or incompetent to compare a point-value of an oscillating function to an average value. One should at least average over the apparent period of oscillation (one year). Taylor and you are obfuscating the data by making a big deal out of yet another pointless comparison. By itself the plot of sea ice coverage does not make a compelling case either way.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The Boston Globe article is just one story about one situation. It is certainly not an independent, well-informed assessment of climate change. Just a human interest story.


But it is one you presented as gospel from the Globe… and the story in Forbes as a lie.


> If you look at the entire graph (not all of it shows up on Lumberjocks) the anomaly is much more negative than positive from 2005-2013.


But then from 2013-15 is back right at Zero.

I have no trouble believing that if we had longer data sets we would see other oscillations over 5 year intervals above and below the reference.

The "baseline" was set as 1979, which was at that time when scientists were convinced of our being in a little ice age… so that reference point is likely anomolously HIGH as it was taken after a decade of record cold?










...But it is the only self consistent data set since the satellite was launched in 78/79 to make these measurements, it isn't possible to look back another 10 years, without having measurement errors from one dataset that are not present in the other.



> It is disingenuous or incompetent to compare a point-value of an oscillating function to an average value. One should at least average over the apparent period of oscillation (one year). Taylor and you are obfuscating the data by making a big deal out of yet another pointless comparison. By itself the plot of sea ice coverage does not make a compelling case either way.
> 
> - GregD


Interesting that the Nasa Sea ice measurements "do not make a compelling case either way"..... but that isn't what is reported. It is the horseman of the apocalypse.

And when someone looks at the data and says… they don't see it, they are branded as Liars, who are obfuscating the data.

So as I said we are either Gaining or Losing sea ice…. there is nothing complicated about that analysis. However the fact that the polar ice reflecting heat as an important mechanism to stabilize the temperature versus ocean absorbtion is certainly a potential concern.

however there should be no debate whether there is 22 million square Km or ice in teh winter. it is not like temperature stations that can be impacted by being located next to heat sources.
I expected there to be more of a trend (ideally not an inverted hockey stick) since we were supposed to be 100% ice free last year…. according to the experts.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *The "baseline" was set as 1979, which was at that time when scientists were convinced of our being in a little ice age… so that reference point is likely anomolously HIGH as it was taken after a decade of record cold?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting that the Time cover you added *doesn't* exist in this link to Time magazine covers.

http://search.time.com/results.html?No=0&sid=14E8D252D820&Ns=p_date_range|1&N=46&Nf=p_date_range|BTWN+19770101+19771231&Nty=1

From what I can find that is an edited cover from *April 9, 2007* about dealing with global warming.

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070409,00.html

I do not recall ever hearing about a coming ice age during the 70's. There may have been a media panic, but I seriously doubt many scientists thought that.

Sorry if you got taken in by this fraud. Reminds me of that guy Dinesh with the 1969 picture of HRC with the stupid confederate flag.

P.S. Is 1979 a sea ice outlier like 1998 was for warming? Perhaps these scales should be in 25, 50, or 100 year increments. Then no one can cherry pick.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

"When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."

The biggest science scandal ever…...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> "When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."
> 
> The biggest science scandal ever…...
> 
> ...


So the 10 hottest years on record being after 1998, with 2014 as the hottest is because they moved the recent years up or they moved all preceding years down?

If they moved all preceding years up, then we wouldn't seem so hot unless… OMG maybe it is getting hotter! Coincidence?

Are *they* manipulating all the temps everywhere, even now?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> "When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."
> 
> The biggest science scandal ever…...
> 
> ...


Rubbish. Such a scandal would require an implausibly large conspiracy to cook the data in one particular way. In my experience scientists are not, in general, conformists, but rather contrarians by nature.

The reality is that the temperature data is far less extensive and consistent than what is necessary to easily quantify what is actually happening. So it takes a lot of skill and effort to separate the true signal from the noise. And the various data sets do not line up behind a single conclusion in an obvious way. Reconciling the apparent conflicts also requires a lot of skill and effort. The incompetent and lazy resort to propagating conspiracy theories.

The current projections from the climate-change-is-real faction may one day prove to be inaccurate but it won't be because of some wide-spread conspiracy, it would be because the interpretation is hard.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

"The reality is that the temperature data is far less extensive and consistent than what is necessary to easily quantify what is actually happening. So it takes a lot of skill and effort to separate the true signal from the noise. And the various data sets do not line up behind a single conclusion in an obvious way. Reconciling the apparent conflicts also requires a lot of skill and effort. The incompetent and lazy resort to propagating conspiracy theories.

The current projections from the climate-change-is-real faction may one day prove to be inaccurate but it won't be because of some wide-spread conspiracy, it would be because the interpretation is hard."

Thanks for that write-up, Greg. I agree with everything stated there.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I do not recall ever hearing about a coming ice age during the 70 s. There may have been a media panic, but I seriously doubt many scientists thought that.
> - RobS888


You know that will full ignorance really is the worst kind.
Hey… in the 1930's there was an uprising of antisemitism in Germany… did you hear about that one?

History denial, sad sad sad

1970's was all about the ice age.

Have a look at the compiled studies and headlines here….
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

Perhaps Greg can chime in or set you straight via PM and give you the 411 on that climate fiasco, that the global consensus of the 70's was that we were into cooling… (Still from CO2 production though)










The 1970's focus was on the 30+ years of cooling since ~WW2 to (then Present) and when it might stop.









So the point is that setting the Polar Ice extent "baseline" at essentially the *Coldest point in 80 years* may skew findings/projections (I didn't think that was a controversial point).... but I also stated that the satellite data (launched then) since 79 is the most accurate and self consistent measure… vs extrapolations from tree rings vs Ice cores/russian and US Navy thickness measures, vs vegetation studies in alpine forest, to medieval records to modern times. Those would all hav a lot more noise.

But you chose to ignore such things to make a personal attack.

It is really easy to map ice on a grid from a satellite photo and measure area… nothing really subjective about it.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

You know, the more Co2, the more plants create oxygen. Why don't we plant more trees - just saying.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I do not recall ever hearing about a coming ice age during the 70 s. There may have been a media panic, but I seriously doubt many scientists thought that.
> - RobS888
> 
> *You know that will full ignorance really is the worst kind.
> ...


Back to the personal attacks I see (I used bold on them for you).

I just pointed out the cover was a *fake*, do you even mention your previous *"proof" was a lie*, no you attack by equating my not remembering something (that wasn't a big deal apparently) to the *holocaust*? Were you duped or were you the duper?

The more you are proven wrong the more you personally attack, that is sad sad sad. But it is probably the closest you can come to admitting you are wrong. Keep reloading it is funny. GregD was correct, when he said you and Taylor are liars.

If the global cooling belief among scientists was so prevalent where are the *big headlines*? I see some clips, but there should have been several thousands of them from the biggest papers. There shouldn't be a need to create fraudulent covers. I did see an in search of episode listed there, so you got that on your side. You know several of those articles mention climate change, not cooling.

Try to prove "that the *global consensus* of the 70 s was that we were into cooling". You can barely prove it was believed by some, so let me see the global consensus. Your credibility is approaching zero.

Personal attacks in 3, 2, 1.

EDIT:
"But you chose to ignore such things to make a personal attack."

Where did I personally attack you in that post about the Time cover? I just pointed out it was a fake. Are you getting confused again?

Do you feel that proving you wrong is a personal attack? If that is how you feel, I have been personally attacking you for over a year ;-}


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I think eventually there will be a conclusion that earth temperature fluctuates based on our solar system and perhaps beyond. Once we realize there are cycles in these events, then we will try to come up with ways to prepare for each cycle (hot or cold). I believe just because people reject global warming AKA climate change is caused by human activities, they go around trashing the planet and being irresponsible with their behavior. Obviously, when governments and politics get involved in these type of debates the facts get even murkier than they already are and people rightly are skeptic.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Jinx - I agree that there will be cycles - 10 year, 100 year, 20,000 year, 1,000,000 year and until we get enough years of data to see what they are, there is a lot of conjecture submitted into the mix and deemed conclusion.

Then again, there may not be cycles and the world is coming to an end - either way, we (as people and individuals) will live as long as we live - and not a minute longer.

So, if you live and love, be firm when you have to, be gentle when you should, be careful and use common sense, and be honest with yourself and with others - as if this were your last day on earth - you will live a good life!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Good one David. Exactly my way of thinking. Hindu philosophy is very interesting in regards to "cycle of the universe".


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I think eventually there will be a conclusion that earth temperature fluctuates based on our solar system and perhaps beyond. Once we realize there are cycles in these events, then we will try to come up with ways to prepare for each cycle (hot or cold). I believe just because people reject global warming AKA climate change is caused by human activities, they go around trashing the planet and being irresponsible with their behavior. Obviously, when governments and politics get involved in these type of debates the facts get even murkier than they already are and people rightly are skeptic.
> 
> - mrjinx007


There already *is* a widespread consensus that Earth temperatures fluctuate. There are many known natural phenomena that contribute to that, which includes CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What is contested is the total effect - direct and indirect - of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere that has been generated by burning fossil fuels. See, for example: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ and the rest of http://www.drroyspencer.com. Roy Spencer is one of the 3% of climate scientists of the opinion that the effect of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere will be relatively small. As far as I can tell there is not much disagreement on the direct effect; all the disagreement is on the magnitude of the indirect effects.

The other 97% of climate scientist point out that after accounting for all of the known natural phenomena that contribute to Earth temperature fluctuations, the temperature record shows an inexplicable increase that is significant. They assert that this increase is the total effect of the additional CO2. The temperature record is both vast - surface air temperatures, weather balloon temperatures, sea temperatures, atmospheric temperatures from satellites, and temperature proxy data, yet small compared to the size and complexity of the Earth and the time periods we are interested in (the past 1000 years up to present, for example). *This man-made-climate-change-is-real-and-is-significant assertion is not some political or marketing BS or some wide-spread conspiracy*. It is the result of a lot of smart people competing with each other to get the right answer first that are working all the available data to get the best interpretation possible. *But from what I have seen the story is messy and complicated and the only way to get a meaningful scientific assessment is to carefully review the data and logic supporting the assertions*. Not an easy task.

On the other hand, just because the story (that man made climate change is real and significant) is messy and complicated, does not mean it is wrong. There is no scientific justification for confidence that it is wrong. It might be wrong, but that is by no means a sure thing.

There is also a lot of climate change marketing/political BS, on both sides, none of which has the least bit of scientific significance whatsoever.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Very true Greg,
Is it also the consensus that the end result of global warming will end in an "ice age" type of environment?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Rob your ignorance knows no bounds.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2015/03/05/and-thats-way-it-was-1972-cronkite-warned-new-ice-age

I chose this link because the ice age discussion was by the FOUNDER OF THE Climate Research Unit for East Anglica. (Founded in 1972).

The Hadley center for Climate Research began in 1990 Opened by Margaret Thatcher.

None of that lined up with Al Gores politics as he was just getting out of the Army in 71.

The difference was then it wasn't about getting the UN and IPCC to make global policies.

It was a more simple and Obvious to anyone with a double digit IQ, that there had been gradual warming for several hundred years…

People felt that CO2 was a contributor to warming.

But then they were looking at teh data noticing that waming stopped and cooling had been going on for 30 years….

People looked at the trend…. and wondered WHY…. and HOW Much longer/colder would it get.

Your concept that I need to deliver proof that "people wondered about the direction of the climate" is simply a weak minded attempt to pettifog the issue.

Sure there are people that doctor photos on the internet.
I show you Scientific articles adn a slew of news reports including the National Academy of Sciences request for funding from january 1975….
Your argument is "scientists didn't believe that - - only news people did"??? Really? and you are asking me for proof?

Please do tell… who do you think the Journalists were interviewing? the local dog catcher? They do name names.

None of which changes from the original story where the Polar Ice "Baseline" is from the coldest point of the past century.
Maybe the "ZERO" point for their study should have been 2010…. then by using the warmest year on record they could show how ice is increasing… it is all about CHOOSING a baseline, impacts the conclusions you draw from graphs. (reading 101)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

People doctor photos and others use them knowing they are fraudulent… You still seem confused on the insults and the time line.

You can insult all you want. It is funny to me that you think that helps your argument or hurts mine.

Asking for proof is pettifogging? Do you consider proof to be a petty detail?

Did you notice that story was the last thing before the sign off? He reserved that for sad, happy, sardonic or ironic little vignettes. He felt that "and that's the way it is…" could hold several meanings. That is news the way, man bites dog is news. You must have dug deep to find this, sorry it still isn't news or presented as news.

Here is a clip of Chronkite talking about the sign off. 




He was making fun of it and even you should be able to see that.

Please prove this: 
that the global consensus of the 70's was that we were into cooling…

I've seen it joked about now, so your credibility is below zero!

EDIT:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Interesting notes on there about how the National Academy of Sciences felt they didn't know enough to even try to predict what would happen with the weather.

...and it's Anglia, not Anglica.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Polar shift Jan 2015.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Global cooling was the consensus of the scientific community during the 1970s based upon a 30 year trend that could not be explained based on continued increasing levels of CO2 in atmosphere. Aerosols were of particular interest, and were seen as a possible solution to create a shielding effect from warming. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

If its on the internet it must be true?

The proof the "Current" generation of scientist use to dispel the 1970 consensus is a study of how many articles were written and how many times they were cited.
well golly gee…. I suppose nobody believed in nuclear power as a possibility in the 1800's because there were fewer papers about fission before WW2 than after it.

The asking for proof is funny because as all the data showed - - - we were warming for hundreds of years and then it turned around in the late 30's early 40's.

CO2 for warming was already a known phenomena… and CO2 was increasing.

So scientists were asking about why the turn around? What could be causing it? Will it end soon? 
Frankly those are the same questions asked today about why we haven't seen a continued increase for the past decade…. "where did the heat go"

Only you would look at history and say
"Sorry if you got taken in by this fraud. Reminds me of that guy Dinesh with the 1969 picture of HRC with the stupid confederate flag."

So in your eminent scientific mind… the temperature didn't; drop… nobody believed in cooling.. it was all a fraud.

mmmm Please prove that the temperature didn't drop from 1938 to 1980 ( that the temp record is BS.)

and that few was studying nor believed in it… when it was started by the founder of the CRU at east anglia Hubert Lamb.

Science standards were less political in teh 1970s.. you would be hard pressed to find a scientist making any 97% claims, or that "the science is settled" back then.

For your own excercise… please prove that in 1492 'EVERYONE" thought the earth was flat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/14/christopher-columbus-3-things-you-think-he-did-that-he-didnt/


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
> 
> Global cooling was the consensus of the scientific community during the 1970s based upon a 30 year trend that could not be explained based on continued increasing levels of CO2 in atmosphere. Aerosols were of particular interest, and were seen as a possible solution to create a shielding effect from warming. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]
> 
> ...


I'm surprised you would go to such lengths to try to get some credibility back. Too bad you can't clear the goggle cache and wiki history as well.



















You need to win that bad that you would edit a Wiki post, sad dude very sad. I knew you would torture facts to try to make a point, but to actually change a reference! That is a new low even for you.

I undid your edits from IP 199.168.151.40.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

post deleted.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

I only ask you to prove what you post, stop trying to obfuscate.

Please prove:

"that the global consensus of the 70 s was that we were into cooling"

Will your next comment be "it depends on what prove means"?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The change had nothing to do with 'winning credibility' but that essentially a bulletin board… editable by anyone with a particular point of view is 'setting the record' isn't proof of Jack…. hence the "its on the internet comment" (I had the original copy/paste stored here to place it after you went down the rabbit hole)

Wikipedia as history is a bit like the animal rules from Animal Farm… just add "with sheets" and now the pigs sleep in beds, the "Record or History" is simply changed at will to suit someones argument.

Your argument is "it depends what prove means"... I have shown the articles, headlines temp graphs ….. you just parrot 'baaaawk Prove it' post post post "nope Baawwk prove it' see Wiki says it was conjecture"

You do a good job playing the fool and claiming that NOBODY believes in the historical surface temperature measurements…. Prove that scientists believed the data….. REALLY? that is your argument?

Just because someone with a particular point of view writes "it was all conjecture"... doesn't make it so.

The warming alarmists are working overtime to try to make your argument that "We never believed in cooling"

The 'seminal' work pointed to is the 2008 paper by Peterson.










And they make some graphs to say there were "more papers that postulated warming than cooling from 1965-79"... and say SEE SEE SEE

Yet what is Curious - is that HH Lamb… (founder of the CRU) and the guy Cronkite, and Newsweek all interview/cite….and NONE of his work is mentioned? (would seem he should have maybe 1 or 2 items to me)

the word "LAMB" is not anywhere in their 'study'? Below are his publications….. but Petersons et. al includes NONE?

Nor the work of Dansgaard and Langway who did all of the 1970s greenland ice cores?.... nope not included (not even as 'neutral' parties)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900634?np=y

And apparently Dr. Gifford Miller from the University of Colorado didn't exist either.
Who else is skipped as a reference to deny people worried about the cooling trend?? (known as Lying by omission)
How do these shows in the 70's come up with their material.. with "no scientists studying or providing info"?





(Yay - - - old spock! narrated)
Really hokey - b*ut the record cold was used to found the Climate institutes…. because they showed a need for understanding what is happening. (Hence the NAS requests for funding)
If you didn't have dire predictions, and people freezing in their cars….. nobody would be interested… so they throw around dire predictions, food shortages, etc to get their studies funded.
*

Lamb, H.H. 1995. Climate, History and the Modern World. (2nd Edition). 433pp Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE. (keywords: climate change historical impacts)
Lamb, H.H. 1991. Historic Storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe. 204pp Cambridge University Press. (keywords: UK Europe storms regional oceanography book historical records)
Lamb, H.H. 1991. British Isles daily wind and weather patterns 1588, 1781-86, 1972-91 and shorter early sequences (in 1532, 1570 and others years, notably 1688, 1689, 1694, 1697, 1703, 1717, 1783-4, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1822, 1825, 1829, 1845, 1846, 1849, 1850, 1854-5. Climate Monitor 20, 47-70 Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. (keywords: UK Europe daily wind meteorological observations historical records instrumental)
Lamb, H.H. 1988. Weather, Climate and Human Affairs. Routledge, London, 364pp Routledge, London. (keywords: climate change impacts socio agriculture book meteorology health)
Lamb, H.H. 1987. What can historical records tell us about the breakdown of the medieval warm climate in Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - an experiment. Atmospheric Physics 60, 131-143 (keywords: historical climate change Europe records)
Lamb, H.H. 1986. The history of climatology and the effects of climatic variations on human history. Weather 41, 16-20 (keywords: historical climate change impacts)
Lamb, H.H. 1986. The origin of the extensive ice-floes in the English Channel in February 1984. Journal of Meteorology 11, 123-125 (keywords: sea ice historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1985. 'Torro' - and the importance of independent meteorological research. Journal of Meteorology 10, 180-181 (keywords: meteorology methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1985. Climate and its variability in the North Sea-northeast Atlantic region. In: The North Sea - a Highway of Economic and Cultural Exchange (Eds. A. Bang-Andersen, B. Greenhill and E.H. Grude), pp.27-38 Norwegian University Press. (keywords: climate change Europe NH regional North Sea Atlantic Europe)
Lamb, H.H. 1985. Climate and landscape in the British Isles. In: The English Landscape, Past, Present and Future (Ed. S.R.J. Woodell), pp.148-167 Oxford University Press. (keywords: climate change UK historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1985. The reconstruction of past climate.
Lamb, H.H. 1985. The reconstruction of past climate during the historical period. Ymer: Himmel och Jord 105, 91-102 (keywords: reconstruction climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1984. Climate and history in northern Europe and elsewhere. In: Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millenial Basis (Eds. N.-A. Morner and W. Karlen), pp.225-240 Reidel. (R) (keywords: climate change historical Europe global)
Lamb, H.H. 1984. Some studies of the Little Ice Age of recent centuries and its great storms." In: Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millenial Basis (Eds. N.-A. Morner and W. Karlen), pp.309-329 Reidel. (keywords: historical storms LIA)
Lamb, H.H. 1984. The future of the Earth - greenhouse or refrigerator? Journal of Meteorology 9, 237-242 (keywords: impacts forecasting greenhouse)
Lamb, H.H. 1983. Climate. In: Britain's Heritage Atlas (Ed. J.J. Norwich), pp.14-15 Granada. (keywords: climate historical UK)
Lamb, H.H. 1982. Climate, History and the Modern World. 387pp Methuen, London. (keywords: climate change historical impacts book)
Lamb, H.H. 1982. Climate changes in our own times and future threats. Geography 67, 203-220® (keywords: climate change historical global impacts forecasting)
Lamb, H.H. 1982. Reconstruction of the course of past climate over the world. In: Climatic Change in Later Prehistory (Ed. A.F. Harding), pp.11-32 Edinburgh University Press. (R) (keywords: reconstruction global climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1982. The climatic environment of the Arctic Ocean. In: The Arctic Ocean: Hydrographic Environment and the Fate of Pollutants (Ed. L. Rey), pp.135-161 Macmillan, London, for Comite Arctique Internationale, Monaco. (R) (keywords: climate change Arctic oceans pollution)
Lamb, H.H. 1982. The development of climate and its relevance to human affairs. Proc. Royal Institution, London 54, pp.65-95® (keywords: climate change impacts historical social agriculture industry human)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. An approach to the study of the development of climate and its impact on human affairs. In: Climate and History: Studies of Past Climates and their Impact on Man (Eds. T.M.L. Wigley, M.J. Ingram and G. Farmer), pp.291-309 Cambridge University Press. (R) (keywords: climate change impacts human social agriculture industry political met hodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. Climate from 1000 BC to 1000 AD. In: The Environment of Man: the Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period (Eds. M. Jones and G. Dimbleby), pp.53-65 British Archaeological Reports British Series, 87, Oxford. (R) (keywords: climate change historical reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. Climatic changes and food production: observations and outlook in the modern world. Geojournal 5, 101-112® (keywords: climate change agriculture industry observations political forecasting impacts )
Lamb, H.H. 1981. Effects of climatic change on the people of Europe in the past. In: Climatic Change and European Agriculture (Eds. S.W. Burrage and M.V.K. Carr), pp.1-16 Wye College, Centre for European Agricultural Studies. (keywords: climate change human social agriculture political historical records r econstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. Some aspects of the cold, disturbed climate of recent centuries, the 'Little Ice Age' and similar occurrences. In: Weather and Weather Maps (Ed. G.H. Liljeqvist), pp.629-639 Birkhauser Verlag. (R) (keywords: ice climate change LIA historical records reconstruction dendro)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. The late Bronze Age climate. In: The Brigg 'Raft' and her Prehistoric Environment (Ed. S. Mc Grail), pp.205-207 British Archaeological Reports Series, 89, Oxford. (R) (keywords: historical climate reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. The life and work of Professor Gordon Manley. Weather 36, 220-231® (keywords: climatology historical methodology datasets)
Lamb, H.H. 1981. The state of the art in climatology: current approaches to scientific understanding. In: Climatic Change and European Agriculture (Eds. S.W. Burrage and M.K.V. Carr) pp.17-22 Wye College, Centre for European Agricultural Studies. (keywords: climatology climate change methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1980. Climatic fluctuations in historical times and their connection with transgressions of the sea, storm floods and other coastal changes. In: Trangressies en Occupatiegeschiedenis in de Kustgelieden va n Nederland en Belgie, Publication No.66 (Eds. A. Verhulst and M.K.E. Gottschalk ), 251-284 Belgisch Centrum vor Landelijke Geschiedenis. (R) (keywords: climate change oceans storms floods)
Lamb, H.H. 1980. Weather and climate patterns of the Little Ice Age. In: Das Klima-Analysen und Modelle, Geschichte und Zukunft (Eds . H. Oeschger, B. Messerli and M. Svilar), pp.149-160 Springer-Verlag. (R) (keywords: meteorology climate change LIA)
Lamb, H.H. and Ingram, M.J. 1980. Climate and history. Past and Present 88, 136-141® (keywords: climate change historical)
Douglas, K.S. and Lamb, H.H. 1979. Weather Observations and a Tentative Meteorological Analysis of the Period May to July 1588. Climatic Research Unit Research Publication 6a (supplement to CRU RP 6), 39pp (keywords: observations meteorology historical records reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1979. Climatic variation and changes in the wind and ocean circulation: the Little Ice Age in the northeast Atlantic. Quaternary Research 11, 1-20 (keywords: climate change wind oceans atmospheric circulation LIA Atlantic)
Lamb, H.H. 1979. Understanding climate and its fluctuations. Journal of the Norfolk Beekeepers Association 13, 2-6 (keywords: climate change impacts methodology)
Lamb, H.H. and Weiss, I. 1979. On recent changes of the wind and wave regime of the North Sea and the outlook. Fachliche Mitteilungen 194. Traben-Trabach (Amt. fur Wehrgeophysik). (keywords: climate change wind oceans North Sea Europe forecasting)
Lamb, H.H. (with Gribbin, J.) 1978. Climatic change in historical times. Ch.4 in: Climatic Change (Ed. John Gribbin). Cambridge University Press. (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. and Morth, H.T. 1978. Arctic ice, atmospheric circulation and world climate. Geographical Journal 144(1), 1-22 (keywords: Arctic sea ice atmospheric circulation climate change global warming)
Douglas, K.S., Lamb, H.H. and Loader, C. 1978. A Meteorological Study of July-October 1588: The Spanish Armada Storms. Climatic Research Unit Research Publication No.6 (CRU RP6), 76pp® (keywords: meteorology historical records UK Europe reconstruction methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1978. The variability of climate: observation and understanding. In: Proc. Nordic Symp. on Climatic Changes and Related Problems (Ed. K. Drydendahl), pp.116-144 Danish Met. Inst., Climatological Papers No.4, 260pp, Copenhagen. (keywords: climate change observations detection methodology reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1978. Towards an understanding of climatic change: its impact in history and in the modern world. In: Proc. Nordic Symp. on Climatic Changes and Related Problems (Ed. K. Drydendahl), pp.181-204 Danish Met. Inst., Climatological Papers No.4, 260pp, Copenhagen. (keywords: climate change impacts historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1977. Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future. 837pp Methuen, London. (keywords: climate change historical forecasting book)
Lamb, H.H. and Ford, M.J. 1977. The climate of East Anglia. Ch.1.2 in: Nature in Norfolk - a Heritage in Trust, pp.23-28 Jarrold for Norfolk Heritage, Norwich. (keywords: climate change historical regional UK)
Lamb, H.H. 1977. Climatic analysis. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 280 (series B), 341-350 (keywords: climate change methodology reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1977. Supplementary volcanic dust veil index assessments. Climate Monitor 6(2), 57-67 Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. (keywords: volcanoes datasets reconstruction methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1977. The late Quaternary history of the climate of the British Isles." In: British Quaternary Studies: Recent Advances (Ed. F.W. Shott on), pp.283-298 Clarendon Press, Oxford. (keywords: historical records climate change UK reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. and Morth, H.T. 1977. The weather in 1976 - exceptional to a degree. Development Forum (UNDP), May, p.6 (keywords: meteorology climate change)
Lamb, H.H., Morth, H.T. and Jones, P.D. 1977. Climatic events of 1977 - persistence of anomalies. Development Forum. (keywords: climate change)
Lamb, H.H. 1976. Long-term climatic variations: symposium at Norwich 18-23 August 1975. WMO Bulletin, January 1976, pp.3-9 (keywords: climate change historical datasets)
Kelly, P.M. and Lamb, H.H. 1976. Prediction of volcanic activity and climate. Nature 262, p5. (keywords: forecasting volcanoes climate change impacts)
Lamb, H.H. 1976. Climate in the 1970s. Nature 259, 606 (keywords: climate change historical records)
Lamb, H.H. 1976. Long-term climatic fluctuations: symposium at Norwich 18-23 August 1975. WMO Bulletin 25(1), 3-9 WMO, Geneva. (keywords: climate change historical records reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1976. Understanding climatic change and its relevance to the world food problem. Climatic Research Unit Research Publication 5, 23pp (keywords: climate change agriculture impacts political)
Lamb, H.H. and Morth, H.T. 1976. Last year's weather: a climate of extremes. Development Forum 4, p5. (keywords: climate change)
Lamb, H.H. 1975. The Earth's changing climate. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1975. (keywords: climate change historical global)
Lamb, H.H. 1975. Changes of climate: the perspective of time scales and a particular examination of recent changes. In: Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern (Eds. A.E. Wright and F. Mosel ey), pp.169-188 Geol. J. Special Issue No.6. (keywords: climate change historical records methodology observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1975. Changes of climate: the perspective of time scales and a particular examination of recent changes. In: Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern (Eds. A.E. Wright and F. Mosel ey), pp.169-188 Seel House Press, Liverpool. (keywords: climate change historical records)
Lamb, H.H. 1975. Our understanding of the global wind circulation and climatic variations. Bird Study 22, 121-141 (keywords: wind climate change global)
Lamb, H.H. 1975. Remarks on the current climatic trend and its perspective. In: Proc. of the WMO/IAMAP Symp. on Long-term Climatic Fluctuations, Norwich 18-23, August 1975, pp.473-477 (keywords: climate change historical records)
Lamb, H.H., Dickson, R.R., Malmberg, S.A. and Colebrook, J.M. 1975. Climatic reversal in the North Atlantic. Nature 256, 497-481 (keywords: climate change Atlantic oceans)
Lamb, H.H. 1974. Climate. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edn.). (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1974. Reconstructing the climatic patterns of the historical past. Endeavour 33(118), 40-47 (keywords: reconstruction climate change historical methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1974. Contributions to historical climatology: the Middle Ages and after; Christmas weather and other aspects. Klimatologische Forschung: Flohn Festschrift, Bonner Meteorolog ischer Abhandlungen, Heft 17, 549-567 (keywords: historical records climate change meteorology observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1974. Climate, vegetation and forest limits in early civilized times. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A276, 195-230 (keywords: climate agriculture dendro historical records tree rings reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1974. Climatic change and foresight in agriculture: the possibilities of long-term weather advice. Outlook on Agriculture 7, 203-210 (keywords: climate change agriculture forecasting)
Lamb, H.H. 1974. The Current Trend of World Climate - A Report on the Early 1970s and a Perspective. Climatic Research Unit Research Publication 3. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. (keywords: climate change global historical records methodology)
Bryson, R.A., Lamb, H.H. and Donley, D.L. 1974. Drought and the decline of Mycenae. Cultural Sensitivity to Environmental Change III: Report 20. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (keywords: drought historical reconstructions)
Lamb, H.H. 1973. The seasonal progression of the atmospheric circulation affecting the North Atlantic and Europe. Climatic Research Unit Research Publication, CRU RP1, 131pp Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. (keywords: atmospheric circulation oceans NH Europe)
Lamb, H.H. 1973. Whither climate now? Nature 244, 395-397 (keywords: climate change methodology forecasting)
Lamb, H.H. (with P. Collison and R.A.S. Ratcliffe) 1973. Northern hemisphere monthly and annual mean-sea-level pressure distribution for 1951-66, and changes of pressure and temperature compared with those of 1900-1939. Geophys. Memoir No.118. HMSO for Met. Office. (keywords: NH sea level pressure temperature historical datasets statistics)
Lamb, H.H. 1973. Is the Earth's climate changing? In: UNESCO Courier, special issue, pp.17-20 (keywords: climate change global detection)
Lamb, H.H. 1973. Some comments on atmospheric pressure variations in the Northern Hemisphere (with supplementary note by P.D. Wright). In: Drought in Africa, pp.27-28 School of Oriental and African Studies, University Centre for African Studies, London. (keywords: atmospheric pressure climate change NH)
Lamb, H.H. 1973. The effect of climatic anomalies in the oceans on long-term atmospheric circulation behaviour and currents in the North Sea and surrounding regions. In: North Sea Science (NATO North Sea Science Conf., Aviemore, Scotland, 15-20 Nov. 1971) (Ed. E.D. Goldberg), pp.153-182 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. (keywords: climate change oceans atmospheric circulation North Sea Europe)
Lamb, H.H. 1973. The problem of embedding energy into the atmosphere and the present ability of climatology to advise on it. In: Proc. IIASA Planning Conf. Energy Systems, pp.310-328 IIASA, Laxenberg, Austria. (keywords: atmospheric energy climatology)
Lamb, H.H. 1972. Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now. 613pp Methuen, London. (keywords: climate change historical forecasting methodology book)
Lamb, H.H. 1972. British Isles weather types and a register of the daily sequence of circulation patterns 1861-1971. Geophys. Memoir. No.116, 85pp HMSO for Met. Office. (keywords: UK LWTs circulation atmospheric datasets)
Lamb, H.H. 1972. Atmospheric circulation and climate in the Arctic since the last ice age. Acta Universitatis… Oulu (Finland), A.3, Geology 1, pp.455-495 (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change Arctic ice LIA palaeo)
Lamb, H.H. 1972. 'Concluding remarks'. Symposium on Climatic Changes in Arctic Areas during the Last 10 000 years, Acta Universitatis…Oulu (Finland), A.3, Geology 1, pp.503-511 (keywords: climate change Arctic historical methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1972. Atmospheric circulation and climate in the Arctic since the last ice age. In: Climatic Changes in Arctic Areas During the Last Ten-thousand Years (Symp. held at Oulanka and Kevo, 4-10 Oct., 1971 (Eds. Y. Vasari, H. Hy yarinen and S. Hicks), pp.455-495 (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change Arctic historical records meteo rology)
Lamb, H.H. and Bromley, R.G. 1972. Cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds in high latitudes: some Greenland pictures. Weather 27(11), 468, 474-475 (keywords: clouds Greenland graphics)
Lamb, H.H. and Dickson, R.R. 1972. A review of recent hydrometeorological events in the North Atlantic sector. In: Special Publication No.8, pp.35-62 Internat. Comm. for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries. (keywords: oceans Atlantic hydrology meteorology)
Lamb, H.H. 1971. Palaeoclimatology (an editorial). Palaeo 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam (keywords: palaeo climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1971. Climates and circulation regimes developed over the northern hemisphere during and since the last ice age. Palaeo3 10, 125-162 (keywords: climate change atmospheric circulation NH historical records ice LIA)
Lamb, H.H. 1971. Palaeoclimatology (Editorial). Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclim., Palaeoecology 10(2/3 special issue), pp.83-86 Elsevier, Amsterdam. (keywords: palaeo climatology historical records)
Lamb, H.H. 1971. Volcanic activity and climate. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclim., Palaeoecology 10(2/3 special issue), pp.203-230 (keywords: volcanoes climate change impacts)
Lamb, H.H. and Woodroffe, A. 1970. Atmospheric circulation during the last ice age. Quaternary Research 1(1), 29-58 (keywords: atmospheric circulation LIA ice historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1969. Climatic fluctuations. Ch.5 in Vol.2 of the World Survey of Climatology (Eds. H. Flohn and H.E. Landsberg). Elsevier, Amsterdam. (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1969. The new look of climatology. Nature 223, 1209-1215 (keywords: climate change methodology observations datasets modelling)
Lamb, H.H. 1969. Investigation of the climatic sequence: a meteorological-empirical approach. Vol.5, S.C.A.R. Conference on Quaternary Studies in the Antarctic, in: Palaeoecology of Africa and Antarctica, pp.21-63 Balkema, Cape Town. (keywords: climate change meteorology methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1967. On climatic variations affecting the Far South. Polar Meteorology, WMO Technical Note No.87, pp.428-453 (keywords: climate change SH)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. The Changing Climate. 236pp Methuen, London. (keywords: climate change historical book)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. Stages in the life-cycle of North Atlantic cyclones. Weather 21(12), p.458 (keywords: storms oceans meteorology methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. Fronts in the intertropical convergence zone. Meteorol. Mag. 95, 181-183 (keywords: storms atmospheric circulation)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. African lake-level change, world rainfall pattern anomalies and related aspects of climatic change in the 1960s. Meteorological Magazine 95, 181-183 (keywords: Africa rainfall precipitation global climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. Contributions to the report of a 7-man working group published under title of 'Climatic Change'. pp.8-13, 20-22. 75pp WMO Technical Note No.79. (keywords: climate change)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. Climate in the 1960s ….. Geographical Journal 132(2), 1183-212 (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. (with A.I. Johnson) 1966. Secular variations of the atmospheric circulation since 1750. Geophys. Memoir. 110. HMSO for Met. Office. (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change historical global warming)
Lamb, H.H. 1966. Palaeoclimatology. Meteorol. Mag. 92, 246-249 (keywords: palaeo climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. (with others) 1966. Atmospheric circulation and the main climatic variables between 8000 and 0BC: meteorological evidence. Proc. Int. Symp. on World Climate from 8000 to 0BC, pp.174-217 Royal Meteorological Society. (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change historical records meteorology observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1965. Is the climate changing? Pears Cyclopaedia. (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1965. The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclim. and Palaeoecol. 1(1), 13-37 (keywords: historical climate change global warming)
Lamb, H.H. 1964. The English Climate. 212pp English Universities Press, London. (keywords: climate change historical UK book)
Lamb, H.H. 1964. The role of atmosphere and oceans in relation to climatic changes and the growth of ice-sheets on land. Part of Ch.8 in: Problems in Palaeoclimatology (Ed. A.E.M. Nair n), pp.332-347 Wiley-Interscience Publishers, New York. (keywords: atmospheric oceans climate change ice cores)
Lamb, H.H. 1964. Climatic changes and variations in the atmospheric and ocean circulations . Geologische Rundschau 54, 486-504 (keywords: climate change atmospheric oceans circulation global)
Lamb, H.H. 1964. Atmospheric circulation and climatic changes in Europe since A.D. 800. Proc.-Verbaux of the VIth INQUA Congress, Warsaw 1961, II Palae oclimatological Section (Lodz, Poland). (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change Europe global warming historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1963. What can we find out about the trend of our climate? Weather 18(7), 194-216 (keywords: climate change observations methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1963. The weather, past and future. Meteorological Magazine 92, 269-272 (keywords: meteorology historical forecasting climate change)
Lamb, H.H. 1963. On the nature of certain climatic epochs which differed from the modern (1900-1939) normal." Proc. WMO/UNESCO Rome 1961 Symposium on Changes of Climate, pp.125-150 UNESCO, Paris - Arid Zone Research Series XX. (keywords: climate change observations historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1962. Changes in climate before and since the industrial revolution. Research 15, 501-109 (keywords: climate change historical industry)
Lamb, H.H. 1962. Atmospheric circulation, climate and climatic variations. Weather 17(3) (reprinted from Geography 46, 208-222), 88-101 (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1961. Fundamentals of climate. Ch.2 in: Descriptive Palaeoclimatology (Ed. A.E.M. Nairn). Wiley - Interscience Publishers, New York. (keywords: climate methodology)
Lamb, H.H. and Johnson, A.I. 1961. Climatic variation and observed changes in the general circulation. Part III. Geografiska Annaler (Stockholm) 43, 363-400 (keywords: climate change observations general circulation)
Lamb, H.H. 1961. Climatic change within historical time as seen in circulation maps and diagrams. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 95(1), 124-161 (keywords: climate change historical records circulation observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1961. Atmospheric circulation, climate and climatic variations. Geography 46, 208-222 (keywords: atmospheric circulation climate change)
Lamb, H.H. 1960. Representation of the general atmospheric circulation: an exhibit in the Royal Society Exhibition. Meteorological Magazine 89, 319-330 (keywords: atmospheric circulation historical reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1960. Research in world weather patterns. Marine Observer 27, 101-110 (keywords: methodology meteorology climate change global)
Lamb, H.H. 1960. The use of monthly mean 'CLIMAT' charts for the study of large-scale weather patterns and their seasonal development. Weather 15, 83-89 (keywords: methodology climate change meteorology reconstruction)
Lamb, H.H. 1959. Tornado. In: Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Physics. Pergamon Press, Oxford. (keywords: storms)
Lamb, H.H. 1959. The southern westerlies: a preliminary survey. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 85, 1-23 (keywords: wind regional UK)
Lamb, H.H. 1959. Our changing climate, past and present. Weather 14, 299-318 (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. and Johnson, A.I. 1959. Climatic variation and observed changes in the general circulation. Parts I and II. Geografiska Annaler (Stockholm) 41, 94-134 (keywords: climate change observations general circulation)
Lamb, H.H. 1958. The occurrence of very high surface temperatures. Meteorological Magazine 87, 39-43 (keywords: surface temperature historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1958. Forecasting precipitation. Meteorological Magazine 87, 179-188 Met. Off. Discussion. (keywords: forecasting precipitation methodology)
Lamb, H.H. 1958. An expedition to the high Andes in southern Peru: some notes on the party's weather log. Meteorological Magazine 87, 225-231 (keywords: Peru meteorology observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1958. Differences in the meteorology of the northern and southern polar regions. Meteorological Magazine 87, 364-379 (keywords: meteorology Arctic Antarctic observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1957. Climate. Ch.6 in: Air Ministry Handbook of Preventive Medicine. A.P.126 9B (chapter re-issued separately by the Meteorological Office as M.O.M.581) (2nd Edn.). (keywords: climate change historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1957. Tornadoes in England May 21, 1950. Geophysical Memoirs 99. Meteorological Office, H.M.S.O. (keywords: storms UK historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1957. Some interesting features of the "Nullschicht" or maximum wind layer. Meteorological Magazine 86, 142-145 (keywords: wind meteorology)
Lamb, H.H. 1957. Jet streams over North Africa and the central Mediterranean in January and February 1954. Meteorol. Mag. 86, 76-84 (keywords: wind atmospheric circulation Africa Mediterranean historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1957. Some special features of the climate of St. Helena and the Trade-Wind zone in the South Atlantic. Meteorol. Mag., 86, 73-76 (keywords: climate SH oceans wind Atlantic)
Lamb, H.H. 1957. Synoptic meteorology of the polar regions. Meteorological Magazine 86, 130-138 (keywords: meteorology Arctic Antarctic)
Lamb, H.H. 1956. Antarctic atmospheric circulation. Nature 177, 1076-1077 (keywords: Antarctic atmospheric circulation)
Lamb, H.H. (with Cdr. G.P. Britton) 1956. A study of the general circulation of the atmosphere over the Far South. Weather 11 (in two parts), 281-291, 339-354 (keywords: general circulation atmospheric SH Antarctic)
Lamb, H.H. 1956. Meteorological results of the Balaena Expedition 1946-47. Geophys. Memoir No.94. H.M.S.O. (for Met. Office). (keywords: meteorology observations)
Lamb, H.H. 1955. Two-way relationship between the snow or ice limit and 1000-500mb thickness in the overlying atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Met. Soc., 81, 172-189 (keywords: atmospheric pressure ice snow)
Lamb, H.H. (with Cdr. G.P. Britton) 1955. General atmospheric circulation and weather variations in the Antarctic. Geographical Journal 121(3), 334-349 (keywords: atmospheric circulation meteorology Antarctic climate change)
Lamb, H.H. 1953. British weather around the year, Parts I and II. Weather 8, 131-136 and 176-182 (keywords: UK meteorology historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1953. Malta's sea breezes. Weather 10, 256-264 (keywords: Malta wind meteorology Mediterranean)
Lamb, H.H. 1951. The development of a method of estimating and forecasting the winds at 10,000 feet over the North Atlantic. Geophys. Pubn. III. Stationery Office for Meteorological Service, Dublin. (keywords: methodology forecasting wind energy oceans)
Lamb, H.H. 1951. Essay on frontogenesis and frontolysis, Parts I, II and III. Meteorological Magazine 80, 35-46, 65-71 and 97-106. (keywords: meteorology methodology storms)
Lamb, H.H. 1950. Tornadoes of May 21, 1950. Meteorological Magazine 79, 245-256 (keywords: storms historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1950. Types and spells of weather around the year in the British Isles: annual trends, seasonal structure of the year, singularities. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 76, 393-438 (keywords: meteorological UK historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1948. Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-14 ….. under …. Sir Douglas Mawson (a review). Meteorological Magazine 77, 108-111 (keywords: Australia New Zealand Antarctic SH historical meteorology)
Lamb, H.H. 1939. A visit to Iceland. Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc. 65, 244-248 (keywords: Iceland climate historical)
Lamb, H.H. 1939. Climate and legend in Norway. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 65, 510 (and pictures). (keywords: climate Norway historical reconstruction)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

That "bulletin board", has had approximately the same opening paragraph for at least 3 years. Your BS was the only thing that could be rolled back because it hadn't been reviewed and discarded yet. You weren't around in the 70s much were you? Perhaps, if you had been an adult then you would know it was a non-story.

I only ask you to prove what you post, stop trying to obfuscate.

Please prove:

"*that the global consensus of the 70s was that we were into cooling*"

I wonder what you will misunderstand or manipulate next?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

But hey…. maybe we can solve obesity with global warming YAY!!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

...and he pivots away, shall we take that as your concession speech?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> ...and he pivots away, shall we take that as your concession speech?
> 
> - RobS888


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The proof is above… that you CHOOSE to ignore it, while offering no theory/data/opinion just shows you have no actual position.

The Pivot is because it is complete… not conceded.

But we can always count on history to repeat itself apparently. Maybe we should "prepare" by building more coal power plants to generate CO2 and power our heaters.

Please prove that Prof Valentina Zharkova is wrong. and until you can… stop posting. (LOL)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

I have an opinion, based on having lived through the 70s, that there was no big fear of global cooling. Your *fluff *pieces and *fraudulent* attempts to prove your point are here for all to see. Seriously, I can't think of any other ways to cheat that you haven't tried.

You made the statement:

*"that the global consensus of the 70s was that we were into cooling"
*
You have failed to even come close to proving it, and this is not the first time you have failed to back up your "claims".

You realize you have to prove what you say for it to be taken seriously, I don't have to prove the opposite, although I usually can with you.

Your metric claims were pretty laughable as well.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

well Rob, so long as measurement of units using millimeters, makes you feel like the bigger man… go for it

It is only you that claims the proof was all "Fluff" pieces.. while offering nothing to counter the prevailing wisdom.
You are unable to support your position, so you simply claim that others evidence is not proof… and keep squawking.

Proving an argument is not the same as "gaining Rob's acceptance".... a subtle difference to be sure…. but the truth nonetheless.
So in the mean time, according to internet parlance…. TTTH


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

You never showed what the prevailing wisdom was in the 70s only what "some" thought. Ask anyone outside of your "echo chamber" that was an adult in the 70s and you will prolly get blank stares.

And you have fallen off the truth meter for me. (see what I did there?)

Anyway have a nice day.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

DELETE….. over the line


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

You make a claim that somehow Lamb..

was just a voice in the wilderness, not to be believed, while everyone else sought other answers demands some proof on your part…...If there was not consensus around teh founder and leader of the CRU…. how did he retain such a post, and continue working there for the next 25 years?

You don't get the organization off the ground on "fringe beliefs" you need help from peers. They may want to 'disavow' the past… but it remains.

In August 2006, the Climatic Research Unit Building in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia was renamed the Hubert Lamb Building.[9] In the same year, Lamb was hailed as 'instrumental in establishing the study of climate change as a serious research subject' in a report listing the 'top 100 world-changing discoveries, innovations and research projects to come out of the UK universities in the last 50 years'.[10]

https://web.archive.org/web/20140630130033/https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2006/aug/Founder+tribute+for+Hub+of+climatology
Current director of CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said: 'Naming the Climatic Research Unit building "The Hubert Lamb Building" recognises Hubert's role in setting up CRU almost 35 years ago. Climate research has changed a lot in this time with the subject now very high up on the political agenda."

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/jul/05/highereducation.uk2

*Understanding global warming*
The pioneering climatologist Hubert Lamb was instrumental in establishing the study of climate change as a serious research subject.

But sure… he never represented mainstream views on climate (pfffft)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

Thanks for censoring yourself.

I ask you to back up this assertion:

*"that the global consensus of the 70s was that we were into cooling"*

That is all you have to do.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr. Dirt,

He wasn't the founder and leader, he was the first director. Seems he had a little epiphany in '76 and did a 180. So even Lamb was only about the ice for part of the 70s. Cool nickname! (see what I did there?)

The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university's School of Environmental Sciences. The establishment of the Unit owed much to the support of Sir Graham Sutton, a former Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Lord Solly Zuckerman, an adviser to the University, and Professors Keith Clayton and Brian Funnel, Deans of the School of Environmental Sciences in 1971 and 1972.[5][6] Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions.[7]

The first director of the unit was Professor Hubert Lamb, who had previously led research into climatic variation at the Met Office.[6] He was then known as the "ice man" for his prediction of global cooling and a coming ice age but, following the UK's exceptionally hot summer of 1976, he switched to predicting a more imminent global warming.

Anything else you care to proffer as proof?

EDIT:

Did you notice his epiphany came about the same time the US started funding him?


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/the-three-faces-of-the-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index-loti/


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Oh he switched… lots of folks get on the funding gravy train… interesting that in the study proving no consensus on cooling…. that went to 1979… that still NONE of Lambs work from 1976, 77, 78, or 79 was considered as good/bad or indifferent to climate to be included.

As to the founding of the CRU… I believe the CRU more than a stupid "Instantly editable" bulletin board.

Try this instead….
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history

History of the Climatic Research Unit

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972. *The contribution of the Founding Director, Professor Hubert H. Lamb, cannot be overstated. Hubert Lamb's determination and vision can only be appreciated in the context of the view, generally prevailing within the scientific establishment in the 1960s, that the climate for all practical purposes could be treated as constant on timescales that are of relevance to humanity and its social and economic systems.* The weather changed from day-to-day, from week-to-week, and season-to-season. There was interannual variability, but over years to centuries (the perceived argument went) a constancy was reliably evident. It is now recognised that the climate is not constant, but changes on all timescales - years to millennia, as well as the climatic changes on longer (e.g. ice age) timescales that had become accepted in the late 19th century. Hubert Lamb, encouraged by the support of Keith Clayton and Brian Funnell, Deans of ENV around the time, made the brave decision in 1971 that his pioneering work on climatic change would be best conducted at a university.

But if you want to insist on Wiki as the holy grail….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb
Hubert Horace Lamb (born Bedford 22 September 1913 - died Holt, Norfolk 28 June 1997) was an English climatologist who founded the Climatic Research Unit in 1972 in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1]


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Well, it is official. No need for a new oven, just bake your stew and bread in your car with the windows rolled up.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Could we stay on topic a little more?

Lets say he did start the CRU himself, really I don't care. The important thing is even the "Iceman" didn't believe global cooling for all of the 70s. Weird that he retired 1 year after his epiphany.

From your link http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/hubert-lamb
Hubert retired as Director in 1977. He did more than any other scientist of his generation to make the academic community aware of *climate change*. However, in the years after his retirement the emphasis of research shifted towards evaluating the role played by human activities. He was well acquainted with the pioneering works of Svante Arrhenius in Sweden, and G.S. Callendar in England, and wrote in 1997 that,* 'it is now widely thought that the undoubted warming of the world climate in the twentieth century is attributable to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases'* 2. However, he always referred back to the instrumental record, and his attitude to greenhouse warming remained guarded.

So please prove:

*"that the global consensus of the 70s was that we were into cooling"*

We both know you can't let go of this because your augment against the current science is based on this fallacious concept. You can't prove it and you can't let go of it, how sad.

There was no global consensus in the 70s on climate change, there wasn't even a US scientific consensus on climate change. More importantly there was no big scare about a coming ice age.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Could we stay on topic a little more?
> 
> Lets say he did start the CRU himself, really I don t care. The important thing is even the "Iceman" didn t believe global cooling for all of the 70s. Weird that he retired 1 year after his epiphany.
> 
> - RobS888


Funny that you bold GS. Callendar and *20 years later* said warming was due to greenhouse gasses.

See that is why is said *"'it is now *widely thought that the undoubted warming of the world climate in the twentieth century is attributable to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases' "

Gee isn't that after ~20 years of increasing temperature?
Don't see where he claimed there *wasn't *30 years of cooling…..Hmmmm
Perhaps because the measurements show that there was? Hubert was more interested in the experimental record…. he was not so interested in the future modelling (of course computing in the early 70's creating models with punch cards must have really sucked)

His retirement is nothing 'Weird' at all… UK (until 2011) had MANDATORY retirement at 65.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-15127835

1978-1913=65…....

Seems like pretty basic math to me, but you may need some 'other kind of proof'?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

If I had been that wrong, for that long, in front of so many people (kind of like Rove) I would retire as well!

Lamb wrote in 1997 that, _'it is now widely thought that the *undoubted warming* of the world climate in the twentieth century is attributable to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases'

*"undoubted warming of the world climate in the twentieth century"* Was he wrong from '76 to '97 when he supported the warming or before? Take your pick.

What I'm really interested in is you proving your claim:

*"that the global consensus of the 70s was that we were into cooling"*

Even the Iceman only believed it until '76.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Even the Iceman only believed it until 76.
> 
> - RobS888


Hmmm that would be the 1970's???

Which is different than a 1997 quote with "ANOTHER" 20 years of data (and 25 years after founding the CRU to do such compilations).

Doesn't change what he believed in the 70's and he NEVER retracted his past results.

He studied the 30 year slide in temps…
Just like Climatologists today are working to understand the present pause in warming, while CO2 continues to climb…. they are asking the same kinds of questions about the current pause…. that scientists in the 60's and 70's were studying….. why isn't the CURRENT trend following the expected CO2 model.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

Data data data…..relevant data but now it seems you have to figure out which is reliable.

It is very interesting now that the EPA is drafting rules to protect us but hides the data that backs up the rules. I am all in favor of protecting the environment with reasonable and well thought out rules. But hiding the data is really going too far. The EPA refuses to provide the data behind the rules.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

So for part of the 70s some people thought there might be a cooling.

See it wasn't a consensus and it wasn't in the media much.

By '97 even the iceman believed it was man made warming.

As for the pause it is the same as your sea ice starting point. The temps are still going up. If a hockey stick or a slow rise, the point is it is still going up.

Wouldn't it be funny if both theories were right? That we were going into a cooling period, but the CO2 slowed then reversed it.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming
> 
> - mrjinx007


Weird, the chart is definately increasing, yet the Daily Crawler says no warming. How can that be? Oh, maybe Tucker doesn't believe in global warming.

Seriously, the daily caller is worse even than the Washington examiner.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

We just returned from Ocean City, WA. My wife has been in the Pacific from llwaco to Ocean Shores nearly every year for 60 years. She always came out with goose bumps. "They" claim there is significant warming in Pacific changing the habits of many of the ocean's inhabitants including sea lions that are a real pia @ Astoria taking over the marina and Whales moving north into the Arctic beginning to cause concerns about the Eskimo's fishing grounds. This week when she came out she remarked how warm the water is!! Not sure where the goose bump test fits in the overall data base, but is certainly a significant factor to be considered ;-))


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

If I remember correctly, way back when the carbon content of the earth was much greater and the earth survived!

*Notice, I said the earth survived* .... don't know about humans as they couldn't write about it.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

"The most amazing thing is how government is trying to claim there is global warming simply to introduce a carbon-tax. We are entering the 21st year of declining temperatures - not rising temperatures. This is like the tax on cigarettes when people have began to smoke less, governments cry they are losing revenue so many places are now taxing electronic cigarettes. Governments are also losing tax revenue as cars have become more efficient. Sales of gasoline have declined for cars have pollution controls and get much better gas mileage with more people buying from the internet and driving to the local mall less. The solution to the collapse in tax revenues - states now are preparing to tax people based upon the miles they drive requiring odometer readings to register cars. It is never about what they pretend to care about - its is just about new schemes to raise taxes. Regardless of the truth about global warming, governments need this bogus research to raise taxes.

The Global Warming crowd is the MOST unethical and corrupt group of pretend scientists ever to exist. When I was called upon for research back to form the G5 and then wrote the White House warning that manipulating the dollar down would create volatility and a crash within two years (1987), I was told I would never again be asked by government for anything. I was told outright to do studies they provide the conclusion up front and I would earn millions of dollars a year for bogus research reports. I said - no thanks! This is the way government studies are "funded and conducted. They ALWAYS tout the desired end result to support some predetermined objective. Government studies are simply an exercise in political corruption no matter what the field.

Global Warming is another great scam. Clearing the air - yes, we all want that. Yet it is extremely arrogant to assume we have the capability to alter the climate cycle. Furthermore, you could set off all the atomic bombs and it still would not destroy the earth. In the 28 years that have passed since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in Ukraine (then Russia), birds and mice have learned to not only survive, but to thrive on the radioactive land. Nature adapts. Just as disease now is rendering antibiotics gradually useless for they are mutating to survive. That is simply how everything functions. Even our politicians change their stories to match their revenue desires - political adaption.
" growing number of REAL scientists are coming out, warning that we are moving back to a mini ice age. I have explained that when I saw a presentation of the energy output of the sun derived from the ice core samples taken from the North Pole back in the 1990s, it matched up with the 309.6-year ECM cycle. It suddenly made sense and explained the rise and fall of empires, as well as migrations. We input that data into our system and it has been an important component behind the Sixth Wave forecast that we confront in 2032.95. Of course, these real scientists are not presenting this warning of a mini ice age as a confrontation to the global warming crowd. Nonetheless, it illustrates that the global warming crowd use pollution to pretend that we can actually alter the climate. We can no more accomplish that feat than central banks can reverse a bear market and create perpetual economic bliss."


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I am inclined to agree with *mrjinx007*!

We simple humans think we have the power to change what nature wants to do?

Try and stop a tornado or hurricane, earthquake, tidal wave and let me know how that turns out.
Nature is cyclical and while we are merely witnesses, it is working very well into the plans of the politicians and their ilk!

*But, even after I wrote that above, we have been and still are very poor stewards of this planet!*


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

The entire climate change thing is confusing…..

Does the climate change…...certainly

What is the source of change…..we know that there are a number of natural causes evident even in the last 1000 years with the medieval warm period and little ice age. There are man made causes as well. Which is bigger…that depends on what side of this debate you are on.

The amount of green house gases is a strong function of the number of people on the planet and with the rapid rise in population the gases are going up….the correlation is very high. (Sorry I could not figure out how to insert a graph but if you do a search on population versus green house gases you can find it.)

People on both sides of the argument have adjusted data and exaggerated facts. This is so bad in what should be a scientific debate but instead is mainly a political one.

We should do all we can to reduce pollution but at the same time take a reasonable approach. It is so difficult to see hard working people lose jobs and jobs sent overseas in the name of climate change. The entire world needs to be making changes and not just a handful of countries.

Lastly, no matter what man does, there will be climate change and we need to figure out how to live with it. We need to be able to adapt to the changes and feed a growing population.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I failed to name the source quoted above. Martin Armstrong. One of my heroes.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> We simple humans think we have the power to change what nature wants to do?
> 
> *But, even after I wrote that above, we have been and still are very poor stewards of this planet!*
> 
> - oldnovice


I may have mentioned this before, I don't remember._ ISHMAEL_ by Daniel Quinn is a very interesting read on man's failures.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Bob, I read that long, long time ago. Need to go and dig it up to refresh myself. Another good one is "fire in the belly".


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

ISHMAEL can be DL as a PDF and is about 178 pages long. The price is right, free.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Good story though regardless of it being fictional.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Bob, I read that long, long time ago. Need to go and dig it up to refresh myself. Another good one is "fire in the belly".
> 
> - mrjinx007


 I'll have to track it down.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

http://www.bookfeeder.com/pdfbook/fire-the-belly-surprising-processes.pdf

Here it is. Free


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man by Sam Keen. Jerry, the one you posted is interesting.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Have to agree with Mr. Jinx #716

The Skepticism out there to look for solutions, is a result of our experience with the government and its "solutions" to problems by taxation.

Nobody can really look at teh sky over Beijing, or Tokyo or Mexico City, sometimes LA and claim that "none of that matters"

But the warming alarmists, focus on what the USA should do, and exempts China and India and Brazil as "developing nations".... while demanding car companies deliver 50mpg.

Of course in Europe MANY cars get 50-70MPG on diesel, but then the "particulates' are too high so those vehicles are banned in the USA.

Because DC has to get its tax revenue.
http://www.naturalnews.com/045648_fuel_efficiency_US_market_Europe.html

Citroen is a French automaker that does not sell vehicles in the U.S. -looked similar to some smaller-sized vans sold in the U.S. But what was under the hood and how it performed on the road was completely different.

Rather than achieving a typical 15-25 MPG, at best, depending on road conditions, the Citroen van performed at an average of 60 MPG, or about triple what a van of its size in the U.S. might attain.

But the EPA will prevent you from importing one to the USA.

How is it that at 60mpg you would have a "larger' carbon footprint than you do at 15mpg?

Then we have ethanol subsidies:

*Corn ethanol in US fuel means even worse gas mileage*

Making matters worse is corn ethanol subsidies, the fuel of which makes American cars even less efficient than they already are. The American version of the Nissan Qashqai SUV crossover might get 26 MPG on the highways using pure fuel, but when that same fuel is mixed with ethanol, *the mileage drops by more than 30 percent.*

Basic physics would say that the 15mpg is producing 400% of the 60mpg vehicle based on having to convert 4X the amount of hydrocarbon fuel into* CO2* and water.

But not according to our beneviolent (intentional spelling) Government BS.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Was it not GM that recalled all electric cars because folks installed solar panels on their garage roof and charged their car for free?
EV1


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Funny thing - in order to make ethanol, you have to burn energy - something that is not equated into the MPG.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Funny thing - in order to make ethanol, you have to burn energy - something that is not equated into the MPG.
> 
> - dbray45


and it takes a LOT of water… so even in drought stricken areas, you have farmers irrigating corn, because there are Subsidies available. e.g. Western Kansas.

Basically Kansas is for Wheat…. Nebraska (colder and wetter) is the Corn husker state.

Draining the ogallala aquifer to grow corn in Kansas is foolish… but like everything else, it is following the money. and if the crop fails you get crop insurance for the value of the CORN crop you lost, not the wheat crop that would have been successful.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Sickest one is probably the tar-sand oil. Heat the sand until the tar melts, refine the tar to get low grade oil.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Heat the sand a little more and you get glass


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Corn belongs on the dinner table not in the gas tank.

Nitrogen run off from the Ethanol process creates oxygen dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Used to be 10 cobb's for a 1$ Now it is 5 for 2$.
All this for gas. Get a new car.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

You guys are so funny!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Who wants to go camping?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I think with the coming droughts… I will need to get me a "Water Wife" LOL

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/asia/india-water-wives/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Well, you may as well convert to Islam and get you a lunch and dinner wives too.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Well, you may as well convert to Islam and get you a lunch and dinner wives too.
> 
> - mrjinx007


But I really like Bacon… so that is just 'a bridge too far'

And I am not that religeous… so the whole 5 times a day thing….

I like to see women, so Burqa's are not that much fun.

And of course that fasting for the month of Ramadan til sundown each day…. Have to pass on that *paradise*.


----------



## robscastle (May 13, 2012)

Has there been some sort of massive black out and the wood work shops are not keeping LJs amused enough?
it even looks like Stephen Hawking has now been reading the info!

Russell you are a naughty boy!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I wonder how many times Mormons pray?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Jerry Brown kicks off Vatican supported climate change summit.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

BBC says the ice is getting thicker. 
No wonder everyone is confused. As someone asked me, "is you is, or is you aint? Off course my answer was, "I is".


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

The BBC report says a cool summer in 2013 caused Arctic sea ice to gain back what was lost the previous 3 years.

Does this disprove global warming to anyone? It doesn't to me. Fluctuations are expected.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The BBC report says a cool summer in 2013 caused Arctic sea ice to gain back what was lost the previous 3 years.
> 
> Does this disprove global warming to anyone? It doesn t to me. Fluctuations are expected.
> 
> - RobS888


So if there was a one year LOSS of ice that equalled the prior 3 years…. it would be Proof and cause for alarm…

However if the ice comes back and undoes 3 years of loss…that is just Fluctuations


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The BBC report says a cool summer in 2013 caused Arctic sea ice to gain back what was lost the previous 3 years.
> 
> Does this disprove global warming to anyone? It doesn t to me. Fluctuations are expected.
> 
> ...


As you know, the trend means everything.

EDIT:

Ops, I forgot you get pedantic,

The trend means everything in terms of alarm or fluctuation description.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> As you know, the trend means everything.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...


You libs get a bit emotional when your religion is questioned.

In your world, every event is 'because of global warming'

any evidence of a shift back, is just anomoly. When a SINGLE year increase counters 3 years of loss…. that is more newsworthy than blaming Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming…
-OR-
...
But to the alarmist agenda…. ALL Political and religious Jihad is due to 'Global Warming'

That the rise of ISIS is because of Global Warming according to your former governor….I personally think maybe ISIS is a bunch of radical crackpots capitalizing on instability in the region seizing power….while O'Malley thinks it is a 1 degree average temperature increase over the past few decades. mmmmm … yeah…. NO!!

Oh and of course Women will have to turn to prostitution…. according to the UN beccause of Global Warming
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/177346/news/nation/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country.
"Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection," Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City.

That view is supported by our Congressional reps….
and it is even introduced by Dems from California into the US House..
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex

That there is a thousand years of warming trend isn't the question…. but the altar of AGW has some real cracks, and emperor Gore has no clothes.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Global warming cooks the brain which results in decrease in IQ which results in irrational thinking which results in aggression. Thus we have radical groups popping up everywhere. Makes perfect sense to me! That is why we have to protect ourselves against these potential radical groups:
1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"

2. Those that advocate for states' rights

3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"

4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"

5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"

6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"

7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable"

8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"

9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"

10. "Anti-Gay"

11. "Anti-Immigrant"

12. "Anti-Muslim"

13. "The Patriot Movement"

14. "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the 'North American Union'"

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"

23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"

30. Anyone that "complains about bias"

31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"

32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"

33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"

34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"

35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"

36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"

37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"

38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"

39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"

40. "Militia or unorganized militia"

41. "General right-wing extremist"

42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"

44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"

45. Those that are "anti-global"

46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"

47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"

48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"

49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national 'way of life' is under attack"

50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"

51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"

52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"

53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"

54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"

55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"

56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"

57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"

58. "Rightwing extremists"

59. "Returning veterans"

60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"

61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"

62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"

63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"

64. "Anti-abortion activists"

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")

71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Not emotional, I've just learned what I'm dealing with.

Will you try to get back on track at some point? Or are you going to keep accusing people of points they haven't made and beliefs they haven't expressed? What is it called when you make a phony claim about what someone says and then argue against it? It's like you are trying to do verbal magic tricks, just no one is fooled by it.

Well, based on the lengths I've seen you go to try to win (posts with known fraudulent data and changing other people's references) I'm not surprised.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I think point 72 covers all the others on your list.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> You libs get a bit emotional when your religion is questioned.
> 
> - DrDirt


Some may at times as most people do. The biggest issue that cannot be resolved is the right wing authoritarians in ability to think critically and correlate events with their consequences.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

+1,000,000


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I do not consider myself a liberal or conservative but rather a logical person!
Probably from way too many years in software as software is neither.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I do not consider myself a liberal or conservative but rather a logical person!
> Probably from way too many years in software as software is neither.
> 
> - oldnovice


I think both terms are a little more polarized than they used to be, or perhaps the interwebs allows us to be more ignorant.

Were you a developer?


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I started with the 8080 microprocessor back in the 1970's using the only thing available, assembly code.
From there on it was down the dark path of code.
From that assembly code to IEC1131, now known as IEC6113, for control systems.
I am now retired an haven't done any writing for about 5 years.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I started with the 8080 microprocessor back in the 1970 s using the only thing available, assembly code.
> From there on it was down the dark path of code.
> From that assembly code to IEC1131, now known as IEC6113, for control systems.
> I am now retired an haven t done any writing for about 5 years.
> ...


That sounds hardware specific or were the control systems flexible for different types of operations!


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Not to change the course of this forum i'll PM you instead!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

This is pathetic given "the most transparent administration".....
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research

NOAA refuses to provide documents on research at NOAA regarding the 'pause' and the latest data adjustments

Citing the confidentiality of the requested documents and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won't give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) what he recently subpoenaed about the research.

So the GOVERNMENT research at the GOVERNMENT agency…. is confidential and congress may not see it? 
Transparency!!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Well, I wouldn't give them anything without someone to explain it to them, Republicans tend to misunderstand science, numbers, &... well everything.

Actually, the only thing they won't provide are internal communications. What is with these Republican email fishing expeditions?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I agree with Rob. Why give your hard work and give it to somebody that does not want to understand it, dissembles it, and turns it into lies and junk.

-Madts.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> This is pathetic given "the most transparent administration".....
> http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research
> 
> NOAA refuses to provide documents on research at NOAA regarding the pause and the latest data adjustments
> ...


There is no scientific significance whatsoever to the background information. The contribution to the scientific process is the published report and only the published report. The observations and conclusions of the report have scientific significance only to the extent that the report provides sufficient information to evaluate them. If critical information is missing then the appropriate action is to discount the findings affected by the lack of supporting information.

So whatever Lamar Smith is up to it is not a scientific evaluation of the report. It is something else.

Does one loose all privacy rights when one does work for a federal agency?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> So whatever Lamar Smith is up to it is not a scientific evaluation of the report. It is something else.


What is ridiculous and insulting is that Smith egotistically places a higher value on his personal incompetent and uniformed assessment of a complex scientific issue rather than on the considerable expertise of the National Academies, whose sole purpose is to advise the government on scientific issues.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> Does one loose all privacy rights when one does work for a federal agency?
> 
> - GregD


There is no right to privacy when working on Government systems. All electrons are subject to review and are the property of the US Government.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> What is with these Republican email fishing expeditions?
> 
> - RobS888


It is about energizing their base to get them to the polls just like the Benghazi fiasco that back fired and elevated Hilary to undeniable presidential material status.

Rs are in deep dodo. They have alienated most demographic voter groups. Over 50% of likely R voters want a political outsider as their nominee. (Jimmy Carter was the last real outsider in the White House.) 74% say the government is dysfunctional even though they control both houses of Congress according to recent polls as reported by NBC last night. I believe many may finally be recognizing their enemy and they is them ;-)

I began to question that 25 years ago because of Reagan's betrayals of conservative economic policy. Bush the dumbest was the last straw for me. Rs cannot win with their agenda; destruction of the middle class, supporting more tax cuts and asset accumulation for the oligarchy, turning medicare over to private insurance companies to destroy and ending Social Security. They need to invent scarry issues and put out a thick smoke screen to get any voter support. If their base does not see them as necessary to protect them from the evil government they are done for. Too many of their shills are beginning to see the light.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Does one loose all privacy rights when one does work for a federal agency?
> 
> - GregD
> 
> ...


Sure, however as we saw recently the party in charge can't be trusted with emails. They went far beyond the scope of their mandate. Asking the next president if she went to bed alone the night of the Benghazi attack was ridiculous. So expect from now on they won't get emails (oops, server crash) or more people will use private ones.

11 hours of grilling got them egg all over their face. Elijah Cummings is my rep and I was yelling with him! Well, mostly in my head.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

Very strange….H tells her daughter and Egyptian PM the truth and everyone else a lie about a video. who cares???

We should expect that ALL federal employees follow the rules about using secure email and that all email and documents properly backed up. No major corporation would tolerate this nonsense. Doesn't matter if R or D, follow the rules.

TAKE CARE OF OUR VETERANS….WHAT IS GOING ON IS NOT RIGHT. I do not care what political party is involved….FIX THE PROBLEMS AND FIRE THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT DO THEIR JOBS.

end of rant…sorry


----------



## bearkatwood (Aug 19, 2015)

I do my part and leave the fridge open at night It makes a good night light.


----------



## muleskinner (Sep 24, 2011)

Lamar Smith and the triumph of partisanship over scientific research.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Very strange….H tells her daughter and Egyptian PM the truth and everyone else a lie about a video. who cares???
> 
> We should expect that ALL federal employees follow the rules about using secure email and that all email and documents properly backed up. No major corporation would tolerate this nonsense. Doesn t matter if R or D, follow the rules.
> 
> ...


I found her explanation quite satisfactory. At the time I found the stupid video a plausible spark. And since then some of the perpetrators said it was the video. Go Hillary!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Lamar Smith and the triumph of partisanship over scientific research.
> 
> - muleskinner


That is so sad, they changed the rules so they can go after anyone for any reason.

Perhaps it would have been better if that guy McCarthy had been elected speaker, that way we could still use the same title for this behavior.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Lamar Smith and the triumph of partisanship over scientific research.
> 
> - muleskinner
> 
> ...


Like I said Rob, they have nothing to run on but fear. "They need to invent scarry issues and put out a thick smoke screen to get any voter support. If their base does not see them as necessary to protect them from the evil government they are done for. Too many of their shills are beginning to see the light."


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Regardless of how somebody feels the data may be spun….

Really - - why is it OK that NOAA declares its research Confidential to the government.

Is your work NOT viewed by your boss? Congress funds NOAA.

The wretching about who understands what is a diversion…. WHY IS THE INFORMATION OFF LIMITS TO REVIEW.
How is this OK that NOAA can ignore subpoenas from congress… regardless which side.

I thought we had a "Transparent administration".
That they choose to *bury the data and claim confidentiality* only fuels suspicion of AGW and the government in general.

Surprised how many people seem to advocate our government work in secret… I suspect when the other party is in charge - they would have a different view of this.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Does one loose all privacy rights when one does work for a federal agency?
> 
> - GregD


Are you able to keep your work secret from your boss?

*If he asks to see your data can you say "nope it's confidential so GFY"*
Government agencies are answerable to the people signing their paycheck (congress).

Why should AGW data analysis be a Secret from ANYONE ? Or is it simply because it is a republican asking?

People that have agendas make FOIA requests all the time - - a "you won't support our conclusions so ACCESS DENIED" is not the way our government is supposed to work.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

We The People…..

These people work for us. Unless there is a REAL security issue,the government should be open and transparent.

It just makes people wonder if there is something to hide. Why do we allow this to happen?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Could it be that the findings are NOT what the administration wants and therefore "classifies" it so it cannot be used to undo what the administration spouts?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

"We the People" refers to "We the People in charge know what the people need!" After all, as Hillary stated, "At this point, what difference does it make?" seems to be common attitude in Washington. Then we have 11 hours of hearings that are designed to be the basis for paving Hillary's ascension to power.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Red oak and dbray… their ACTIONS say yes! they are hiding something.

Everyone in the pundits and talking heads, skeptics etc… all point at the past 18 years being flat (no temperature rise)
Many academics are tryin to understand what must be happening - - as CO2 continues to increase, WHY ISN'T Temperature rising.

I think that is a worthing goal…. find out what is happening and why.

But then NOAA released a report that says "there is no 18 year flat spot".... they then ADJUSTED the temperature data.

Somebody asks for justification on how they CHANGE THE RECORD…. and when asked why/how the data has been manipulated…..they tell us it is a secret -yet government policy is set on data that is not permitted to be scrutinized.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/06/04/noaa-says-theres-no-such-thing-as-the-global-warming-pause-now-what/


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Are you able to keep your work secret from your boss?
> 
> *If he asks to see your data can you say "nope it s confidential so GFY"*
> Government agencies are answerable to the people signing their paycheck (congress).
> ...


So you accept the fact that this situation has nothing to do with the *science* of climate change?

And this is just an oversight/management thing?

In my company the usual practice is to respect the chain of command as well as privacy. The motivation isn't altruistic, simply that ignoring these niceties usually results in confusion and chaos. Most good work produces a lot of fill for the trash bin: prototypes, mistakes, one-off jigs, off-cuts, and other junk. The product is the product and sent "up the line" and should stand for itself. The rest goes into the trash bin.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Regardless of how somebody feels the data may be spun….
> 
> Really - - why is it OK that NOAA declares its research Confidential to the government.
> 
> ...


NOT the research, they gave all of that, they refuse to give the emails. They don't see it as pertinent to the research. Especially for anyone that may have emails from 2009 on. Just another ridiculous fishing expedition.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Are you able to keep your work secret from your boss?
> 
> *If he asks to see your data can you say "nope it s confidential so GFY"*
> Government agencies are answerable to the people signing their paycheck (congress).
> ...


Perhaps you should re-read your first link. It is clear only the emails are being held back. That should be enough unless you have an agenda here.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Could it be that the findings are NOT what the administration wants and therefore "classifies" it so it cannot be used to undo what the administration spouts?
> 
> - dbray45


The finding have been released. Just the emails are being held back.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Greg - What I think -

In a scientific report of a scientific study, there is a part of the report that specifically states the explicit process that was used to get to the results page - this includes the samples, where they were acquired, who did them, how many iterations (time), etc… Without this data, there is no basis for conclusion.

If you are going to present the results of a study without the entire data to support it, it is not a study, it is a "WAG" - Wild a$$ guess.

Science is based upon repetitive replication that gets the same results - many times and over time. It is chart-able, establishes trends, and is therefore conclusive - or it is not. Charting the Earth's temperature and changes to climate over 100 years of a relatively short cycle of 25,000 years is at best a starting point. It has been useful in helping weather computers to potentially show what MIGHT happen in the next week but other than that, it is all about politics and control - in my opinion.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Red oak and dbray… their ACTIONS say yes! they are hiding something.
> 
> Everyone in the pundits and talking heads, skeptics etc… all point at the past 18 years being flat (no temperature rise)
> Many academics are tryin to understand what must be happening - - as CO2 continues to increase, WHY ISN T Temperature rising.
> ...


From your link above:

Even before NOAA's new study was published, data simply exhibited a slow-down in the rate of warming, rather than an actual stoppage. The data indicated that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s which were warmer than the 1980s, and so forth. And 2014 was the warmest year on record.

Well there you go, no flat spot.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Greg - What I think -
> 
> In a scientific report of a scientific study, there is a part of the report that specifically states the explicit process that was used to get to the results page - this includes the samples, where they were acquired, who did them, how many iterations (time), etc… Without this data, there is no basis for conclusion.
> 
> ...


NOAA says all the data is available to anyone as public data, including their analysis.

What are you talking about?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Are you able to keep your work secret from your boss?
> 
> *If he asks to see your data can you say "nope it s confidential so GFY"*
> Government agencies are answerable to the people signing their paycheck (congress).
> ...


My e-mail account is owned by the company… they can read it anytime they want. I would suspect that is the most common - that your computer and all accounts are property of your employer. As are your inventions.

Point is EVERYONE inside the beltway has an agenda. if NOAA is PURELY scientific (which is not the case in any agency…everyone has their own political turf war) they shouldn't care what discussions went into changing the record.

The subpoena came because NOAA decided to CHANGE the temperature record and erase the flat spot that real scientists were trying to understand. Their finding - - because it is contrary to the record of everyone else SHOULD be scrutinized.
You have all the satellite data that shows we are at a flat spot (not a cold spot… but that the increase/climb stopped) Before June - efforts were trying to understand what was happening.

NOAA just comes out and changes the data and says "What flat spot".

Their opinion is based on Obama's "greatest threat being global warming" 
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469
The NOAA study as published.

Abstract:
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming "hiatus." Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a "slowdown" in the increase of global surface temperature.

Somehow they 'waved off' the flat spot.

There is discussion that the "missing heat has been going into the oceans" fine… but hasn't the heat from the sun been going into the oceans before 1998 also?
NOAA got together and erased the flat spot, and essentially 'took the fifth' by claiming confidentiality.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

NOAA is the employer correct, so it is their decision. Can we see the sweaty one's (trey gowdy) emails?

I've never seen this flat spot you speak of. A slowing in increase isn't flat.

Attack the data/conclusion if you want, but the rest shouldn't be used to decide if the data is correct.

I'm not sure where you get your opinion of scientists from, but it ain't reality. That's for sure.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Are you able to keep your work secret from your boss?
> 
> *If he asks to see your data can you say "nope it s confidential so GFY"*
> Government agencies are answerable to the people signing their paycheck (congress).
> ...


My issue is that NOAA came with a position that is CONTRARY to even what other climate scientist have been working on.

With a seeming wave of the hand - - according to Science "the pause was an illusion"!!

*
Walking back talk of the end of warming*

Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming "hiatus" is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and* the slowdown was just an illusion*.

Asking "elaborate how your team got to that" is not unwarranted scrutiny of Obamas major political position.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> NOAA is the employer correct, so it is their decision. Can we see the sweaty one s (trey gowdy) emails?
> 
> I ve never seen this flat spot you speak of. A slowing in increase isn t flat.
> 
> ...


I suppose I believe the editors of Science… more that what you "don't see" 
more acuratetly what you 'choose to ignore' - - can't help you with that.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

RussellAP asks, "Does anything really matter anymore?"

Yes it does. Respect your wife, respect your elders, give common courtesy to strangers AND do not troll…everything else is of no significance.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> RussellAP asks, "Does anything really matter anymore?"
> 
> Yes it does. Respect your wife, respect your elders, give common courtesy to strangers AND do not troll…everything else is of no significance.
> 
> - DKV


Troll??


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> NOAA is the employer correct, so it is their decision. Can we see the sweaty one s (trey gowdy) emails?
> 
> I ve never seen this flat spot you speak of. A slowing in increase isn t flat.
> 
> ...


The Editor does agree with me: 
"…now show that temperatures *did not* plateau as thought and that the supposed warming "hiatus" is just an artifact of earlier analyses. *Warming has continued* at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion."

Reading your own quotes, can't help you with that.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *My issue is that NOAA came with a position that is CONTRARY to even what other climate scientist have been working on.
> *
> With a seeming wave of the hand - - according to Science "the pause was an illusion"!!
> 
> ...


Based on what? How do you know what they were working on? I suspect this topic has garnered a lot of attention from climate scientists.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> NOAA is the employer correct, so it is their decision. Can we see the sweaty one s (trey gowdy) emails?
> 
> I ve never seen this flat spot you speak of. A slowing in increase isn t flat.
> 
> ...


yes the "LOWERED" earlier increases….to basically say the hockey stick was not real… so a hockey stick followed by a flat spot got "Averaged into a continuous rise.

Your support of NOAA is only because the question was asked by a republican. If it were Nancy Pelosi subpoena to an agency when Bush was in office - - you would support that enquiry, not argue that 'She just wants to make political hay out of it."

I would say a subpoena is not so different than a FOIA…. you cannot deny it just because you don't like the person that asked for it.

Besides - - - according to DOE - it is Pumpkins causing climate change.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I suppose I believe the editors of Science… more that what you "don t see"
> more acuratetly what you choose to ignore - - can t help you with that.
> 
> - DrDirt
> ...


Yes and they released this "amazing" massage of the data - - while Syria turned to ******************** and Obama was going with Global Warming as the worlds greatest threat.

Heaven forbid - cabinet secretaries follow suit and support the POTUS… just like claiming the terror attacks were because of a YouTube video.

They went in and ADJUSTED the data to fit thier model… because that is a lot easier than creating a complex model to fit the inconvenient data.

Your support of NOAA is only because the question was asked by a republican. If it were Nancy Pelosi subpoena to an agency when Bush was in office - - you would support that enquiry, not argue that She just wants to make political hay out of it."

I would say a subpoena is not so different than a FOIA…. you cannot deny it just because you don t like the person that asked for it.

Besides - - - according to DOE - it is Pumpkins causing climate change.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/

- DrDirt


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The Editor does agree with me:
> "…now show that temperatures *did not* plateau as thought and that the supposed warming "hiatus" is just an artifact of earlier analyses. *Warming has continued* at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion."
> 
> Reading your own quotes, can t help you with that.
> ...


That is funny, I wonder how many conservatives will think that is real?

It isn't that it is a republican, it is that he is a climate change denier, also he is using changed rules that allow him, on his own, to subpoena anything he wants, to suit his agenda. I trust a scientist far more than him.

You and I have argued over the supposed "flat spot" before, I don't see it, never saw it, thought it was stupid to even suggest there was a flat spot.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The Editor does agree with me:
> "…now show that temperatures *did not* plateau as thought and that the supposed warming "hiatus" is just an artifact of earlier analyses. *Warming has continued* at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion."
> 
> Reading your own quotes, can t help you with that.
> ...


Interesting Rob - - so why is there a NOAA article that adjusted data to "erase the pause or Hiatus".... if no Hiatus ever existed??
You quoted this:
now show that temperatures *did not* *plateau as thought and that the supposed warming "hiatus" is just an artifact of earlier analyses.*

Weird…why would they study something that doesn't exist. Maybe try this out?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Global+warming+Hiatus#


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Simple, they had to explain it to deniers. So there you've been schooled by NOAA.

Do you think there will be any peer reviews of this data? If so let's wait and see. If it fails that process then look for something.

But you guys are the most suspicious I have ever seen. Don't trust the government, don't trust politicians, don't trust scientists, don't trust the po po.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

My 2 cents worth is that I don't care what anyone says about climate change because "they", whoever they are, really don't know what they are talking about. Nature is by nature a cyclical beast and we must adapt to the it's whims!

There is scientific evidence that there was much more carbon in the air millenia ago and the Earth survived. Methane is produced naturally under the oceans, by livestock, and termites all of which predate man.

Yes there is a "change in the weather" but we will find ways to adapt. The problem is that to remove these greenhouse gasses costs money and I have yet to see any nation fork over any to build these air cleaners. And, if we did build those aren't we really upsetting the cyclical nature of the Earth?

So, in my opinion *everything does still matter*!

*Take from an eternal optimist!*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Good Points Hans.

What I never see is (a) if our industrialization is causing global warming… why is going to "1991 levels" somehow the magic number… that if we run at 1990's levels of pollution (before the new CAFE fuel standards etc…. the world will be perfect)?

The world has warmed since the last ice age, Michael Mann put out his hockey stick to show that we are "Accelerating" the process

If we are accelerating it (agree that is not a good thing) but are we destined to become warmer no matter what, so all we are talking about abating is moving the date that we increase by 2 degrees?

All the graphs indicate that if we all just huddled in a yert and burned no oil… the world would still be getting warmer, so are the efforts about 'curbing global warming' misplaced?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

DrDirt, It is another excuse to tax. I hear that insurance companies are planning to set their rates based on how many miles one drives.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

True be told we have it so good some need to invent things to

worry about.

Enjoy the day!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> DrDirt, It is another excuse to tax. I hear that insurance companies are planning to set their rates based on how many miles one drives.
> 
> - mahdee


I heard that too, and also that there will be a highway tax done the same way, because electric and hybrid or alternative fuel cars are not paying enough in highway gas taxes… so they need a way to "capture" that use of the road system.
Not sure I oppose that method - until they decide that 10K miles of a gas burner is taxed higher than 10K of a Hybrid…even though the gas burner pays the new road tax AND the gas taxes.

Taxes are always applied as a lever to drive decisions our benevolent leaders think we should take… they don't ban things, just make it so expensive that normal people cannot afford it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Simple, they had to explain it to deniers. So there you ve been schooled by NOAA.
> 
> Do you think there will be any peer reviews of this data? If so let s wait and see. If it fails that process then look for something.
> 
> ...


Nice try - - but they say "THE HIATUS…. is an artifact of earlier analysis"... so the HIATUS shows up in all the earlier data… not a creation of the deniers.

NOAA just went and decided the temperature of engine intakes is more accurate than the scientific buoys with real instruments… to add 0.1C to the data and say "nothing up my sleeve…. presto!!"


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

I guess spending reduction never enters the equation, greedy Pols.

Seems to me they're biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Nice try - - but they say "THE HIATUS…. is an artifact of earlier analysis"... so the HIATUS shows up in all the earlier data… not a creation of the deniers.
> 
> NOAA just went and decided the temperature of engine intakes is more accurate than the scientific buoys with real instruments… to add 0.1C to the data and say "nothing up my sleeve…. presto!!"
> 
> - DrDirt


Wrong again!

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. *Compared to ships,* *buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy*. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

Example:
You lost the tape measure your father gave you when you were half way through building an A&C coffee table. The replacement reads 1/16th shorter on the existing finished pieces. Do you start over? Or mentally add 1/16th to each of the remaining pieces measurement? If you add the 1/16th (assuming you don't pound the rivet like Dad did) until you finish then you are doing what NOAA has done.

NOAA found that ship based readings are .1C hotter than the buoy based readings, so they shifted the ship based to be able to align them with the new devices. Also, they added 2013 and 2014 to the data. You don't object to that as well do you? I mean adding further data that includes the hottest year on record shouldn't bother you.

The fact that they said what method they used proves there is nothing up their digital sleeves. The data is available, please prove they are/did something wrong.

P.S. The quote said supposed hiatus.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

So, if so called "Carbon emission" (carbon footprint) which is not carbon- a solid, rather carbon dioxide a gas, ("Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth. This naturally occurring chemical compound is composed of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms.") why nations meeting next month subsidies lets say 60% of the cost of electric cars and trucks so everyone can afford to drive one instead of taxing people's "carbon dioxide foot prints". The UN meeting instead is going to focus on gas driven vehicle inefficiencies.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Last post does not make sense. Not to me anyway.

-Madts.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

+1 madts


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

+2 madts 
It is not supposed to.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Carbon:
"Carbon is a chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6. On the Periodic table, it is the first of six elements in column 14, which have in common the composition of their outer electron shell." 









carbon dioxide:


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Congrats you are successful!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

The whole concept of "carbon emission" or "carbon footprints" is very deceiving. It makes people think of the black stuff called carbon. If they called it for what it is, "carbon dioxide footprints" or "carbon dioxide emission" then the concept is a gas that is essential to life on earth.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Oxygen is essential to life, get to much and you die.

Your body doesn't regulate oxygen directly it regulates CO2, too much CO2 and you breathe faster to empty it out of your system and get more oxygen. That is why breathing into a paper bag helps the hiccups, you are building up the concentration of CO2 in your lungs and therefore your blood. Too little CO2 and you will get dizzy.

Sunlight is essential to living, without it you would suffer greatly, too much and you would die.

See where I'm going with this? There is a range for certain "essentials", just because it is essential doesn't mean more is good for you.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Oxygen is essential to life, get to much and you die.
> 
> Your body doesn t regulate oxygen directly it regulates CO2, too much CO2 and you breathe faster to empty it out of your system and get more oxygen. That is why breathing into a paper bag helps the hiccups, you are building up the concentration of CO2 in your lungs and therefore your blood. Too little CO2 and you will get dizzy.
> 
> ...


You missed my entire point as usual.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Oxygen is essential to life, get to much and you die.
> 
> Your body doesn t regulate oxygen directly it regulates CO2, too much CO2 and you breathe faster to empty it out of your system and get more oxygen. That is why breathing into a paper bag helps the hiccups, you are building up the concentration of CO2 in your lungs and therefore your blood. Too little CO2 and you will get dizzy.
> 
> ...


Could you 'splain it to me?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Madhee. I'm I also missed you point.

-Madts.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Abstraction is not required!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I am sorry if my point is not making any sense to you. It is all about the perception that we have carbon foot prints or carbon emissions that is causing us all to die soon. carbon "C" is a solid. This is the stuff that cause lung disease when mining for coal for example. It is called black lung disease. It is a solid; a black powder if you wish. It's composition is "C", carbon. 
Carbon dioxide is a totally different agent. It is CO2; a gas, not a solid sooth that many think cars and trucks produce out of their tailpipe. So to say "carbon footprint", is a lie because cars and trucks don't produce CARBON which is a solid agent. CARBON DIOXIDE is a gas- not a solid. Yes, you emit carbon dioxide when you exhale or fart but to compare carbon dioxide to "carbon" foot print is a total lie. Comparing exhalation in an 18oz brown bag to stop hiccups is something beyond logic when it comes to the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere in the past 2000 years. 
my point, if you chose not to "get it" is that if CARBON DIOXIDE is so threatening to your life, why not do away with Hydrocarbons all together and provide intensives to use alternative to what we are using instead of promoting what we think is so horrible by making it a little bit less poisonous. Sell me battery car for half the price and I'll jump on it. It will never be offered. I wonder why?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I am sorry if my point is not making any sense to you. It is all about the perception that we have carbon foot prints or carbon emissions that is causing us all to die soon. carbon "C" is a solid. This is the stuff that cause lung disease when mining for coal for example. It is called black lung disease. It is a solid; a black powder if you wish. It's composition is "C", carbon. 
Carbon dioxide is a totally different agent. It is CO2; a gas, not a solid sooth that many think cars and trucks produce out of their tailpipe. So to say "carbon footprint", is a lie because cars and trucks don't produce CARBON which is a solid agent. CARBON DIOXIDE is a gas- not a solid. Yes, you emit carbon dioxide when you exhale or fart but to compare carbon dioxide to "carbon" foot print is a total lie. Comparing exhalation in an 18oz brown bag to sop hiccups is something beyond logic when it comes to the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere in the past 2000 years. 
my point, if you chose not to "get it" is that if CARBON DIOXIDE is so threatening to your life, why not do away with Hydrocarbons all together and provide intensives to use alternative to what we are using instead of promoting what we think is so horrible by making it a little bit less poisonous. Sell me battery car for half the price and I'll jump on it. It will never be offered. I wonder why?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Madhee. I m I also missed you point.
> 
> -Madts.
> 
> - madts


I love that, Madhee… "Mad-hee". It is all about association.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I bet this will blow your mind! Carbon footprint includes Methane as well as CO2!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Seems silly to argue semantics when "Carbon Footprint" is a generic, all inclusive term; solid, gas and numerous compounds.

I'm wondering how effective electric cars will be impacting the carbon foot print of mankind? Most of our electricity is generated in carbon burning plants in the US.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Well, the UN meeting is about CO2 even though they call it carbon.

US and China strike deal on carbon cuts in push for global climate change pact


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

What a great deal that is!!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Too bad it is too late to make any difference. If man did it, it is too late to stop a mass extinction event. If man didn't do it, it is irrelevant.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

+1 Topo.

-Madts.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)




----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Does anyone remember the coming of the next ice age scare in the '70's?

How about the fact that some scientist are saying that our current warming is actually holding off the next ice age?

Alarmists are always trying to alarm us!
The alarm du jour, too much bacon or salami will kill you!
OK, what is next?

In my opinion, some researchers/scientists must publish something, so they do just that, publish something!


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Old Novice. I really thought that you were smarter than that.

-Madts.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*madts*, I am, but nothing really matters anymore so why not?

Just trying to go with the flow!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Wrong again!
> 
> Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. *Compared to ships,* *buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy*. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA s National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study s authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."
> 
> - RobS888


you really should think about your analysis more -

So indeed the ship data is INNACURATE compared to the buoys. the Ship data tends to read high, because the metal intake into the engine skews the results "warmer" than the REAL temperature of the water.

So when the "*buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy*" and they decide to THROW THAT DATA OUT (adjust it UP to match ships)... and ship measurements that are known to be TOO HOT… to prove warming, that is a problem.

--------------------------
How bout this - - if you KNOW the buoys are more accurate… *why not adjust the "ship data DOWN"* to *match the more accurate measurements*.... e.g. CORRECTING the data.

Instead NOAA went with Making the Accurate measurements match a KNOWN wrong answer.

Of course the answer is if you have an up front conclusion you want to draw about temperatures going up… you choose the method that reinforces the preconceived notion.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> you really should think about your analysis more -
> 
> So indeed the ship data is INNACURATE compared to the buoys. the Ship data tends to read high, because the metal intake into the engine skews the results "warmer" than the REAL temperature of the water.
> 
> ...


Is not the trend exactly the same either way?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Greg - - adjusting down would have shown "the Hiatus" 
Adjusting UP shows ongoing global warming.

So no taking out the "flat spot" by adjusting temps up does not show the same trend.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Greg - - adjusting down would have shown "the Hiatus"
> Adjusting UP shows ongoing global warming.
> 
> So no taking out the "flat spot" by adjusting temps up does not show the same trend.
> ...


I don't follow.

One possible correction shifts the buoy data up and then combines it with the ship data.

The other possible correction shifts the ship data down and combines it with the buoy data.

Plot these results on the same graph and you get 2 curves that are identical except they are offset one to the other. The changes with respect to time are the same; that is, the *trends* are identical.

Or did they do something different?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Greg - - adjusting down would have shown "the Hiatus"
> Adjusting UP shows ongoing global warming.
> 
> So no taking out the "flat spot" by adjusting temps up does not show the same trend.
> ...


Only if you do that to an entire trend. Apparently they only did this to the data since 1998.

So they took the "Flat spot" and then adjusted it UP to show it increasing.

So if I have a line with positive slope with a flat spot…. then adjust ONLY the flat spot "up" to make it look like the historical data… that is NOT going to show the same trend.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation said this:

GWPF comments

Received via email from GWPF:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/
Key pitfalls of the paper:

The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with other all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.

They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world's best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.

Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.

The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.

1. They make 11 changes (not all are explained) producing the ERSSTv4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) dataset that includes new estimates for the different way SSTs are measured from ships (intake or buckets). They also add 0.12°C to each buoy to bring their measurements in line with those taken from ships. These issues have been raised before by the UK Met Office when compiling their HadSST3 ocean surface temperature dataset, see, 'A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature'

2. The greatest changes are made since 1998, which is interesting because this is when we have the highest quality of data and global coverage using several methods. Only this analysis finds any increase in global annual average surface temperature over this "hiatus" period. The authors have produced a dataset that is at odds with other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.

3. The authors start their trend estimates in 1998 and 2000. This has long been considered unwise as 1998 is a very strong El Nino year and 1999-2000 is a much cooler La Nina period. The difference between them distorts their trend estimates. For example, their 1998-2014 trend is 0.106+/- 0.058°C per decade. Starting two years later (during La Nina influenced years) yields a trend of 0.116 +/- 0.067°C per decade as one would expect from starting at a lower temperature. Ignoring these caveats the authors say their analysis produces twice as much warming for 1998-2014 than earlier estimates. Their conclusion is, ironically, based on inbuilt biases in their analysis.

-------------------------
Frankly I think the Hiatus data like the 30 year decline from ~1945-75 is potentially more interesting, as it points to the complexities of climate. The areas where temperature just marches along with CO2 concentration just shows correlation.
When the two lines deviate or even move in opposite directions… there is information about our Climate that is being filtered out of the model by doctoring the data.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

How do you explain the glaciers going away in Glacier National Park and the melt down on Mt Rainier?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> How do you explain the glaciers going away in Glacier National Park and the melt down on Mt Rainier?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It has STAYED warm…. Things have been melting for a long long time.

But there have been dips and flat spots in the curves as well… bet the

That new temperature is still higher than where it was, and things are melting.
I didn't say it cooled down….temps have just climbed and stayed warmer than 20 years ago..

But this new idea now to look at the temperature record which climate scientists have been trying to understand "where the heat has gone" because the temperature isn't rising for the past decade ….of course climate deniers use it to say "warming is over".

NOAA just comes in and adds some corrective temp to the flat spot data period and says Presto - - all you other IPCC participants around the globe have been wasting your time!!... there is no flat spot!!

Something is fishy about just erasing the last 15-18 years of stable temps.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I like point 3 above, I've tried to tell you that 5,000 times,

If they don't push up the data, nuts will claim it is getting cooler.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Wrong again!
> 
> Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. *Compared to ships,* *buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy*. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA s National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study s authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."
> 
> ...


That is a quote from NOAA's paper.

Do you have an links to show what was actually done to the data?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I like point 3 above, I ve tried to tell you that 5,000 times,
> 
> If they don t push up the data, nuts will claim it is getting cooler.
> 
> - RobS888


Am I reading your commen correctly? That "If they don't *fake it* (push up the data) and say it is getting warmer….the concern is that "someone might say it is getting colder"

That isn't science. So At least we now agree that what NOAA did was politically expedient BS and not science??

Since you say the goal is to "push up the data" to have the right narrative, and not actually understand/study/ and present what really is happening? that is a pretty cynical view you have adopted.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> That is a quote from NOAA s paper.
> 
> Do you have an links to show what was actually done to the data?
> 
> - RobS888


Is there a question there really? They took the ACCURATE buoy data and converted it to match the INNACCURATE ship data. As you put in your link already and as they describe in their paper in Science.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I like point 3 above, I ve tried to tell you that 5,000 times,
> 
> If they don t push up the data, nuts will claim it is getting cooler.
> 
> ...


Missed the 3rd point I see…

No faking needed, they have 2 parallel data sets, if they merge up, insane people can't go insane-er. If they did merge down then the insane would try to say all previous data was wrong and it wasn't really getting warm (see snow ball in congress as proof there was no global warming) because new data showed it was cooler.

I guess your cynicism is rubbing off on me, just kidding. I don't know what they did to the data, but I trust them me than I trust you.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> That is a quote from NOAA s paper.
> 
> Do you have an links to show what was actually done to the data?
> 
> ...


So, you have no proof, got it. Just more climate conspiracy conjecture from the non scientists.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Here is my issue with all of this -

These are the "facts" as presented

1.) The data is classified
2.) Admittedly, they even say that the numbers were "wrong" so they matched them to other numbers so they would be "right" (boats versus buoys)
3.) As a result, this "proves" that the earth is warming.

When you challenge this "data" you are told that you don't know what you are talking about and asked, "where is your proof to counter it!"

Total BS and a total waste of time and money. There is no data that is of a length of time that shows a meaningful trend - unless your agenda requires it to control and exert your will unto others and create an entire government department (EPA) to drive your corporations out of the country and ruin your economy. Then you create your own rules and manipulate the data accordingly - sounds about right here.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Heavy rains prepared the ground back in March. The Atacama region saw almost an inch of rain in one day-the equivalent of 14 years of rain in 24 hours. "This year has been particularly special, because the amount of rainfall has made this perhaps the most spectacular of the past 40 or 50 years," Raul Cespedes, a desert scientist at the University of Atacama, told AFP.

This is all about cycles that go way back. So, they find a 32000 year old plant seeds in Siberia which indicates the region was a warm enough for plants to grow. Another indicator of cycles that naturally occur.

32,000-Year-Old Plant Brought Back to Life-Oldest Yet

The Piri Reis map the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. The official science has been saying all along that the ice-cap which covers the Antarctic is million years old.
The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it. That should make think it has been mapped million years ago, but that's impossible since mankind did not exist at that time.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

According to some - The Arctic cap is losing ice where Antarctic is gaining more ice than the Arctic is losing and is actually lowering the oceans.

Would this be global warming, continental shift, or strictly BS -

The Democrat spin - Global warming due to cows - we should be taxed on our beef consumption
The Republican spin - The cows face away from the rain so when they fart, the warm air is melting the Arctic ice - we should be taxed on our beef consumption.

Reality - It is BS and is a normal 20,000 - 50,000 year cycle


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

In all seriousness: China's building islands for warfare, Russia's bombing like crazy,

The economy is stagnant and our pols are worrying about cow farts. In times like these

I look to our Commander n Chief Big Ears Dumbo:


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
Santa better check his compass, because the North Pole is shifting-the north magnetic pole, that is, not the geographical one.

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clip-25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.
Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

At its current rate the pole could move to Siberia within the next half-century, Stoner said.

"It's moving really fast," he said. "We're seeing something that hasn't happened for at least 500 years."

Stoner presented his team's research at the American Geophysical Union's meeting last week in San Francisco.

Lorne McKee, a geomagnetic scientist at Natural Resources Canada, says that Stoner's data fits his own readings.

"The movement of the pole definitely appears to be accelerating," he said.

Not a Reversal

The shift is likely a normal oscillation of the Earth's magnetic field, Stoner said, and not the beginning of a flip-flop of the north and south magnetic poles, a phenomenon that last occurred 780,000 years ago.

Such reversals have taken place 400 times in the last 330 million years, according to magnetic clues sealed in rocks around the world. Each reversal takes a thousand years or more to complete.

"People like to think something special is happening in their lifetimes, but despite the dramatic changes, I don't see any evidence of it," Stoner said. "It's probably just a normal wandering of the pole."


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

waho6o9, they should have put a Pinocchio nose on him instead.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)




----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> That is a quote from NOAA s paper.
> 
> Do you have an links to show what was actually done to the data?
> 
> ...


You indeed have a weird view - - Quite a circular argument - - we discuss the PAPER NOAA PUBLISHED outlining what was done… IN THEIR WORDS… and you are asking if I have paper??

Well duh…. the Science Paper they published….

What proof besides the NOAA admissions in print are you looking for Mr. "it's all a conspiracy"

We have the "NOAA says X in print" and you are asking if there is proof…. truly sad!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

So when asked to substantiate your claims, you can't. Show me where NOAA says how they "manipulated" the data. Dbray says it was classified, but you say it is there in X print. Which rightwinger to believe?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

While all the data is being analyzed, manipulated or mutilated, Why are the Inuits having to move their villages away from the shore line and why can't they or the polar bears depend on the ice anymore for hunting and providing a food supply? Don't these experiences and circumstances trump all the data?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Bob,
I don't think anyone is disputing the climate is changing rather the question is what is causing it; man or natural cycles.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

The odds are both to some extent given all the scientific data and natural cycle information.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

What we are doing in the middle of this void called the universe/multiverse is a mystery to me. However, I doubt we can alter its course in any shape or form.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> While all the data is being analyzed, manipulated or mutilated, Why are the Inuits having to move their villages away from the shore line and why can t they or the polar bears depend on the ice anymore for hunting and providing a food supply? Don t these experiences and circumstances trump all the data?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Has anyone shown where anything we do in teh USA will change it?

We all see the temperature is higher than it was 100 years ago. Are the man made CO2 reductions ONLY delaying the inevitable.

Really is there ANYTHING man can do to STOP global warming.

I think NO. The Ice age ended too, and it wasn't because if industrialization.

Interesting the Inuits are moving to higher ground and Al Gore is buying beach front


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> So when asked to substantiate your claims, you can t. Show me where NOAA says how they "manipulated" the data. Dbray says it was classified, but you say it is there in X print. Which rightwinger to believe?
> 
> - RobS888


NOAA says WHAT they CHANGED to erase the pause….. they do not say WHY they went the direction they did, or why they are right, and everyone studying the pause is a moron looking at artifacts of bad analysis.

Seems if you are going to publish a We are right and everyone else is wrong… because we altered the record, there are questions to be answered, not just taken at face value. It is not just 'skeptics' that struggle with the NOAA analysis.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Let's say that magnetic North is really changing. That could make the rotation of the Earth shift as well.

We know that the Sahara and the Bad Lands conditions are a result of geographic location on the Earth and that the Tectonic Plates move. The Sahara was once green and lush. If the rotation shifts 2 degrees, what is hot or cold now could easily move with the rotation. This would account for some glaciers to grow more and others to vanish, just like the ones on the North American Continent that formed the Great Lakes. It could also change the movement of the plates.

This actually does make sense.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> While all the data is being analyzed, manipulated or mutilated, Why are the Inuits having to move their villages away from the shore line and why can t they or the polar bears depend on the ice anymore for hunting and providing a food supply? Don t these experiences and circumstances trump all the data?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


I seriously doubt anything man does will be in time to change anything if he could.

Al Gore has multiple residences. He can afford to lose one. The Inuits are stuck in survival mode.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

+1 dbray45.

I wish Al Gore would walk the talk.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Let s say that magnetic North is really changing. That could make the rotation of the Earth shift as well.
> 
> We know that the Sahara and the Bad Lands conditions are a result of geographic location on the Earth and that the Tectonic Plates move. The Sahara was once green and lush. If the rotation shifts 2 degrees, what is hot or cold now could easily move with the rotation. This would account for some glaciers to grow more and others to vanish, just like the ones on the North American Continent that formed the Great Lakes. It could also change the movement of the plates.
> 
> ...


The Magnetic poles are always wandering around and the axial tilt does wobble a bit, about 1 degree per million years. It has been calculated to move between 21 and 24 degrees. The axial tilt is believed to have been caused by a very large collision, a very long time ago, billions of years ago, in fact while the earth was forming.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> So when asked to substantiate your claims, you can t. Show me where NOAA says how they "manipulated" the data. Dbray says it was classified, but you say it is there in X print. Which rightwinger to believe?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


I see talk, but no proof from you.

Normally you through up lots of links to dubious sites, but nothing when asked, hmmm.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> I see talk, but no proof from you.
> 
> Normally you through up lots of links to dubious sites, but nothing when asked, hmmm.
> 
> - RobS888


That is what I usually see from your posts… or just asking for proof because you don't like the original discussion which was of course also about why NOAA is being secretive…. if they are so sure what they did is RIGHT?

You are just trolling… so TTTH … better yet, READ the NOAA paper, it would do you some good.

Even better show me where they DIDN"T chage the data to match the ships…... mmmm Thought not!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Yup, I thought so, you got nothin'.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Actually, history has shown that the poles have been known to reverse!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Magnetic poles flip on average every 200K years, the axial tilt doesn't move more than a couple degrees over very long time scales.

It was suggested that the magnetic poles could cause the rotation of the earth to change! Not science, unless you count pop-science as real science.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Magnetic poles flip on average every 200K years, the axial tilt doesn t move more than a couple degrees over very long time scales.
> 
> It was suggested that the magnetic poles could cause the rotation of the earth to change! Not science, unless you count pop-science as real science.
> 
> - RobS888


That would be quite a trick; reverse the earth's rotation. Do you do that by swapping any 2 phases on the motor? Would everyone fall down when it reversed? ;-)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I think I read once the equator rotates at about 770 mph, so I reckon we might go flying if the planet just stopped or defied reason/science and reversed.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Since it is almost 25,000 miles around, it would have to be over 1000 mph!


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Reversing rotation would be quite a shock!
During that reversal there would be a moment of complete standstill which would definitely be an eerie feeling as no one has ever felt that before.

This sounds like it would make a good movie like* "The Day the Earth Stood Still" * the good one, not the one with Kannotact Reaves.


----------



## AZWoody (Jan 18, 2015)

> Magnetic poles flip on average every 200K years, the axial tilt doesn t move more than a couple degrees over very long time scales.
> 
> It was suggested that the magnetic poles could cause the rotation of the earth to change! Not science, unless you count pop-science as real science.
> 
> ...


Superman did it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Must have been for pretty far from the equator then!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Reversing rotation would be quite a shock!
> During that reversal there would be a moment of complete standstill which would definitely be an eerie feeling as no one has ever felt that before.
> 
> This sounds like it would make a good movie like* "The Day the Earth Stood Still" * the good one, not the one with Kannotact Reaves.
> ...


Oh, I don't know, Jennifer Connelly was great… as usual. She brightens any movie she is in… Even Noah!


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

If you believe in Jesus and have faith, everything is going to be AOK.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Rob*, I'll give that about Jennifer Connelly but Kanotact Reaves did his same stoic character he has done so many times before!

*mahdee*, you are probably correct in that respect!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Wow, hottest October on record. Beat old record (last year) by .2 degree C. And 20th century average by 1 degree C.

2015 had 6 of the hottest months on record, globally that is. Your backyard may be different.

http://www.newsweek.com/october-was-hottest-ever-recorded-marking-six-months-record-breaking-heat-noaa-395915


----------



## torpidihummer (Apr 29, 2013)

In my 84 years of life, I have seen so many weather changes and our Great
Country is still thriving, politicians have come and gone, along with their
promises. Since my retirement, I got rid of my cell phone, my wife answers
the phone, but I do enjoy my computer as it keeps me in contact with other
Wood Carvers around our great Country. My biggest concern in life is my wife
and kids, along with my grand kids and one Great Grand Daughter, staying
heathy, thank God for that and Wood Carving. Bottom line the entire world
has been changing since the days of the Cave Men.

Our Great Country has endured World Wars and grown in prosperity and I thank God
for all of the changes, so I don't bother with any worldly changes and just enjoy life
for what it is.
Oscar


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I wish I could ignore it as well.


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Great Liberal Hoax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~Never under estimate the Stupidity of the general public~


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Don't understand science?
Sure sounds like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conservative or liberal science doesn't care.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Professor Altemeyer at the U of Manitoba proved 1/3 of the population are not critical thinkers and will not believe anything that they did not previously believe when the receive new information! That puts science between a rock and a hard spot, doesn't it ;-)


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> Professor Altemeyer at the U of Manitoba proved 1/3 of the population are not critical thinkers and will not believe anything that they did not previously believe when the receive new information! That puts science between a rock and a hard spot, doesn t it ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The government and their payed scientist have been fixing the games for a long long time. I'm not talking just about climate change either. It goes way back about many issues. Look at the horrible experiment they have done to people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Oh yes I trust what my government tell me with out a doubt. LOL

I'm surprised it's only 1/3.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Why is the gubment funding all the research?

Hmmm 1/3 of population can't accept new data, sounds like anther group I've seen. The kind that puts a climate change denier in charge of a science committee. Or has 5 religious men testifying about birth control. It is like the bible and its stories got in there first and no data can replace them, no matter how well proven.

*EDIT:*

I thought faith meant "requiring no proof" not "in spite of proof".


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

"Climate change is our greatest threat to national security." - Obama









Here's all the "proof" you need.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

If that is your idea of proof, I have totally made my point.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

More balanced picture
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/what_should_we_do_about_climate_change_128876.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Hardly a balanced opinion (unless you watch FOX, then your idea of balanced is skewed).

Cherry-picking the cherry-picking from your link"

5. CO2 has very little to do with it. CO2 continues its relentless rise, yet our planet *hasn't warmed in 18 years now*. (Despite talk of 2015 as the "hottest year on record," *there has been no average global mean temperature increase **since 1997*.) All the decarbonization we can do isn't going to change the climate much.

Weird how the deniers always focus on 1997 as the start of the cherry-picking of data. Debunked, derailed, dismissed, and derided as a just plain stupid point.

Getting science opinion from a politics website doesn't seem the best approach. We don't get politics info from NOAA…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Hmmm
B. F. Skinner called this cognitive dissonance.

It's this preferential mode of behavior that leads to the confirmation bias - the often unconscious act of referencing only those perspectives that fuel our pre-existing views, while at the same time ignoring or dismissing opinions - no matter how valid - that threaten our world view.

And paradoxically, the internet has only made this tendency even worse.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I'm sorry was there validity in that link? I didn't see any. I saw a guy trying to support his opinion, and I saw you using it to support your opinion.

Dismissing warming because of an outlier or claiming all data from everywhere is rigged is just silly.

Oh, *In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

This is more what I always understood it to mean: Skinner wasn't the author of the theory.

Cognitive dissonance is concerned with an incompatibility in the relationship between two cognitions. This theory, first proposed by Leon Festinger, states that people need to maintain consistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that *compels the mind to acquire or invent new beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, in order to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict)* between cognitions and bring them back into a consistent relationship.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cognitive_dissonance

Sound familiar? I've seen you run circles around yourself trying to prove what you believe, when it obviously isn't correct.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz were you saying something or just quoting from sources you are 'comfortable with' that don't challenge you to consider the beliefs of others again?

So rather than recognize your pattern… you go down a rabbit hole on the foundings and definitions of your disorder.
try this:
http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational

Please show that I said ALL data from EVERYWHERE is rigged?

I have shown where 'decreases have been turned into increases in Latin America' by someone using "mikes trick" the data to "Hide the decline" 
Your bias - - leads you to throw out any skepticism… because it is a position you support… instead of asking WTF??? you just say Baaaaah Baaaah


----------



## AlanBienlein (Jan 29, 2011)

No nothing really matters any more. Looking forward to the Maunder Minimum coming in about 15 years if we survive all of this political correctness stupidity!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> No nothing really matters any more. Looking forward to the Maunder Minimum coming in about 15 years if we survive all of this political correctness stupidity!
> 
> - AlanBienlein


Wishing more University Presidents were like this guy!!

*This is Not a Day Care. It's a University!*

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt "victimized" by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I'm not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them "feel bad" about themselves, is a "hater," a "bigot," an "oppressor," and a "victimizer."

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. *That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience*. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins-not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here's my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you're a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you're looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you're more interested in playing the "hater" card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don't want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn't one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don't believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don't issue "trigger warnings" before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a "safe place", but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn't about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that's wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that's wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Hardly a balanced opinion (unless you watch FOX, then your idea of balanced is skewed).
> 
> - RobS888


I recently saw a survey comparing various news sources with knowledge of world events. Those who watched Fox scored lower than those who didn't get news from any broadcast or media source. The BS on Fox is definitely skewering something ;-)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

CBS reported tonight that the methane frozen in the Arctic tundra is beginning to release. The Arctic is the fastest warming area. The methane will lead to more warming and the release of more methane. They also mentioned the sea level as risen 3" in the last 20 years.

They also did a report on smog in China. I wonder how they land planes over there? Don't you need a minimum visibility to land?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz were you saying something or just quoting from sources you are comfortable with that don t challenge you to consider the beliefs of others again?
> 
> So rather than recognize your pattern… you go down a rabbit hole on the foundings and definitions of your disorder.
> try this:
> ...


Showing the definition of a term is the same as plagerising an entire post? Yeah sure.

I have scepticism puppy, you fight all climate data that doesn't fit your "perception". I don't need a single statement from you when you have tried to fight, it seems, every comment that supports climate change, especially man made/assisted climate change. Empirical evidence of your posts proves my point.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> No nothing really matters any more. Looking forward to the Maunder Minimum coming in about 15 years if we survive all of this political correctness stupidity!
> 
> - AlanBienlein
> 
> ...


Wow! A citation!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Hardly a balanced opinion (unless you watch FOX, then your idea of balanced is skewed).
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Yup, the daily show audience did better than fox viewers.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> CBS reported tonight that the methane frozen in the Arctic tundra is beginning to release. The Arctic is the fastest warming area. The methane will lead to more warming and the release of more methane. They also mentioned the sea level as risen 3" in the last 20 years.
> 
> They also did a report on smog in China. I wonder how they land planes over there? Don t you need a minimum visibility to land?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


IFR (instrument flight reference) will get you down.

Permafrost under the tundra is releasing a LOT of carbon as was reported, scientifically reported that is, in the 90s. The methane is new to me. The scary thing is the permafrost under water, only 11,000 years old, is melting and off gassing.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I can't remember exactly when or where I saw this, but the amount of methane frozen in or under Antarctica is phenomenal! We need to switch breathing over from oxygen when it gets loose. I can't remember if it is in or under the land mass or around it on the ocean floor.

Civilization will have collapsed long before then, so do not to worry about that one. I expect things to progress along pretty much uncomfortably normal until we hit critical mass; then extinction within a generation or two. Sort of like fooling around in a canoe. You can rock it back and forth, but when that critical balance point is exceeded, there is no recovery. You will get wet! ;-))


----------



## AlanBienlein (Jan 29, 2011)

> No nothing really matters any more. Looking forward to the Maunder Minimum coming in about 15 years if we survive all of this political correctness stupidity!
> 
> - AlanBienlein
> 
> ...


Thank you, thank you very much!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Hardly a balanced opinion (unless you watch FOX, then your idea of balanced is skewed).
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Shows how ********************ty our education system is when even the "smartest" NPR listener on average knows fewer than 2 out of five questions. (only 30% correct) 
Looks more like the Watters World Segments - where they go to Long Beach in New York and ask (on 4th of July) who we celebrate our independence from and they answer "France" 









http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/06/jesse-watters-quizzes-americans-about-july-fourth-history


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I suspect the wet world videos are heavily reduced. Judging anything (other than what a jerk he is) based on his videos would be silly and put one at the top of the previous chart. His videos are a far less funny version of Jay Leno's jaywalking.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Shows how ********************ty our education system is when even the "smartest" NPR listener on average knows fewer than 2 out of five questions. (only 30% correct)
> 
> - DrDirt


There ya go, back full circle. The authoritarians can't control an educated populace. They continue their efforts to destroy it and make obedient little servants of us, US ;-(


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Shows how ********************ty our education system is when even the "smartest" NPR listener on average knows fewer than 2 out of five questions. (only 30% correct)
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Sad but true….

But really even in a redacted "interview" - how is it New Yorkers in their 20's don't know we declared independence from Britain??
That seems akin to not knowing what year the war of 1812 started.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Sad but true….
> 
> But really even in a redacted "interview" - how is it New Yorkers in their 20 s don t know we declared independence from Britain??
> That seems akin to not knowing what year the war of 1812 started.
> ...


One thing the right wing authoritarians need to do to get civil obedience indoctrinated in society is to extract all descent from our history. Of course, they need to get 100% of us, US, to join them as noncritical thinkers. Shipping all of our jobs overseas is a means to those ends; diversion of one's efforts to basic survival is a serious distraction to political descent, education and free thinking.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

What I don't understand is why, we here in one of the most supposedly "advanced" countries in the world, have some many people who do not have and/or value education?

Why does Japan, China, Vietnam, Russia, India, Germany, and probably some other countries seem to value education, and the higher the better?

Are we just a nation of a few smart and a lot of stupid, much like poor versus rich?

To me, if we can fix this issue we can reduce forums like this or the one about wealth distribution as I believe these two topics are related closer than anyone would believe!

You can see the perpetuation the "keep them stupid" theme in movies, TV shows (keeping up with the "whatever"), news reports, and grocery store rag magzines, and probably some supidity purveyors that I forgot.

*Sorry, just had to vent a little!*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Hans, Unfortunately, it is the political agenda of the oligarchy class to undo the 20th century and oppress the peons as they were in the 19th century prior to food safety laws, work places safety laws, labor unions, Social Security, pensions, 40 hour weeks…........... As Thom Hartmann says, Daddy Koch was a prime mover of this movement in the 60's. David and Charles have picked up the ball and continued the long game very well. They have succeeded in getting control of the political system financially. They have shipped jobs overseas to break the back of the opposition; the middle class union members who supported the Democrats before Clinton went corporate. Their base is the 1/3 of the population who are non critical thinkers with an authoritarian personality. They will vote against their own best interests and have been consistently for nearly 40 years. For them to win, they need to destroy education, destroy the free press, ................... everything that made this country great. They believe God ordained them to rule because they are wealthy; therefore, smarter than us peons. They really don't care about destroying the world. They are not critical thinkers and cannot associate causes with consequences. They think their wealth will protect them from what ever the future holds.

At the end of WWII, the gov't wondered if the American people would follow anyone through the gates of hell the way the Germans did Hitler. During the research, they discovered and defined the authoritarian personalities. Professor Bob Altemeyer studied this personality for 40 years at the University of Manitoba. The answer to the initial question is, yes, the American people are following the authoritarians through the gates of hell today.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Shows how ********************ty our education system is when even the "smartest" NPR listener on average knows fewer than 2 out of five questions. (only 30% correct)
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


I don't think redacted is accurate here, redacting would be like bleeping a few words. This is blatant misrepresentation. They may interview 50 people to get the 3 that don't know. The impression they want you to have is they stopped 3 people and none of them knew the answer. I suspect they talk to many multiples of that to find the ones they want. This is just another example of FOX leading their viewers around by the nose.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> What I don t understand is why, we here in one of the most supposedly "advanced" countries in the world, have some many people who do not have and/or value education?
> 
> Why does Japan, China, Vietnam, Russia, India, Germany, and probably some other countries seem to value education, and the higher the better?
> 
> ...


Free your mind and the rest will follow.

I think you are 100% correct.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Shows how ********************ty our education system is when even the "smartest" NPR listener on average knows fewer than 2 out of five questions. (only 30% correct)
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


You mean Leno aired EVERY interview right? not just the 'Funniest/stupidest ones'

are you OK being led around by Leno or Fallon?

your 50:3 ratio i think is overly optimistic. i think it is far more than 5 or 6% of people that are ignorant of world events… as the NPR vs FOX shows that of all the viewer/listeners… the BEST average population was only answering 30% correct on domestic issues.

We have a truly IGNORANT populace, that simply votes for 'Santa Claus' every election.


----------



## mudflap4869 (May 28, 2014)

OK! So much for the bull******************** and bar talk. Now what are each of you as an individual going to do besides more BS and bar talk?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Hans, Unfortunately, it is the political agenda of the oligarchy class to undo the 20th century and oppress the peons as they were in the 19th century prior to food safety laws, work places safety laws, labor unions, Social Security, pensions, 40 hour weeks…........... As Thom Hartmann says, Daddy Koch was a prime mover of this movement in the 60 s. David and Charles have picked up the ball and continued the long game very well. They have succeeded in getting control of the political system financially. They have shipped jobs overseas to break the back of the opposition; the middle class union members who supported the Democrats before Clinton went corporate. Their base is the 1/3 of the population who are non critical thinkers with an authoritarian personality. They will vote against their own best interests and have been consistently for nearly 40 years. For them to win, they need to destroy education, destroy the free press, ................... everything that made this country great. They believe God ordained them to rule because they are wealthy; therefore, smarter than us peons. They really don t care about destroying the world. They are not critical thinkers and cannot associate causes with consequences. They think their wealth will protect them from what ever the future holds.
> 
> At the end of WWII, the gov t wondered if the American people would follow anyone through the gates of hell the way the Germans did Hitler. During the research, they discovered and defined the authoritarian personalities. Professor Bob Altemeyer studied this personality for 40 years at the University of Manitoba. The answer to the initial question is, yes, the American people are following the authoritarians through the gates of hell today.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Don't believe this is *ALL* right wing work.

Seems the stamping our of civil rights and free speech on campuses is the work of teh Liberal Left (e.g. Mizzou)
Speech Codes, and Microagressions…. seem to be predominantly the progressive movement.
Civil disobedience and calling for execution of police like BLM…. not right wing.

Koch is a favorite boogieman… but who *hasn't* outsourced to Mexico since NAFTA? How about GE, they ran NBC before selling as the unofficial Obama Network. Immelt sat on the jobs counsel for Obama all while massive outsourcing of High tech (not just factory blue collar jobs) to China.

Jimmy Carter was an active lobbiest on the hill pushing for NAFTA.

Now we have the TPP with Obama will be a real disaster.

The system is wrought with Corruption and Self interest.

*"corporate Gluttony is not just a right wing affliction….NOBODY working inside the beltway gives a flying F*ck about the country… just their next paychecks"*


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Puppy, puppy, puppy,

You are so well controlled you don't even realize when you are being led around. Jay Leno didn't have an objective except to make funny videos. Can you prove your childish response and show me how Leno led me around? You seem to have really devoled lately in your attacks, are you ok? Confusing plagerising and a citation makes me concerned for your health.

Watters and Fox as a whole are out to belittle the opposition. We've all read the statements from former Fox reporters about the topics to cover. It is like the videos that kid made by pretending to be a pimp or a telephone repair man. How many people answered correctly, but were edited out because it didn't fit his agenda.

I try to include an entire paragraph when I quote somehing, so it is obvious I'm not lying by omission. I would like to see these videos the same way. At least Leno showed people that were correct as well. Not just the silly ones.

Don't forget half of the people you meet are below average intelligence, some of these people may have had excellent educations, but aren't that capable. I've seen people forget what the spent the entire preceding day working on. Bad education/training? Nope, just not the best brains.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> OK! So much for the bull******************** and bar talk. Now what are each of you as an individual going to do besides more BS and bar talk?
> 
> - mudflap4869


I'm going to continue my life as usual. At least until the politicians and globalist finish taking all my money and freedoms though all this phony bull ********************.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> OK! So much for the bull******************** and bar talk. Now what are each of you as an individual going to do besides more BS and bar talk?
> 
> - mudflap4869


I got solar panels and super duper insulation to reduce the amount of energy we use.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> OK! So much for the bull******************** and bar talk. Now what are each of you as an individual going to do besides more BS and bar talk?
> 
> - mudflap4869
> 
> ...


So nuthin'?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> OK! So much for the bull******************** and bar talk. Now what are each of you as an individual going to do besides more BS and bar talk?
> 
> - mudflap4869


keep up with issues.

Not bow to PC bull********************

Fire any wuss who has his mother talk to HR because his raise wasn't big enough instead of speaking for themselves.

Reward excellence not participation

Vote for who is going to do the best job - not just the person promising 'gifts and Unicorn Farts for everyone'


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Don t forget half of the people you meet are below average intelligence, some of these people may have had excellent educations, but aren t that capable. I ve seen people forget what the spent the entire preceding day working on. Bad education/training? Nope, just not the best brains.
> 
> - RobS888


You certainly didn't watch the link because he also includes people getting the answer correct.
You hatred - - masks your ignorance.

And No half the people I meet are not below average…....... half the* total* POPULATION is below *MEDIAN* intelligence. not Mean
learn some statistics cupcake.

If you are in Baltimore and talk to a group the odds are you are talking to a 'subgroup' that is on the low end or US intelligence. while if I talked to a buch of Wall Streeters… I would have a different subgroup.

The nation and even neighborhoods just are stratified (or gentrified) that you do not get representative samples in groups you meet.

So NO half the people I meet aren't below average. But YOUR results wouldn't surprise me based on your peer group and location, and how much bong resin is still residing in their system.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I wonder how much energy was use to transport a Xmas tree from Alaska to Washington DC.

I guess it just the little people who must cutback on their energy use. LOL


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Is it OK to call it a Xmas tree or should I call it a Holiday tree to be political correct? Or maybe the peoples tree.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Is it OK to call it a Xmas tree or should I call it a Holiday tree to be political correct? Or maybe the peoples tree.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


So long as it is "X" and not Christ… you are likely OK.

But we live in a world that celebrates victimhood


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Is it OK to call it a Xmas tree or should I call it a Holiday tree to be political correct? Or maybe the peoples tree.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy
> 
> ...


We live in a world filled with bias and repression. For example:



> If you are in Baltimore and talk to a group the odds are you are talking to a 'subgroup' that is on the low end or US intelligence.
> 
> - DrDirt


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Don t forget half of the people you meet are below average intelligence, some of these people may have had excellent educations, but aren t that capable. I ve seen people forget what the spent the entire preceding day working on. Bad education/training? Nope, just not the best brains.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


You hatred? Is English your mother tongue?

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Is it OK to call it a Xmas tree or should I call it a Holiday tree to be political correct? Or maybe the peoples tree.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy
> 
> ...


No I don't repress them - - and the rioters burning down the CVS and Retirement home created their own "Aura" of low intellect.

Ask 61-year-old Richard Fletcher if he thought it was 50 MENSA members that beat him half to death

At some point we need to talk about TRUTH and what the hell is actually happening. 
Not to take people that see a problem with the culture of teh KNOCK-OUT game - - and claim they are some how "repressing those poor kids".

Justifying bad behaviour is a fools errand - - you are better than this.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Is it OK to call it a Xmas tree or should I call it a Holiday tree to be political correct? Or maybe the peoples tree.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy
> 
> ...


Duh, X means Christ? Only an evangelical Christian could be so ignorant of his own religion. How pathetic is that?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Don t forget half of the people you meet are below average intelligence, some of these people may have had excellent educations, but aren t that capable. I ve seen people forget what the spent the entire preceding day working on. Bad education/training? Nope, just not the best brains.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


oh shuug!!... you found I left the 'r' off 'your'... and you use that as an excuse for your utter ignorance of basic statistics that 6th graders learn (to do Mean, Median, and standard deviation early in middle school).
Maybe you should read a book and lie down for a while.

I could be just as pussillanimous and target your "I've seen people forget *what the spent* the entire preceding day working on. " 
and make the same claim of you leaving the "y" off they. But I can actually read context. rather than claim you are ignorant of english….. Statistics yes. But I believe you know english.

Thanks for proving MY point…. "little man"


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Is it OK to call it a Xmas tree or should I call it a Holiday tree to be political correct? Or maybe the peoples tree.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy
> 
> ...


He wasn't justifying bad behavior he was criticizing your bias against Baltimore and subtle bias against African Americans, lest you think it goes unnoticed.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> He wasn t justifying bad behavior he was criticizing your bias against Baltimore and subtle bias against African Americans, lest you think it goes unnoticed.
> 
> - RobS888


Pretty sure he can speak for himself Don Quixote….You should just worry about improving your own knowledge. Sure I SPECIFICALLY chose a more charged example. (you would be incapable of resisting) it is my way of leading you around sweetie!

I bet when you walk into a training room you don't have a "REPRESENTATIVE cross section of the American intellect" with the requisite homeless - and drop-outs + professors and doctors all together. 
You can admit this… the rest of us already know!

So NO when you go talk to a group - - it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you have the 50:50 split in intelligence you profess would apply to 'half the people you meet' and what you would get would depend in large part on *where you are*.

Truthfully the inner city - - is not full of brainiacs. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble on this. They don't crap skittles or pee unicorn tears either. Cambridge isn't all geniuses…but the 'Distribution' is different than that of the entire USA.

Study up and get back to us.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> He wasn t justifying bad behavior he was criticizing your bias against Baltimore and subtle bias against African Americans, lest you think it goes unnoticed.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


He did speak for himself, you just didn't understand, and your response proved it.

The "inner city" (is that racist code?) has the same distribution of smarts as anywhere, only a racist can't see that. I train and the only thing that matters is the performance of the trainees, so to me, there are no "stereotypes" that apply. Everyone is a perfect trainee until they aren't. Really, see a doctor about your little problem. They say the truth will set you free.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Pretty sure he can speak for himself Don Quixote….
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Doc, you essentially stated that the average intelligence of the citizens of the city of Baltimore is below average. Are you now an expert in urban populations? Where is the data to suggest such an assertion?

Maybe *you* need to learn more statistics. It is *HIGHLY UNLIKELY* that the statistical measures of a large sampling of a population are significantly different than the statistical measures of the whole population. The city of Baltimore has a population of 0.6 million. Quite a large sampling. It is *VERY LIKELY* that statistical measures of the population of that city are very similar to the statistical measures of the population of the United States.

But all of these details are beside the point, which is that you repeatedly make unsupportable disparaging remarks about groups of people. Remarks that you make with overwhelming confidence. Groups that you very likely know very little about. Baltamorians are stupid. Climate scientists are frauds. Government. Liberals.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> OK! So much for the bull******************** and bar talk. Now what are each of you as an individual going to do besides more BS and bar talk?
> 
> - mudflap4869


#1, I'm going to work to get Bernie Sanders the D nomination since Hilary is a corporate insider (along with a few other minor issues.)

#2, I'm going to work to replace the guy who was supposed to be representing me in Congress for the last 10 years with someone who might do it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Doc, you essentially stated that the average intelligence of the citizens of the city of Baltimore is below average. Are you now an expert in urban populations? Where is the data to suggest such an assertion?
> 
> Maybe *you* need to learn more statistics. It is *HIGHLY UNLIKELY* that the statistical measures of a large sampling of a population are significantly different than the statistical measures of the whole population. The city of Baltimore has a population of 0.6 million. Quite a large sampling. It is *VERY LIKELY* that statistical measures of the population of that city are very similar to the statistical measures of the population of the United States.
> 
> ...


Don't try to extrapolate what YOU BELIEVE that I "essentially said" 
Good lord Greg I thought you were a scientist.
Also - I said INNER CITY…you knew full well the discussion was NEVER about a 600K sample .

As Rob claimed that when I meet a group (you usually don't MEET an entire city) that they will be 50:50 split around the mean on intellect.
That is BS. Any setting you walk into and meet as a Group - - is a *SMALL sample *that will NEVER represent the overall mean as a representative sample.

Also it is not true that 50% are above or below the MEAN in the population. That is MEDIAN.
How about if I talk to the Board of Directors for GE (a group) and then talk to the 'regulars' at the Rib Rub BBQ in Biloxi Mississippi.
I bet that NEITHER group will be a REPRESENTATIVE population.

Point was Robs statistics that anytime you meet a group there is a 50:50 split is wrong.

What I will point out is that Intelligence isn't the metric that started the discussion - - it was about Ignorance.
And the graph showed that Fox news viewers were less informed. vs NPR.

I would argue the large percentage of teh NPR audience is lilly white - - yet even that 'rarified' group only scored 30% on the domestic issues test.

*We went down Robs Rabbit hole - but point was that we have a huge percentage of the population that is uninformed and/or Misinformed. and Politicians like it that way.*


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> If you are in Baltimore and talk to a group the odds are you are talking to a subgroup that is on the low end or US intelligence. while if I talked to a buch of Wall Streeters… I would have a different subgroup.
> 
> - DrDirt


This statement of yours has no qualifiers such as "Inner City".

And small samples are not likely to be biased toward low intelligence.

You call it PC bull. I call it basic respect. Many of the recent mass shootings in the US have been by white men yet you use this one incident to suggest that it is appropriate to be suspicious of any group of Middle Eastern men. What logic is that?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Don t try to extrapolate what YOU BELIEVE that I "essentially said"
> Good lord Greg I thought you were a scientist.
> Also - I said INNER CITY…you knew full well the discussion was NEVER about a 600K sample .
> 
> ...


I was using a line from a movie when a character was dealing with someone with what I call belligerent ignorance.

Not sure how you decided it applies to every group regardless of size, but that is your way it seems. Jumping to concussions.

Also, aren't intelligence and ignorance opposites on the same spectrum.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> If you are in Baltimore and talk to a group the odds are you are talking to a subgroup that is on the low end or US intelligence. while if I talked to a buch of Wall Streeters… I would have a different subgroup.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


You chose to skip this eh??

Truthfully the inner city - - is not full of brainiacs. Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble on this. They don t crap skittles or pee unicorn tears either. Cambridge isn t all geniuses…but the Distribution is different than that of the entire USA.

maybe you want to comment on the fact that the neighbors that saw the California shooters activities… didn't call authorities because they didn't want to racially profile…. so much for "see something say something" 
The libs have silenced the populace.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/authorities-search-redlands-home-tied-to-suspect-syed-farook/
A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

"We sat around lunch thinking, 'What were they doing around the neighborhood?'" he said. "We'd see them leave where they're raiding the apartment."

Hmmmm PC Bull******************** is dangerous when it deters people from doing the right thing and alerting authorities.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If you are in Baltimore and talk to a group the odds are you are talking to a subgroup that is on the low end or US intelligence. while if I talked to a buch of Wall Streeters… I would have a different subgroup.
> - DrDirt
> 
> This statement of yours has no qualifiers such as "Inner City".
> ...


Different post, puppy #919 is the one that started it (like you don't know). Stand by what you said or admit you were wrong, but all this quibbling and twitching makes you look like a child.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Also, aren t intelligence and ignorance opposites on the same spectrum.
> 
> - RobS888


No there are people who have high Intelligence - - but because of economics… social impacts… oppression, can be ignorant (not KNOWING).
e.g. lots of bright women in religious societies who are blocked from education. They are INTELLIGENT… but IGNORANT, because the flow of information (knowledge) is blocked.

Just as 'bright people' Obama, neville Chamberlain and others can live in Denial… what I would call "Willful Ignorance"

Or you can have a "genius" 6 year old doing advanced Calculus… that might not know all the capitals in Europe. they are Intelligent… but there can be much that the simply do not know…yet (ignorance)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Also, aren t intelligence and ignorance opposites on the same spectrum.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


As you acquire knowledge your intelligence goes up and your ignorance goes down. Inversely proportional, if you will. You described what I was saying as you said no!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

How do the deniers explain The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

They'll claim that having 13 kids was just too heavy for the atoll.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

reread your position cupcake… you asked a pretty simple question:
Also, aren t intelligence and ignorance opposites on the same spectrum.

The answer is NO.

Intelligence is about ABILITY to absorb and understand new concepts. Knoweldge is just their 'mental library'

they do tend to track together… and the pure opposites in one person would be extremely rare.

e.g. a 200 IQ Genius (intelligent) that is a complete ignoramus. Nor a "walking encyclopedia" with a 46 IQ
is perhaps onlyl 'statistically probable' like getting struck twice by lightening, on a sunny day while riding a unicycle and picking the winning powerball ticket probability.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> They ll claim that having 13 kids was just too heavy for the atoll.
> 
> - RobS888


Nah - Rep Hank Johnson (D. Ga) would claim that the island was capsizing like Guam if the base was expanded.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

It takes a lot of energy to produce food for the population. It's easy to see some people are eating more than their share. Should fat people be charged a higher carbon tax than skinny people?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

It must take huge amounts of fuel to keep the Marshal island operating. The islands must have to import almost every ting they need. The climate would be better off if they disappeared.

Clearly everyone on the planet must relocate to one central area on the earth. Just think of the fuel saving if we all lived in one place.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> reread your position cupcake… you asked a pretty simple question:
> Also, aren t intelligence and ignorance opposites on the same spectrum.
> 
> The answer is NO.
> ...


I guess you can keep defining words anyway you want, as you have been doing. Vivid examples don't make your case for the re-definition though puppy.

So, have you decided to walk back that Baltimore having a lower intelligence than other areas of the country or will it be like the "we pay more taxes than Canadians" topic that you just shut up about?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> They ll claim that having 13 kids was just too heavy for the atoll.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Capsizing and sinking are different, puppy. I could give you some links to basic navigation terms if that would help.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It must take huge amounts of fuel to keep the Marshal island operating. The islands must have to import almost every ting they need. The climate would be better off if they disappeared.
> 
> Clearly everyone on the planet must relocate to one central area on the earth. Just think of the fuel saving if we all lived in one place.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


You've got that Reductio ad absurdum fallacy down pat, too bad it makes your comment weak.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/152-reductio-ad-absurdum


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Don't worry Robs888 I'M busy thinking of new and more stupid things to say as they fit right into this stupid worthless thread.

The only smart one in this whole thread is the OP. He started it and then disappeared.

I'LL BE BACK!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Don t worry Robs888 I M busy thinking of new and more stupid things to say as they fit right into this stupid worthless thread.
> 
> The only smart one in this whole thread is the OP. He started it and then disappeared.
> 
> ...


I got faith in ya! You haven't let me down yet!

Oh my this sounds so familiar, wasn't it you criticizing Dark Lighning and me for asking DKV (your other Nom de Chat) to stop making stupid threads and you said "*if you don't like them stop reading them*" yet here you are dissing on a stupid worthless thread. What is that word for when you do something you criticize others for? Oh yeah HYPOCRITE.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> It must take huge amounts of fuel to keep the Marshal island operating. The islands must have to import almost every ting they need. The climate would be better off if they disappeared.
> 
> Clearly everyone on the planet must relocate to one central area on the earth. Just think of the fuel saving if we all lived in one place.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


We'll all come to Alaska. Everywhere else will be too hot ;-)


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> Don t worry Robs888 I M busy thinking of new and more stupid things to say as they fit right into this stupid worthless thread.
> 
> The only smart one in this whole thread is the OP. He started it and then disappeared.
> 
> ...





> Don t worry Robs888 I M busy thinking of new and more stupid things to say as they fit right into this stupid worthless thread.
> 
> The only smart one in this whole thread is the OP. He started it and then disappeared.
> 
> ...


Oh yes that was me. I don't think I said "I don't like this thread". I said " it's stupid and worthless". I actually find this thread very entertaining.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> It must take huge amounts of fuel to keep the Marshal island operating. The islands must have to import almost every ting they need. The climate would be better off if they disappeared.
> 
> Clearly everyone on the planet must relocate to one central area on the earth. Just think of the fuel saving if we all lived in one place.
> 
> ...


Are you sure you want to do that? After all this is an evil oil state.

I was thinking the worlds people should live around Denver CO. Keep them safe from the raising oceans for as long as possible.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I was just watching the news. It was the lighting ceremony of the peoples tree in DC (political correct). Oh my God, the effects on the environment must be devastating. There must be thousand of lights on that tree. What the hell is the Government thinking!!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It must take huge amounts of fuel to keep the Marshal island operating. The islands must have to import almost every ting they need. The climate would be better off if they disappeared.
> 
> Clearly everyone on the planet must relocate to one central area on the earth. Just think of the fuel saving if we all lived in one place.
> 
> ...





> I was just watching the news. It was the lighting ceremony of the peoples tree in DC (political correct). Oh my God, the effects on the environment must be devastating. There must be thousand of lights on that tree. What the hell is the Government thinking!!
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


Chillax, they are LEDs.

Also, don't underestimate the value of a pagan ceremony to calm the masses.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Don t worry Robs888 I M busy thinking of new and more stupid things to say as they fit right into this stupid worthless thread.
> 
> The only smart one in this whole thread is the OP. He started it and then disappeared.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I took stupid and worthless in a negative way. Hey wait a minute! If it is entertaining it ain't worthless.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Calling it the "People's Tree" is more damaging than the lights. Funny how the whole world wants a piece of what those white Christian guys started, but nobody wants to admit where it came from, how it got here, who did it or what they will do when they finish destroying it.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

It been fun but I have to go to work now. I have to drive 32 miles (round trip). For me that's about 3 gallon of gas I have to burn. Sorry. To do my part maybe I should retire, after all I'm 72 years old and can retire anytime I want to. I could just sit home until I die and save the climate all by myself.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Calling it the "People s Tree" is more damaging than the lights. Funny how the whole world wants a piece of what those white Christian guys started, but nobody wants to admit where it came from, how it got here, who did it or what they will do when they finish destroying it.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


A voice of reason, while rob wanders in the wilderness

An Canadians are paying more in taxes - - the government revenue is now more reliant on PERSONAL taxes than corporate.

ANd you need to rack up VAT, and fuel taxes…..just because it isn't shown as a payroll deduction. paying 92 cents a liter (~3.50 a gallon) while I fill up at 1.77/gallon. So they spend almost double what I do at the pump. Oil cost is set globally - and refining cost is the same. difference is taxes.
If you look at TOTAL tax liability….Canada is expensive.
Check the cost of getting a grizzly bandsaw there versus in the US. All $$ to the government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/24/corporate-personal-taxes-canada_n_4333694.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> A voice of reason, while rob wanders in the wilderness
> 
> An Canadians are paying more in taxes - - the government revenue is now more reliant on PERSONAL taxes than corporate.
> 
> ...


You seem to be arguing with yourself now since you *had* claimed we paid more taxes than Canadians. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Another confused argument,


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> You seem to be arguing with yourself now since you *had* claimed we paid more taxes than Canadians. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Another confused argument,
> 
> - RobS888


Lying again - - not just exaggeration… but 180 degrees from the truth.. as you thought the HIGHER rate quoted for Canada 'sounded like a bargain'
Proof below.

Naturally you will not/can not admit you are outright lying about what has been said.
Maybe you should go erect your festivus pole and begin the 'airing of grievances'

Here is the post AND your reply from mid November(wealth distribution post 3476&77).....time to up your meds










Of course our taxes WOULD be higher than Canada if we didn't borrow 8 trillion dollars to fund the government (past 7 years) INSTEAD of taxing at a rate that pays our expenses.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

Just to be clear, you never tried to argue that we paid more taxes than Canadians?

I recall saying we (in the US) don't really pay much compared to other countries and didn't even pay the most in North America. I recall you trying to prove we actually pay more taxes than Canadians.

Am I wrong? If this didn't happen, I will apologize.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

I bet you guys are fun at parties.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Just to be clear, you never tried to argue that we paid more taxes than Canadians?
> 
> ...


Not me - - there may have been mixed to someone else.

US has higher Corporate tax "rates" but personal taxes are higher in Canada, and higher even when I include my health insurance… but that may not be totally fair, as my employer pays part of the premium… so not a perfect comparison as the difference was only ~5%.

But the USA doesn't have a VAT and fuel taxes are much lower here.

Taxes get hard to compare because there are so many little things…. you start tallying up taxation for Cell and Cable TV charges, and energy taxes, and highway tax on fuel both state and federal etc. etc.

It is harder to figure out who has a higher rate.
US does have on paper a higher top tax rate… but just like in the 50's NOBODY ever actually paid a 90% rate.

This is why (I work for a Dutch Company) when getting together with others, similar pay grades and 'lifestyles' company retirement varies by location even though we are with the same company. So we usually talk about Net vs Gross pay… particularly when talking about health insurance vs single payer as a per person cost.

Like I said - if we weren't adding a trillion per year to the debt, and had a pay as you go system/balanced budget… then I think we would be paying more than Canada. Programs are easy to pay for if you …. don't pay for them, just passing them along to the future.

Been guilty of that ever since Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835. Everyone likes to spend OPM


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Like I said - if we weren t adding a trillion per year to the debt, and had a pay as you go system/balanced budget… then I think we would be paying more than Canada. Programs are easy to pay for if you …. don t pay for them, just passing them along to the future.
> 
> Been guilty of that ever since Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835. Everyone likes to spend OPM
> 
> - DrDirt


If Bush the Dumbest hadn't reversed the Clinton surpluses we should have been close to debt free by now. Andy could have been proud of us, US.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Just to be clear, you never tried to argue that we paid more taxes than Canadians?
> 
> ...


So, just to be clear you never posted that Canadian tax rates are lower than US tax rates in an attempt to show we paid more than Canadians? You're absolutely sure that wasn't you?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Like I said - if we weren t adding a trillion per year to the debt, and had a pay as you go system/balanced budget… then I think we would be paying more than Canada. Programs are easy to pay for if you …. don t pay for them, just passing them along to the future.
> 
> Been guilty of that ever since Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835. Everyone likes to spend OPM
> 
> ...


Seems the past 7 years have not exactly been 'thrifty'...

Bush doubled the 5T he 'inherited'

Obama Doubled the 10 T he inherited (will before the end of next year)

Who is doing worse….the one that adds 5 Trillion in 8 years or the one who adds 10T?

Certainly don't see where we were going to pay off 5 trillion in debt.

The Paul Krugman's of the world would claim paying off debt is a bad thing…in the NYT a few months ago … he said:

Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. *That is, there's a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren't deep enough in debt.*
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/paul-krugman-debt-is-good-for-the-economy.html

So Krugman thinks that to "really get the juices flowing" we need to crank up the borrowing like a Kardashian with a new Platinum Mastercard.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Liberals aren't too bright.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Liberals aren t too bright.
> 
> - waho6o9


True, but they are brighter than any other party.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Seems the past 7 years have not exactly been thrifty …

Bush doubled the 5T he inherited

Obama Doubled the 10 T he inherited (will before the end of next year)

Who is doing worse….the one that adds 5 Trillion in 8 years or the one who adds 10T?

Certainly don t see where we were going to pay off 5 trillion in debt.

The Paul Krugman s of the world would claim paying off debt is a bad thing…in the NYT a few months ago … he said:

Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. *That is, there's a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren't deep enough in debt.*
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/paul-krugman-debt-is-good-for-the-economy.html

So Krugman thinks that to "really get the juices flowing" we need to crank up the borrowing like a Kardashian with a new Platinum Mastercard.

- DrDirt

[/QUOTE]
You didn't answer my question.

So, just to be clear you never posted that Canadian tax rates are lower than US tax rates in an attempt to show we paid more than Canadians? You're absolutely sure that wasn't you?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Seems the past 7 years have not exactly been thrifty …
> 
> Bush doubled the 5T he inherited
> 
> ...


Were you paying attention? Clinton left Bush the Dumbest a surplus that was retiring the debt. He eliminated that surplus, started illegal wars that destroyed the middle east and created Isis that cost us, US, trillions. During that same period, they shipped 50,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of jobs to China and other foreign ports. That further reduced the tax base causing higher deficits. Those are historical facts, not political opinions.

Bush the Dumber and his ilk got caught with their pants down just like Slick Willie. They thought they could get out of office before the 2nd Great Republican Recession started. They were fooled and it is a miracle the entire world economic system did not collapse especially with the Republicans swearing a blood oath to destroy Obama's presidency at any cost. It cost millions of us, US, dearly! Now, the Rs are trying to shed Trump, but he is the true representative of the monster they have created in order to get their shills to support them while they pander to the 1%.

Not sure anyone knows the true proper proportion of government debt; probably varies with the economic situation. Certainly as long as there is demand in the market, it is not too high. When it is too high, the market will have not bidders. Everyone focuses on national debt when the trade deficit is real issue that is destroying us, US.

Certainly, gov't debt financing the gov't as the employer of last resort when the capitalists fail is appropriate. FDR's New Deal proved that ;-)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Liberals aren t too bright.
> 
> - waho6o9


They probably aren't, but is was the ultra-conservatives that followed Hitler through the gates of Hell ;-(


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Chinese jobs are fueled by US consumers looking for the lowest price. Unless you buy only Made in USA, Corporate Bashing is rhetoric that's little more that class warfare fodder. Free trade has been supported by Clinton and the Dems, too. And you'd sound more intelligent and reasonable by avoiding the 'Bush the Dumber' slam. The Iraq War was authorized by Congress, not illegal. It had overwhelming support at the time, so revisionist history doesn't fly.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Chinagate comes to mind.

Go Trump Go


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

No such thing as man made global warming.
That is just the new liberal and environmental wachos whining.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Bakersfield California was part of an ocean thousands of years ago. One of my high school science teachers (in 1969) use to go there and find "shark teeth". I'm sure that must be against some law today.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Were you paying attention? Clinton left Bush the Dumbest a surplus that was retiring the debt. He eliminated that surplus, started illegal wars that destroyed the middle east and created Isis that cost us, US, trillions. During that same period, they shipped 50,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of jobs to China and other foreign ports. That further reduced the tax base causing higher deficits. Those are historical facts, not political opinions.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


true - and Obama has done what to bring jobs back? Ram through the TPP.

Outsourcing was facilitated by Clinton's NAFTA deal.

Obama is responsible for ISIS.. Syria is all Barry! I was really shocked after the Paris Charlie Hebdoe shootings that our foreign policy of John Kerry, sending James Taylor over to sing "You've got a Friend" didn't quash extremism overnight!!!..... ;-)

We could be doing better, but still revenue to the government has been steadily growing, and has been a new record EVERY YEAR…. yet we are financially sinking in debt while government spending keeps growing.
The balanced budget of 2000 on 2 Trillion revenue… yet we now take in 3 Trillion and are in the red by another 500Billion on top.










Debt ceilings are just political footballs and finger pointing.. versus a real credit limit.

NOBODY cares about debt because they would have to cut back on favors.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Chinese jobs are fueled by US consumers looking for the lowest price. Unless you buy only Made in USA, Corporate Bashing is rhetoric that s little more that class warfare fodder. Free trade has been supported by Clinton and the Dems, too. And you d sound more intelligent and reasonable by avoiding the Bush the Dumber slam. The Iraq War was authorized by Congress, not illegal. It had overwhelming support at the time, so revisionist history doesn t fly.
> 
> - SmittyCabinetshop


The Iraq invasion was NOT sanctioned by the UN, so it was illegal based on the UN charter we signed:

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter._

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

There was never a connection proven to 9/11, no WMDs, and the security people have said the only way to get Bush the dumber's attention was to put Iraq in the title of a report.

So the war was illegal, a waste of a Trillion dollars, and apparently revenge was the motive. Bush the dumber is about the nicest appellation one can use.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Chinagate comes to mind.
> 
> Go Trump Go
> 
> - waho6o9


...you mean as in leave the race?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

The UN hasn't declared it illegal.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Trump isn't perfect (who is) but I'd vote for him over the other offerings. I'm not voting for anyone who has killed people because of their incompetence and lack of caring for human life.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The UN hasn t declared it illegal.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


How could they? The US would veto it. Bush the dumber sent Colin Powell to the UN to get permission and France amongst others said they would veto any UN action. Powell says he was wrong to go to the UN in light of NO proof of WMD being found.

It wasn't a legal war, if we weren't a permanent member of the security council with veto power, we would have been charged.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Trump isn t perfect (who is) but I d vote for him over the other offerings. I m not voting for anyone who has killed people because of their incompetence and lack of caring for human life.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


Trump cares about other human life? You have got to be kidding!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

If… but… whatever. "Illegal wars" was the statement, it's simply untrue.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Chinese jobs are fueled by US consumers looking for the lowest price. Unless you buy only Made in USA, Corporate Bashing is rhetoric that s little more that class warfare fodder. Free trade has been supported by Clinton and the Dems, too. And you d sound more intelligent and reasonable by avoiding the Bush the Dumber slam. The Iraq War was authorized by Congress, not illegal. It had overwhelming support at the time, so revisionist history doesn t fly.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


In 1980, the US was the world's creditor and exporter of manufactured goods. The disaster started by Ronnie, continued by Bush41 , Slick Willie, and Bush the Dumber is the reason we are the world's debtor and importer today. Consumer demand for cheap junk is a symptom, not a cause. Failed public trade policy accommodating and promoting corporate greed is the cause. Who knows if Obama could have reversed the trend. He is not a monarch. The Rs swore a blood oath to just say "NO" to everything and have stuck to it.

"Bush the Dumber" is a compliment to him. He cured me of being a R!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> true - and Obama has done what to bring jobs back? Ram through the TPP.


Not much, as I said he is not a monarch. The Rs say "NO" no matter what the cost is to us, US. I am sure Obamma has lost it. He is so desperate to compromise with the Rs on anything he adopted TPP. Hopefully, the Rs will say "NO" again now that Obamma is supporting it. Maybe, it is a strategic move to defeat it ;-)



> Outsourcing was facilitated by Clinton s NAFTA deal.


Yup, another corporate sell out ;-(


> Obama is responsible for ISIS.. Syria is all Barry! I was really shocked after the Paris Charlie Hebdoe shootings that our foreign policy of John Kerry, sending James Taylor over to sing "You ve got a Friend" didn t quash extremism overnight!!!..... ;-)


Obama did not destroy the middle east leaving millions of refugees desperate and unemployed. Bush the Dumber told his biographer in 1998 he was going to do that before he even had the nomination. Recruiting and making promises is much easier among desperate refugees than in a vibrant, functioning, economically viable society.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> If… but… whatever. "Illegal wars" was the statement, it s simply untrue.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Not sanctioned by UN Security Council is also true and that makes it illegal.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Uhm, no, it doesn't. You've stretched this one as far as you can go. Congressionally authorized, legal. Not illegal per the UN. Getting tired of this yet?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

> Consumer demand for cheap junk is a symptom, not a cause. Failed public trade policy accommodating and promoting corporate greed is the cause.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I disagree with this. This is ignoring the market. Consumer demand is always the driving factor in any market transaction. Government interference is tertiary.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

SirIrb, you speak truth.

Reagan didn't kill the US economy, GW Bush didn't launch two illegal wars (not sure what they are when Iraq isn't one of them…) The world caught up with our productive capacity, took awhile after WW2 destroyed much of the first world's manufacturing. Competition leveled the playing field, and free trade agreements accelerated it. So many conspiracy theorists, so little time. Actually, no time. Merry Christmas everyone!


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Let me place an example to verify for you my above statement.

Illegal drugs are, by government, illegal. But that is tertiary because the demand is supplied by the market. Where demand exists supply will happen. This is not just a mere axiomatic statement, this is not just a theory. This is human action. This is as close to econ as a science as one can get.

Supply and demand is so much greater than the government. And we are better for it.
Steve
Who really doesnt care what your opinion of someone else using illegal drugs in their own body is, and who has never used them, but supports their using them if they are so inclined. [Light em up]


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Uhm, no, it doesn t. You ve stretched this one as far as you can go. Congressionally authorized, legal. Not illegal per the UN. Getting tired of this yet?
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Not at all, There are only 2 acceptable reasons to go to war under the UN charter we signed, neither was met. It doesn't take an act of the UN to make something illegal. It is or it isn't. In this case it clearly was illegal.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr Dirt,

Did you post this:










Notice how this was before you went all 180 in the posts you presented, after you were shown how silly this was.

So now, (after your obligatory quibbles on what you were tryin' to say) were you wrong or lying then or now?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

BS, Rob. Throwing the flag, get over it.

EDIT: Let's agree it's you're opinon re: illegal, because that's all you're left with. Reasonable people will disagree, of course. But it's simply not illegal in any way, shape or form.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Did you post this:
> 
> ...


Yep - - I copy pasted that.
Agree with it. Notice how it is broken out in 5 categories (there are actually more ) But as we discussed - we worked on what people PAY in taxes.

e.g. NOBODY every actually paid 90% of their income in taxes in the US back under Eisenhower.

Canada having a lower rate on the 1%.... is not the same as Americans paying more taxes. So the 1% gets hit harder here…. but the average joe is paying more there.

Canada has a lower corporate Tax rate 25% vs our 35%... but GE pays NOTHING. The Canadians have fewer carve-outs…* Ya just Pay your bill*.
Then Pay the VAT
Then Pay the Provincial
Then pay the extra buck a gallon for gasoline. (actually 95 cents/gallon in tax average in canada)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada

so who pays more taxes? Canada.

Maybe reread the post…. some taxes are higher here… some higher there… and overall "higher in canada" 
You are boring me.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)




----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Dr., it's clear some just aren't content to discuss. The whole 'give and take' thing in conversation is lost. Every inch is a battle to be fought, every point has a counterpoint and another argument ensues. It's ridiculous and pointless. Especially so because it's not even enjoyable or enlightening.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> BS, Rob. Throwing the flag, get over it.
> 
> EDIT: Let s agree it s you re opinon re: illegal, because that s all you re left with. Reasonable people will disagree, of course. But it s simply not illegal in any way, shape or form.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Bush the dumber seemed almost desperate to get UN approval, he didn't get it.

Things are right or wrong regardless of what congress says. The Iraq war was wrong and illegal. Kofi Annan's opinion is good enough for me.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Did you post this:
> 
> ...


Still trying to claim you weren't trying to dispute we pay higher taxes than Canada. Deny till you die I see.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Dr., it s clear some just aren t content to discuss. The whole give and take thing in conversation is lost. Every inch is a battle to be fought, every point has a counterpoint and another argument ensues. It s ridiculous and pointless. Especially so because it s not even enjoyable or enlightening.
> 
> - SmittyCabinetshop


My gosh, again with your comments dissing a thread?

He is a liar as I have shown above and many other times. You just pop up every few months, complain a little, throw a few insults then disappear. I suspect you have maybe 4 more comments in you then poof a declaration of not wasting time then you are gone.

You said reasonable people can disagree, well we disagreed, but then you go on a rant about people not being content to discuss. My not accepting *BS *as your definition of my argument makes me appear not content to discuss, it seems you got insulting first…

Does not taking your unsupported opinion make me not content to discuss? Ego much?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Mark the date! I agree with Rob.
Laws for or against something does not make it right or wrong. Because you dont like the color of someones turban is a poor reason to invade their country.

EDIT: Oh, snap. Look who got the 1000th post! This guy [Points at self].


> BS, Rob. Throwing the flag, get over it.
> 
> EDIT: Let s agree it s you re opinon re: illegal, because that s all you re left with. Reasonable people will disagree, of course. But it s simply not illegal in any way, shape or form.
> 
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Still trying to claim you weren t trying to dispute we pay higher taxes than Canada. Deny till you die I see.
> 
> - RobS888


Yawn try to disprove anything said in that post sweetie….

Perhaps you want to post some fact or thought that is your own…. rather than just trolling the opposite of anything I might say. In short, Grow up.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Consumer demand for cheap junk is a symptom, not a cause. Failed public trade policy accommodating and promoting corporate greed is the cause.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


If you take a strict Libertarian position, there is no point to debate. Everyone, do as you damn well please, murder included, as in the case of W's Middle East policy.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Ego much. Laughable. Not illegal, period. Again. And you're substantiation is citing someone's opinion as good enough. And that's supposed to end the argument / discussion? You still have not -and cannot- prove illegality. Right or wrong, we can discuss. Illegal? No one pressed charges, nothing on Bush's record re: 'getting us into two illegal wars.' It's conjecture and opinion.

And I'll come and go in this thread as a please. Don't like it? Neither do I. But it's like a accident scene along the highway, I have a hard time not looking and I've admitted as much. As I mentioned elsewhere, I really don't care what you think.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

If you take the strict libertarian position? This is common sense economic though. Read the next post I made about drugs and it clarifies my point even more.

And for the life of me I don't know if you are a poorly informed libertarian or arguing against libertarianism. I guess it's good I'm not one.


> Consumer demand for cheap junk is a symptom, not a cause. Failed public trade policy accommodating and promoting corporate greed is the cause.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Common sense? Just as football without rules? Sound like libertarian or maybe anarchy to me ;-(


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Still trying to claim you weren t trying to dispute we pay higher taxes than Canada. Deny till you die I see.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Do you actually believe anyone could look at that and think I was taking a contrarian view? That is just sad.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Consumer demand for cheap junk is a symptom, not a cause. Failed public trade policy accommodating and promoting corporate greed is the cause.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


You got that right, a libertarian approach is the only one where Bush the dumber's wars aren't illegal.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Ego much. Laughable. Not illegal, period. Again. And you re substantiation is citing someone s opinion as good enough. And that s supposed to end the argument / discussion? You still have not -and cannot- prove illegality. Right or wrong, we can discuss. Illegal? No one pressed charges, nothing on Bush s record re: getting us into two illegal wars. It s conjecture and opinion.
> 
> And I ll come and go in this thread as a please. Don t like it? Neither do I. But it s like a accident scene along the highway, I have a hard time not looking and I ve admitted as much. As I mentioned elsewhere, I really don t care what you think.
> 
> - SmittyCabinetshop


The head of the UN in his official capacity said it was illegal. The US being charged will never happen since they can VETO it.

Why do you have to get so upset, aren't you able to discuss politics without grammatical errors.

I presented a citation to back up my point and you called it BS, is that a discussion to you? Your closed mind proves you come here to fight.

3 posts left, I didn't say you couldn't be here, just that you will get mad and leave.

Should you want to try to *discuss* the legality of the Iraq war I'm here.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Common sense? Just as football without rules? Sound like libertarian or maybe anarchy to me ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


They don't want no rules, just no rules for them. Pat Collins shot that whole thing down over property rights earlier this year. There is still a big hole in the ground where the anarcocrapitalists crashed and burned.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

It's funny (in a very sad way). Things that I observe in your behavior that upset you (or strike close to home, it seems), Rob, soon are ascribed to me. You've tried to be a victim too (something about insulting the thread, but I'm too lazy to see verbatim what it is you said, so pick that apart please). Then the grammar; you even chased me around LJs for a day or so, trying to harass me on spelling or some such thing after you were called out for missing entire words (and that left me unable to understand what exactly you were trying to say). I have a comment directed at Dr. Dirt specifically, then you pull a Carly Simon and think it was about you. A few posts later, I'm the one who's unable to discuss. It's uncanny, really. And becoming quite predicable.

Congressionally authorized, bipartisan. Supported (although reasonable people ((cough*cough*)) will disagree) by UN Resolution 1441 and multiple points (none of which included ties to 9/11). Not declared illegal.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Still not a legal war by the UN charter, I never said it wasn't legal based on our very lax laws about war. That you for trying to present your argument, finally. If you were actually open to other points of view you would have seen what I was saying. Perhaps you should read more and declare BS less often.

Poor SmittyCabinetshop is playing the victim. Turn about is fair play, don't criticize others when you don't follow the same standard yourself. I reposted the exact insult you did, so quite crying about it.

Interesting, you can jump into the thread and post anywhere you want, but I can't do the same. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

Why do you even pretend to want to discuss anything here? You are here to fight and as we all know I'm not very good at that, so why are you here? I recall you even deleted a post saying it went over the line, that shows to me you have a hard time not fighting.

Insults coming in 3, 2, 1…


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

If you'd post a "point of view," or seek discussion, it'd be a good thing. And no victim here. Really grasping at anything, aren't you? You're the one that took offense to my 'in and out,' Sir. A fight? Nope. I've opened up quite a bit to to the "Bush the Dumber" dialog on how misguided the Iraq War has been, thought it'd come, but no one (including yourself) went there. I've learned a lot from you, Rob. (Now go ahead and make that a negative, right?)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I have posted a point of view and a citation, you have not. You went offensive first, so try again.

Not offended by your periodic tirades, just pointing out the pattern to all and sundry.

I really don't follow how you've opened up about how misguided the war was.

The Iraq fiasco cost us thousands of lives, over 1 trillion dollars, never found any WMD, Opened up a huge can-o-worms vis-à-vis ISIL and the whole ME. Bush the dumber refers to him being dumber than his father. I actually respect his father. So saying Bush the dumber removes any doubt as to which Bush is being discussed.

So your reasoning as to why he isn't the dumber and the war wasn't a waste are?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Calling names is polarizing, not conducive to reasonable discussion. You've been so contrarian you've missed quite a bit of the thread lately. Not sure where you were offended, either. And if you weren't, why insist I have an ego problem, or call me "poor Smitty_Cabinetshop," or call me a hypocrite, or decide for yourself that I'm only here to fight, or that I rant? Lots of adjectives, Rob.

EDIT: Oops, they're probably not all adjectives. Better self-expose, before you slam me on that.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

So if your not offended and I'm not offended what is the problem?

Lay out your claims and we can discuss it.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

What is it that sounds libertarian or anarchistic to you? The truth that market demand always trumps the externalities of interference or my examples of illegal drugs? An example is an example and if you trash it you are ignoring the economic truth therein. If it was the supply and demand being primary and the government interference being tertiary then I really don't see how you can label that as "football without rules…libertarian…anarchy". Heck, I know people, left and right who would agree with my statement. It is econ. I don't understand how you get any of your below. If you get that based on my example then you are purposely ignoring the truth therein and throwing a label (an uninformed one at that) at it.

Rob,
Nothing you posted has any substance. You remind me of Dr. Strangelove sitting on the bomb. "Come on boys let's get em." You argue nothing. You have almost committed argumentum ad hominum except you throw the insults at the topic…which was not being argued.

Back up take a deep breath. No one was arguing anarchism.

Dr. StrangeRob, I like that image…without insinuating that you are strange.

Topamax
Edit: the example was not what I think should or should not be. It was a self-evident example of the way things are. Wheather you love that or hate it that is the reality of it.
For you to take the rabbit trail, if that's what you commented on, is missing the boat. Apples and mangos.


> Common sense? Just as football without rules? Sound like libertarian or maybe anarchy to me ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Reference fail, dr strange love wasn't riding the bomb, it was King Kong.

I do find the less rules/regulations approach about as silly as well, anything I have heard.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> What is it that sounds libertarian or anarchistic to you? The truth that market demand always trumps the externalities of interference or my examples of illegal drugs? An example is an example and if you trash it you are ignoring the economic truth therein. If it was the supply and demand being primary and the government interference being tertiary then I really don t see how you can label that as "football without rules…libertarian…anarchy". Heck, I know people, left and right who would agree with my statement. It is econ. I don t understand how you get any of your below. If you get that based on my example then you are purposely ignoring the truth therein and throwing a label (an uninformed one at that) at it.
> 
> - SirIrb


The context of the discussion in which it was made.



> Consumer demand for cheap junk is a symptom, not a cause. Failed public trade policy accommodating and promoting corporate greed is the cause.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Many countries trade policies ignore the market for the good of their economy and/or other goals. Many of our US producers have a difficult time exporting to some countries that we extend most favored status to; ie, China.

The wealth of most countries in history have been stripped away by military force or other devious means. Having it stripped away from us, US, has been totally voluntary and promoted by the corporatist oligarchy/plutocracy. The democratic capitalist economy that developed in the mid 20th century in the US served the majority of us, US, very well with full participation by most classes of citizens.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Why? Serious question. Though this was not the topic at hand. Why is putting a strangle hold on who I can trade with a good thing?



> Reference fail, dr strange love wasn t riding the bomb, it was King Kong.
> 
> I do find the less rules/regulations approach about as silly as well, anything I have heard.
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The wealth of most countries in history have been stripped away by military force or other devious means. Having it stripped away from us, US, has been totally voluntary and promoted by the corporatist oligarchy/plutocracy. The democratic capitalist economy that developed in the mid 20th century in the US served the majority of us, US, very well with full participation by most classes of citizens.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Topa - what I have never understood - is why are all the REALLY ********************ty versions of trade like TPP and NAFTA so strongly lobbied for by democrats, who are all bought off by the Unions.
Why do the Unions support exporting jobs?
I could understand the Repubs pushing for this by their corporate masters…. but why is it so much by democrats?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Guess we will see what is ratified - - but another pointless "Show deal"

A big agreement that sometime in the next 30-50 years 'we need to make progress' Then everyone gets back on their private jets and heads home.

No enforcement - all targets voluntary but no sanctions..

Worst… it is already labeled as IMPOSSIBLE!!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81dabae32cb8463b86bd85d762da9e6d/global-climate-accord-paris-may-be-hours-away

In the pact, the countries pledge to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

In practical terms, *achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases - most of which come from the burning of oil, coal and gas for energy - altogether in the next half-century*, scientists said. That's because the less we pollute, the less pollution nature absorbs.

Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound, costly changes.

and

Some scientists who had criticized earlier drafts as unrealistic praised the final pact for including language that essentially means the world will have to all but stop polluting with greenhouse gases by 2070 to reach the 2-degree goal, or by 2050 to reach the 1.5-degree goal.

That's because when emissions fall, nature compensates by absorbing less carbon dioxide - *and can even release old pollution once there's less of it in the air, said Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer.* Forests, oceans and soil currently absorb about half the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
------------------------------

So the Success of this program requires a *Global Cold Turkey *on all fossil fuels.
And that even when we do that… then Nature will start releasing CO2….. talk about hopeless drivel from the political class, all in the name of "having a deal".

On the talk circuit 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-says-paris-agreement-crafted-to-avoid-congress/article/2578256

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the climate agreement reached this week in Paris did not contain any enforcement provisions because Congress would not have approved them.

"It doesn't have mandatory targets for reduction and it doesn't have an enforcement, compliance mechanism," Kerry said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

Kerry said such mechanisms were not included because Congress would have refused to greenlight the deal.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> The wealth of most countries in history have been stripped away by military force or other devious means. Having it stripped away from us, US, has been totally voluntary and promoted by the corporatist oligarchy/plutocracy. The democratic capitalist economy that developed in the mid 20th century in the US served the majority of us, US, very well with full participation by most classes of citizens.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Which unions support exporting jobs?

Democrats are corporate insiders too. Slick Willie sold us, US, out when he jumped on the NAFTA band wagon. They have followed the pied piper ever sense.

The 2 parties in US politics are the corporate prostitutes (D&R) and the few of us want to return to an uncorrupted Constitutional government.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Which unions support exporting jobs?
> 
> Democrats are corporate insiders too. Slick Willie sold us, US, out when he jumped on the NAFTA band wagon. They have followed the pied piper ever sense.
> 
> ...


The Unions support teh Dems that make these Trade deals their "Legacies" ergo… Unions ARE supporting the export of Jobs. Seems supporting these liars who push 'free trade' is against their self interest…. which is usually the only thing you can count on, is that people support things that are 'good for them'.

Agree both parties are not 'advocating' for the common person - - But AFL-CIO blanket support of Dems, feels akin to Planned Parenthood supporting Rick Santorum.

With the money Unions provide - and we know that special interests buy candidates…. why don't the unions have control over the politicians they bought and paid for…. unless - the export of Jobs is a shared goal?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Why? Serious question. Though this was not the topic at hand. Why is putting a strangle hold on who I can trade with a good thing?
> 
> Reference fail, dr strange love wasn t riding the bomb, it was King Kong.
> 
> ...


When you say stranglehold I envision the Rock trying to choke someone out. I suspect you mean it in a less forceful way. Is that correct?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Now the DNC says they 'cannot afford to hold their convention next year without 20 million in tax dollars'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/13/dnc-craves-tax-dollars-for-convention/


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Rules on trade = stranglehold.
A transaction between consenting adult a = free market. 


> Why? Serious question. Though this was not the topic at hand. Why is putting a strangle hold on who I can trade with a good thing?
> 
> Reference fail, dr strange love wasn t riding the bomb, it was King Kong.
> 
> ...


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> - SirIrb


Rather naive to propose that as an international trade policy.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> Topa - what I have never understood - is why are all the REALLY ********************ty versions of trade like TPP and NAFTA so strongly lobbied for by democrats, who are all bought off by the Unions.
> Why do the Unions support exporting jobs?
> I could understand the Repubs pushing for this by their corporate masters…. but why is it so much by democrats?
> 
> - DrDirt


The edge is on both sides of the sword. Jobs will be exported with or without the agreements simply because the US has a high standard of living and high wages. On the other hand, the purpose of these agreements is to knock down trade barriers, i.e., import tariffs, subsidies, etc. to increase foreign trade. Believe me, the sugar lobby and other recipients of corporate welfare do not like them.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

> Guess we will see what is ratified - - but another pointless "Show deal"
> 
> A big agreement that sometime in the next 30-50 years we need to make progress Then everyone gets back on their private jets and heads home.
> 
> ...


This is why. You tax money at work:
Academics to Get $100 Billion a Year to Investigate Global Warming.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> 
> Why? Serious question. Though this was not the topic at hand. Why is putting a strangle hold on who I can trade with a good thing?
> ...


Rules are good.
Adults should be able to deal within the rules, many seem to be able to. Rules/regulations are written in blood. Do you grok what that means?

Why do we have the NEC? Is it for fun? Why do outlets have to be a certain height above the floor. Why an outlet every 8 feet? Why grounded outlets? Why arc interrupters? All of these are for saving lives.

Should I be able to hire an electrician and dictate the rules of what I want? Or should he have to adhere to the NEC?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

The government save lives on one hand and takes lives on the other. Anyone who thinks the government give a crap about your life hasn't seen the light.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

How so?



> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> - SirIrb
> 
> ...


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

We are talking about rules/ regulations on trade.
Try again.


> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> 
> Why? Serious question. Though this was not the topic at hand. Why is putting a strangle hold on who I can trade with a good thing?
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The government save lives on one hand and takes lives on the other. Anyone who thinks the government give a crap about your life hasn t seen the light.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


How so?

EDIT:

Aren't you 'sposed to stay out of the light?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> We are talking about rules/ regulations on trade.
> Try again.
> 
> - SirIrb
> ...


Oh, I thought you meant trade/transactions most individuals would be involved in. Trading money for a product or service.

What regulated trade were you referring to?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> How so?
> 
> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> ...


Are you advocating open borders for trade? Deals like NAFTA and TPP are ok, then?


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

If I remember we were talking about foreign trade and restrictions therein.

We can get to other forms if you like.

So what happens if I hire a electrician to wire my house and dont mandate/it is not mandated to have an outlet every 8'? 
He wont know how to quote the job if he doesnt know what is expected. So someone must tell him that there must be an outlet every X feet. That someone should be the buyer. Serious, would the world come crashing down if it is every 7 or 9'? 8' is a random number. I am sure someone spent a ton of cash trying to figure out what the optimum or most usable distance between outlets is.



> We are talking about rules/ regulations on trade.
> Try again.
> 
> - SirIrb
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

"8' is a random number. I am sure someone spent a ton of cash trying to figure out what the optimum or most usable distance between outlets is."

How can it be random if someone researched it?

I was under the impression the 8' rule was to reduce the need for extension cords. Why? To reduce fires caused by overloading extension cords. Fires from extension cords cause deaths. The rule is to reduce deaths.

How in anyway would the buyer know what is best? You may feel you are an expert in all things, but the odds are not in your favor for that being true. In fact (I don't mean this as an insult) you are ignorant of the specifics of most fields of our society. Even international trade is beyond a lay person.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

The tons of cash comment was a bit of humor. They threw cash at research. Suffice to say that I could go 6' and everything will be fine. I could go 9' and everything will be fine.

Do you want to fund research in everything so that you think you are safe from everything?

Back to the topic at hand. International trade. Go. [Shoots starters pistol in the air]


> "8' is a random number. I am sure someone spent a ton of cash trying to figure out what the optimum or most usable distance between outlets is."
> 
> How can it be random if someone researched it?
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The tons of cash comment was a bit of humor. They threw cash at research. Suffice to say that I could go 6 and everything will be fine. I could go 9 and everything will be fine.
> 
> Do you want to fund research in everything so that you think you are safe from everything?
> 
> ...


I imagine you could have them 6' if you want, just not more than 8' apart. A five or six foot corded apopliance could be put anywhere and still reach an outlet. Safe and convenient.

Want do you want to talk about? Why there are rules on trade?

I read once that modern protectionism started in around the 1600s when Dutch fisherman could catch fish off the coast of Britain, take the fish to Hamsterdam, then back to Britain and sell at a lower price than British fisherman could, so the British government added a tariff to make Dutch fish the same price. Some would say that if the British couldn't compete then they should have been left to flounder, but then the Dutch would have a monopoly and that is something to be avoided at all costs. Private monopolies that is.

Free markets breed monopolies, it is inevitable.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Left to flounder. The pun is not lost on me.

All the better for the Dutch fishermen. They saw a need and filled it at a cheaper price. I dont get what the issue is. This would force the Brit fishermen to compete. I dont get why you think getting a product to people at a cheaper price is a bad thing. One thing you may mention is that this supposed monopoly would force the Brits out of business and then the Dutch would inflate the prices. But this ignores the people from country X coming in and competing with the Dutch from the same waters. Then there is, once more, a level playing field. You may mention that there would be collusion and the Dutch and country X agree to a price so they both sell a barrel of fish for Y. This assumes that the Dutch or X is just fine getting half the pie. If X looks at the market and says that if the Dutch are offering a barrel of fish for Y then we drop it a bit to Z and get more of a market share. The Dutch would then counter and drop their price. The market would find equilibrium.


> The tons of cash comment was a bit of humor. They threw cash at research. Suffice to say that I could go 6 and everything will be fine. I could go 9 and everything will be fine.
> 
> Do you want to fund research in everything so that you think you are safe from everything?
> 
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

*Its the Vegans and Vegetarians fault the world will end!*

Just think they have a nice fat National Science Foundation (taxpayer) grant to study this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Left to flounder. The pun is not lost on me.
> 
> All the better for the Dutch fishermen. They saw a need and filled it at a cheaper price. I dont get what the issue is. This would force the Brit fishermen to compete. I dont get why you think getting a product to people at a cheaper price is a bad thing. One thing you may mention is that this supposed monopoly would force the Brits out of business and then the Dutch would inflate the prices. But this ignores the people from country X coming in and competing with the Dutch from the same waters. Then there is, once more, a level playing field. You may mention that there would be collusion and the Dutch and country X agree to a price so they both sell a barrel of fish for Y. This assumes that the Dutch or X is just fine getting half the pie. If X looks at the market and says that if the Dutch are offering a barrel of fish for Y then we drop it a bit to Z and get more of a market share. The Dutch would then counter and drop their price. The market would find equilibrium.
> 
> - SirIrb


Entirely possible, however the Dutch were not agin fighting for their interests, so country X would need to be a bigger fish than the Dutch. Therein floats the problem. If it is just getting a product to market cheaper, that is one thing, if it is a level fishing ocean. It just doesn't tend to be that way.

If (and I don't know this is the case, just casting about) the Dutch used prisoners to partially man the ships, they wouldn't need to pay them wages, just food. That isn't a level ocean then, the Dutch have a monetary advantage based on cheap labor (I believe Nestle just got hooked for this in Thailand).

Then is it OK for a tariff or is price king?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *Its the Vegans and Vegetarians fault the world will end!*
> 
> Just think they have a nice fat National Science Foundation (taxpayer) grant to study this.
> 
> ...


Per calorie! That is obviously a joke. Pork is 1,099 calories/lb, lettuce 57 calorie/lb. Could you eat 20 lbs of lettuce per meal? If not then this statistic is stupid. It should be a comparison per meal.

EDIT:

or emissions per meal would be a good way as well. Per calorie is just too funny.

EDIT2:

I can't stop laughing over this one! So if you eat 6 1/2 heads of lettuce you have consumed the same emission load as the pound of bacon! Wow! is it even possible to eat 2 heads of lettuce? All of it or 2 lbs of leafs? I'm gonna try tonight to eat 2 lbs of lettuce


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> *Its the Vegans and Vegetarians fault the world will end!*
> 
> Just think they have a nice fat National Science Foundation (taxpayer) grant to study this.
> 
> ...


If you go for the 2 heads of lettuce… make sure you have plenty of toilet paper… or the latest AGW predictions - to handle the mess.

It is good that you also see that "Climate Science Alarm bell ringers" present a large "BS factor" but recieve a great payout from the National Science Foundation!!

But they were doing the analysis of resources needed to produce it (A lifecycle analysis). So like they point out plants like eggplant are particularly bad(which I hate anyway… So following Liberal Dogma, *If I don't like it… NOBODY should be able to have it*..... so let's ban it  )

The experts examined how growing, processing and transporting food; sales and service; and household storage and use all take a toll on the environment for different foods.

Paul Fischbeck, study co-author and CMU's professor of social and decisions sciences, said:* "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think.
*
"Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Whatever, stupid article. They actually said in the article if you replaced all your current calories with lettuce it was bad for the environment. Sure and real bad for your health to eat 20 lbs of lettuce.

I put this in the same category as the story about sea ice growing. Misleading lies.

I wonder what the actual report says, I don't like it when conservative liars predigest data for me.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> How so?
> 
> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> ...


Please read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and check into Alexander Hamilton's economic principles. They served us, US, very well for 200 years until 1980.

BTW, it did not cost billions to study a regulation for the spacing electrical outlets. Longest cord on a typical appliance is 6'; therefore, outlets are required every 12' ;-) Sort of a no brainer regulation. These regs have worked very well as they developed in the 20th century. WE haven't seen whole cities burn like most major cities did in the past; London, Chicago, Seattle, San.Francisco…...............


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

Smith was ok. He set the stage for better economists like Von Mises.
Is it 8' or 12"? Seems like there is a bit of confusion or different regulations going on here.

If I remember san fran and Chicago were started because of an earthquake and lantern fire. I dont think there is a regulation of the use of lanterns yet. But who knows.


> How so?
> 
> Rules on trade = stranglehold.
> A transaction between consenting adult a = free market.
> ...


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

> Entirely possible, however the Dutch were not agin fighting for their interests, so country X would need to be a bigger fish than the Dutch. Therein floats the problem. If it is just getting a product to market cheaper, that is one thing, if it is a level fishing ocean. It just doesn t tend to be that way.
> 
> If (and I don t know this is the case, just casting about) the Dutch used prisoners to partially man the ships, they wouldn t need to pay them wages, just food. That isn t a level ocean then, the Dutch have a monetary advantage based on cheap labor (I believe Nestle just got hooked for this in Thailand).
> 
> ...


I dont believe using prisoners is good unless it is a debtors prison. So that isnt an apples for apples. If it is a debtors prison and this is repayment of their debt to the company who is fishing then it is fine. (This is more of an example-if it is prisoners-where government interference is the problem not the market.)

I dont see how the size of the company matters. It just sets the stage for companies to grow, not regulate the market because the poor little brits feel like they cant compete. Think local hardware store vs home depot. One sells service and one sells lower price. The market will decide who will live. If the market doesnt care for service then the local store goes under. Its the market. Its life.

If it is cheap labor then I dont see the problem. As long as it is mutually agreed upon then it is fine. if it is kids working then it is fine. Think, what if they are the only income in the family. Stopping kids from working is hurting more than helping people. If it is just cheap foreign labor then it begins to sound like xenophobia or hate that someone would have the gall to preform task X for Y when you would charge Z (when Z is greater than Y). That doesnt even have to be foreign labor. It can be local. It sounds like a union argument. (I hate unions though I support their existing if they want; I see any company who chooses to deal with them as stupid and any mandate to use unions as absolutely wrong.)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Smith was ok. He set the stage for better economists like Von Mises.
> Is it 8 or 12"? Seems like there is a bit of confusion or different regulations going on here.
> 
> If I remember san fran and Chicago were started because of an earthquake and lantern fire. I dont think there is a regulation of the use of lanterns yet. But who knows.
> ...


I'm not an electrician, so definitely use Topomax's figure.

So do you think it is good that there are regulations strangle-holding (your term) the max distance between outlets to reduce deaths?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The government save lives on one hand and takes lives on the other. Anyone who thinks the government give a crap about your life hasn t seen the light.
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


Any data to show they are even in the same ballpark?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I dont believe using prisoners is good unless it is a debtors prison. So that isnt an apples for apples. If it is a debtors prison and this is repayment of their debt to the company who is fishing then it is fine. (This is more of an example-if it is prisoners-where government interference is the problem not the market.)
> 
> I dont see how the size of the company matters. It just sets the stage for companies to grow, not regulate the market because the poor little brits feel like they cant compete. Think local hardware store vs home depot. One sells service and one sells lower price. The market will decide who will live. If the market doesnt care for service then the local store goes under. Its the market. Its life.
> 
> ...


Companies in a free market will grow to monopolize the markets, as I've shown before the 1800s are a fine example of monopolies being the goal/end result of unregulated markets. We even had a term for the successful operators: Robber Barons.

The market is a mindless beast, it should not be allowed to roam freely. It will consume all it can without a thought for tomorrow. The freer the markets the more of a roller coaster economy the rest of us have to ride.

Most of the things you are advocating above have been tried and found to be uncivilized/wanting/cruel/inhumane. Child labor is ok to you, that is slavery. There is a reasons children can't sign contracts, they can't understand and they can be forced/coerced by adults.

I don't mean to be rude, but you just blew your own foot off with these comments.

We can live without this market god you imagine.


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

No.


> Smith was ok. He set the stage for better economists like Von Mises.
> Is it 8 or 12"? Seems like there is a bit of confusion or different regulations going on here.
> 
> If I remember san fran and Chicago were started because of an earthquake and lantern fire. I dont think there is a regulation of the use of lanterns yet. But who knows.
> ...


----------



## SirIrb (Jan 12, 2015)

This is the issue one encounters when discussing things like this online/ at all: You can never convince me you are right and I can never convince you I am right. No biggie, I, as always, sleep very well at night.

The market is no god but it does amaze me in the same way gravity, as a natural action, does.


> I dont believe using prisoners is good unless it is a debtors prison. So that isnt an apples for apples. If it is a debtors prison and this is repayment of their debt to the company who is fishing then it is fine. (This is more of an example-if it is prisoners-where government interference is the problem not the market.)
> 
> I dont see how the size of the company matters. It just sets the stage for companies to grow, not regulate the market because the poor little brits feel like they cant compete. Think local hardware store vs home depot. One sells service and one sells lower price. The market will decide who will live. If the market doesnt care for service then the local store goes under. Its the market. Its life.
> 
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Most of the things you are advocating above have been tried and found to be uncivilized/wanting/cruel/inhumane. Child labor is ok to you, that is slavery. There is a reasons children can t sign contracts, they can t understand and they can be forced/coerced by adults.
> 
> I don t mean to be rude, but you just blew your own foot off with these comments.
> 
> ...


The devil is always in the details… if you work on a family farm… Child slavery?
If you help on the neighbors farm…. ok or does that cross the line?

I understand you wish to focus on the days when you had 12 year olds working in textile mills but what is the "regulation' that you desire? Regs tend to become -one size fits all, albatross' hung around everyones neck proposed by some DC pinhead whose Ag experience was singing 'old macdonald had a farm" back in grade school

Maybe the parents can decide what their kids are involved with… or should that be decided by the HHS secretary…. or Labor.

It is always easy to get vivid singular examples… just like the lettuce study I cited… Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, got Tax Money to do this study because they linked it to the latest trend… global warming.

it was the same in Materials Science not long ago… that everything people were working on suddenly included "NANO" in it. It was no longer an 'industrial coating' like Titanium Nitride on your drill bits. Suddenly it is a "nano-composite" or a nitride NANO layer.

Global warming is now the buzzword to ring the cash register and get government money. On one hand, it is hard to blame the researchers for trying to get access to the hog trough….but these activities also add fuel to the skeptics and place global warming up with the studies of shrimp on treadmills.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> No.
> Smith was ok. He set the stage for better economists like Von Mises.
> Is it 8 or 12"? Seems like there is a bit of confusion or different regulations going on here.
> 
> ...


So leave it up to whom, the owner?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This is the issue one encounters when discussing things like this online/ at all: You can never convince me you are right and I can never convince you I am right. No biggie, I, as always, sleep very well at night.
> 
> The market is no god but it does amaze me in the same way gravity, as a natural action, does.
> 
> - SirIrb


You ignore history and human nature. Ignorance is bliss they say.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The devil is always in the details… if you work on a family farm… Child slavery?
> If you help on the neighbors farm…. ok or does that cross the line?
> 
> I understand you wish to focus on the days when you had 12 year olds working in textile mills but what is the "regulation that you desire? Regs tend to become -one size fits all, albatross hung around everyones neck proposed by some DC pinhead whose Ag experience was singing old macdonald had a farm" back in grade school
> ...


You'll have to ask the person that brought up child labor for the specifics since we were talking about fishing boats and forced labor I took it to be more than working around the farm.

Regs tend to become -one size fits all, albatross hung around everyone's neck could you prove this?

Parents routinely sold children into slavery, so not sure they should be able to decide. I suppose if the child can still show up for school and pay attention then the parents can decide the rest.

You are the person that tries to obscure by using vivid examples, that mean little in most cases. Mostly you use it to distract from the topic. However the article itself compared bacon and lettuce. I still would like to see what the original study said instead of going through a climate change denying filter.

What does a $50 shrimp treadmill matter? I don't understand the significance of that at all.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Smith was ok. He set the stage for better economists like Von Mises.
> Is it 8 or 12"? Seems like there is a bit of confusion or different regulations going on here.
> 
> If I remember san fran and Chicago were started because of an earthquake and lantern fire. I dont think there is a regulation of the use of lanterns yet. But who knows.
> ...


Outlets required maximum of 12 feet because most appliances have a maximum of a 6 foot cord. That eliminates the hazards posed by extension cords or other temporary wiring running everywhere. Definitely a major fire prevention measure but at great risk of over regulating the libertarians.

Maybe the owners making their own determination should be allowed. Since most cannot afford to build without a mortgage, banks require fire insurance to mitigate their risks, insurance companies require safety standards to mitigate risk, ................ well, you should be able to comprehend where this is going.

The point about city fires is the codes and regulations prevent them. Good fire codes will prevent cities burning no matter the source of ignition.



> If it is cheap labor then I dont see the problem. As long as it is mutually agreed upon then it is fine. if it is kids working then it is fine. Think, what if they are the only income in the family. Stopping kids from working is hurting more than helping people. If it is just cheap foreign labor then it begins to sound like xenophobia or hate that someone would have the gall to preform task X for Y when you would charge Z (when Z is greater than Y). That doesnt even have to be foreign labor. It can be local. It sounds like a union argument. (I hate unions though I support their existing if they want; I see any company who chooses to deal with them as stupid and any mandate to use unions as absolutely wrong.)
> 
> - SirIrb


Since you hate unions which are organization of labor, do you hate corporations? They are simply organization of capital.

I cannot understand the logic of your case. No regulations for business or economy or trade. That leads eventually to monopoly control of the market. That locks out any competition or innovation. This is ultimately to the detriment of the consumer and any potential start up business. You end up with a single unelected entity in control. What are you trying to accomplish and why?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> You ll have to ask the person that brought up child labor for the specifics since we were talking about fishing boats and forced labor I took it to be more than working around the farm.
> 
> Regs tend to become -one size fits all, albatross hung around everyone s neck could you prove this?
> 
> ...


wow - - you claim I only like the vivid examples…. then claim that "parents *ROUTINELY* sold children into slavery" and are thus unfit to decide what is best for them…. 
That is a pretty off the wall recomendation that you think the Senate should address before Christmas?
We are talking about here in the US, not Bangladesh.

One size fits all - - beltway pinhead, rulings based on zero experience like Hilda Solis.
Regs like the DOL on farm workers that was being pushed
The DC regulars think :
Gee we think ladders are dangerous… so lets ban kids using ladders.
and 
Animals can be dangerous… lets ban kids feeding animals on the farm. 
And Hey… no going to the auction or feed lot with dad.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/

Under the rules, most children under 18 could no longer work "in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials."

"Prohibited places of employment," a Department press release read, "would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government's approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.


So the pinheads that have only MAYBE seen a picture of a cow… say NO kids can't do that kind of work

One size fits all - - - the 55mph speed limit is no big deal to someone living in NYC or DC riding the subway/metro… so lest make it NATIONWIDE….I triple dog dare you to drive from Kansas City to Denver at 55 with kids, and no electronics or DVD players or Ipads like it was when this dumbass law was in effect.
Enforced by the purse - - 
The National Maximum Speed Limit of 55 m.p.h. was created in 1974 when Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Energy Highway Conservation Act. Before that, states had been free to set their own speed limits, but the new law threatened to strip federal highway funding from any state straying above the national standard.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826694,00.html

Same with the 21 drinking age for that matter… we'll put you in a nuke sub, or a tank… but you are too immature to have a drink….

Next they can tell us how teen pregnancy drops to zero after age 19… but that will take a couple research papers and a half million dollar grant to study.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Talk about an off the wall post!

500 points to Dr dirt for disparate topics, -5,000 points for not making any sense.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This is the issue one encounters when discussing things like this online/ at all: You can never convince me you are right and I can never convince you I am right. No biggie, I, as always, sleep very well at night.
> 
> The market is no god but it does amaze me in the same way gravity, as a natural action, does.
> - SirIrb


So why even bring it up if you can't defend it? One has to wonder about a belief that crumbles and blows away under scrutiny.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Animals can be dangerous… lets ban kids feeding animals on the farm.
> And Hey… no going to the auction or feed lot with dad.
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/
> 
> ...


Only a "City Slicker" could dream up something so stupid! I started milking 30 head 2x a day by myself when I was 12. I can't imagine overcoming the disadvantages I would have suffered if I had been restricted. When I was a first year apprentice, there was a 2nd year on the same crew. The foreman would start to tell us to do something, then he'd look at me and say, "I don't have to tell you this, you're a farm kid. Go ahead and get started." Then he would spend 5 or 10 minutes making a speech to the 2nd year ;-) I always wondered what he needed to be told?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Getting back to the lettuce thing - did you know that as lettuce matures and ages (rots), that it actually lets off gases and heat? Now if you wanted to study something that produces noxious gases, tongue in cheek here, why are they not looking at cabbage?

You have billions of people that their main staple is a high degree of cabbage. There's your problem for "gas", it is not from cows.

Here is one of my my issues with all of it. When the democrats had the majority, they passed what they wanted and it was all their agenda. Now that the republicans have the majority, they are in awe that they got the the oil export thing passed (or will) and the democrats are boasting that the got 150 things in their agenda to go through. There is no check and balance, there is no opposition party, they are all united to one goal - eliminate our freedoms - one by one (well, actually it is by many at a time).

The other issue - and many of you are good with it. Sadly, I feel that we will get what you asked for. Your utopia will not happen and after all is said and done, the government will tell you where you will work, where you will live, how much money you can take home (have to be fair here, can't make too much), what you can buy and what is contraband, what you will learn in school, what doctors you can see (has to be an approved illness or injury) and if it costs too much then they will give you meds that will kill you faster, and on and on. All of this is not your fault, it is because those pesky republicans and society that are at fault. You are not to blame for anything, but we know what you need and give it to you (right up until you no longer have any way to fight back).

Have a great holiday

Oh, in that list, can you tell me how we are doing for your freedoms


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

If the democrats could have pushed through their agenda why isn't there a public option to the ACA, outlawed handguns, or open borders?

What proof do you have that this dystopian future of yours will occur?

Why should your predictions be considered accurate?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Animals can be dangerous… lets ban kids feeding animals on the farm.
> And Hey… no going to the auction or feed lot with dad.
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/
> 
> ...


Talk about a made up controversy, even the article linked above says the regulation was withdrawn in April of 2012.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Have a great holiday
> 
> Oh, in that list, can you tell me how we are doing for your freedoms
> 
> - dbray45


Well Dbray - - - you see the Yale braniacs, now that they have ousted anyone that said halloween costumes are OK.

They took up their petition to Repeal the 1st ammendment….. hmmm start a petitiion to repeal your right to 'start a petition'. Those are supposed to be the 'cream of teh crop'


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Getting back to the lettuce thing - did you know that as lettuce matures and ages (rots), that it actually lets off gases and heat? Now if you wanted to study something that produces noxious gases, tongue in cheek here, why are they not looking at cabbage?


all organic matter decomposes at varying rates ;-)



> The other issue - and many of you are good with it. Sadly, I feel that we will get what you asked for. Your utopia will not happen and after all is said and done, the government will tell you where you will work, where you will live, how much money you can take home (have to be fair here, can t make too much), what you can buy and what is contraband, what you will learn in school, what doctors you can see (has to be an approved illness or injury) and if it costs too much then they will give you meds that will kill you faster, and on and on. All of this is not your fault, it is because those pesky republicans and society that are at fault. You are not to blame for anything, but we know what you need and give it to you (right up until you no longer have any way to fight back).
> 
> Have a great holiday
> 
> ...


You prefer the CEO a for profit corporation making those determinations for personal monetary gain and/poor pure cussed orneriness for you rather than a committee of elected officials that can be replaced by the whim of the people?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Animals can be dangerous… lets ban kids feeding animals on the farm.
> And Hey… no going to the auction or feed lot with dad.
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/
> 
> ...


Yes, but it is still a valid demonstration of the limited mental capacity and mind set of many bureaucrats.

A friend of mine did a 26 million dollar electrical project at the airport. The project was to tear out the core of the building and replace it without interrupting operations. Those are fun jobs; figuring out how to do it and coordinating as well as basking in hero status after you pull off the impossible. He loved that job, but hated the Port Authority after spending several years dealing with an endless supply of bureaucrats none of whom were capable of doing their jobs ;-(


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I ran across this. This is how it was when I was growing up (born in 1943). It was a great time to live, no so much now.

How Did We Live?

Unknown author

Looking back, it's hard to believe that we have lived as long as we have…

My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs and spread mayo on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn't seem to get food poisoning.

My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter AND I used to eat it raw sometimes too, but I can't remember getting E-coli.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes we had no helmets.

We played with toy guns, cowboys and Indians, army, cops and robbers, and used our fingers to simulate guns when the toy ones or my BB gun was not available.

Some students weren't as smart as others or didn't work hard so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. That generation produced some of the greatest risk-takers and problem solvers. We had the freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring), the term cell phone would have conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system.

We all took gym, not PE . . . and risked permanent injury with a pair of high top Ked's (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training athletic shoes with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors. I can't recall any injuries but they must have happened because they tell us how much safer we are now. Flunking gym was not an option . . . even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym.

Every year, someone taught the whole school a lesson by running in the halls with leather soles on linoleum tile and hitting the wet spot. How much better off would we be today if we only knew we could have sued the school system.

Speaking of school, we all said prayers and the pledge and stayed in detention after school and caught all sorts of negative attention for the next two weeks. We must have had horribly damaged psyches.

I can't understand it. Schools didn't offer 14 year olds an abortion or condoms (we wouldn't have known what either was anyway) but they did give us a couple of aspirin and cough syrup if we started getting the sniffles. What an archaic health system we had then. Remember school nurses? Ours wore a hat and everything.

I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself.

I just can't recall how bored we were without computers, PlayStation, Nintendo, X-box or 270 digital cable stations. I must be repressing that memory as I try to rationalize through the denial of the dangers could have befallen us as we trekked off each day about a mile down the road to some guy's vacant lot, built forts out of branches and pieces of plywood, made trails, and fought over who got to be the Lone Ranger. What was that property owner thinking, letting us play on that lot? He should have been locked up for not putting up a fence around the property, complete with a self-closing gate and an infrared intruder alarm.

Oh yeah . . . and where was the Benadryl and sterilization kit when I got that bee sting? I could have been killed!

We played king of the hill on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites and when we got hurt, Mom pulled out the 48 cent bottle of Mercurochrome and then we got our butt spanked. Now it's a trip to the emergency room, followed by a 10-day dose of a $49 bottle of antibiotics and then Mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat.

We didn't act up at the neighbor's house either because if we did, we got our butt spanked (physical abuse) . . . and then we got our butt spanked again when we got home.

Mom invited the door to door salesman inside for coffee, kids choked down the dust from the gravel driveway while playing with Tonka trucks (remember why Tonka trucks were made tough . . . it wasn't so that they could take the rough Berber in the family room), and Dad drove a car with leaded gas.

Our music had to be left inside when we went out to play and I am sure that I nearly exhausted my imagination a couple of times when we went on two week vacations. I should probably sue the folks now for the danger they put us in when we all slept in campgrounds in the family tent.

Summers were spent behind the push lawnmower and I didn't even know that mowers came with motors until I was 13 and we got one without an automatic blade-stop or an auto-drive. How sick were my parents?

Of course my parents weren't the only psychos. I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his tricks on the front stoop just before he fell off. Little did his Mom know that she could have owned our house. Instead she picked him up and swatted him for being such a goof. It was a neighborhood run amok.

To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they were from a dysfunctional family. How could we possibly have known that we needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes? We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills, that we didn't even notice that the entire country wasn't taking Prozac!

﻿"… do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."

Matthew 6:24-34


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> Animals can be dangerous … let's ban kids….
> 
> - DrDirt


Now you're talking . . . That will go a long way to solving the original problem.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Yes, but it is still a valid demonstration of the limited mental capacity and mind set of many bureaucrats.
> 
> A friend of mine did a 26 million dollar electrical project at the airport. The project was to tear out the core of the building and replace it without interrupting operations. Those are fun jobs; figuring out how to do it and coordinating as well as basking in hero status after you pull off the impossible. He loved that job, but hated the Port Authority after spending several years dealing with an endless supply of bureaucrats none of whom were capable of doing their jobs ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I've mentioned before that I think we should teach the trades at colleges, so they can get a degree(journeyman) in a trade. Anyone that could run that large of a job with the technical aspects, the client aspects of passengers in the airport, and the political aspects should be the equivalent of a doctorate.

This example is why local yokels shouldn't make decisions about education. There are experts that should do that, not people elected or appointed to the school board.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Getting back to the lettuce thing - did you know that as lettuce matures and ages (rots), that it actually lets off gases and heat? Now if you wanted to study something that produces noxious gases, tongue in cheek here, why are they not looking at cabbage?
> 
> all organic matter decomposes at varying rates ;-)
> 
> ...


Yup, they seem to prefer 1 guy behind the scenes that a committee in the open. Strange.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Animals can be dangerous … let s ban kids….
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


It would end some problems for sure.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Yes, but it is still a valid demonstration of the limited mental capacity and mind set of many bureaucrats.
> 
> A friend of mine did a 26 million dollar electrical project at the airport. The project was to tear out the core of the building and replace it without interrupting operations. Those are fun jobs; figuring out how to do it and coordinating as well as basking in hero status after you pull off the impossible. He loved that job, but hated the Port Authority after spending several years dealing with an endless supply of bureaucrats none of whom were capable of doing their jobs ;-(
> 
> ...


A proper apprenticeship includes an education. Too many get in the trade through the "helper program" that only requires a few hours classroom education per year.

When it comes to performance of that magnitude, you can't teach it. One either has the necessary judgment and ability or doesn't. What you can teach are the technical mechanics to assure the paper work meets legal challenges, ect.

After being in business for over 25 years, I believe one should be required to start and operate a successful small business as a prerequisite to joining the bureaucracy. I suppose that is wishful thinking; why join the bureaucracy if one could be successful in business?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I ve mentioned before that I think we should teach the trades at colleges, so they can get a degree(journeyman) in a trade. Anyone that could run that large of a job with the technical aspects, the client aspects of passengers in the airport, and the political aspects should be the equivalent of a doctorate.
> 
> This example is why local yokels shouldn t make decisions about education. There are experts that should do that, not people elected or appointed to the school board.
> 
> ...


A doctorate requires more than class work, an original idea usually needs to be presented and researched.

I was required to take a couple of hours of class per week as a second year apprentice, we also had block tests on what was covered each quarter. I suspect far more people could get a ba/bsc than could do 4 years of a trade. Especially if they had to work 40 + 4 Hours class/week? If fewer people could do it shouldn't it have a higher status than it does now?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Should I have gotten my Doctorate when I prevented the bankruptcy of a national container manufacturing company? I only had about a year of college.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> I was required to take a couple of hours of class per week as a second year apprentice, we also had block tests on what was covered each quarter. I suspect far more people could get a ba/bsc than could do 4 years of a trade. Especially if they had to work 40 + 4 Hours class/week? If fewer people could do it shouldn t it have a higher status than it does now?
> 
> - RobS888


Blue collars will always be looked upon with disdain. The current schedule for the apprenticeship here is 5 years with 32 hours / week in the field and 8 hours a week in the classroom. An unorganized training requires 8000 hours on the job without any specified diversification and 96 hours in the class room in 4 years. There is lots of disparity in the training.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> This example is why local yokels shouldn t make decisions about education. There are experts that should do that, not people elected or appointed to the school board.
> 
> - RobS888


And if my local schools are top performers with "local yokels," you'll do well to keep your effing nose in your own business.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Blue collars will always be looked upon with disdain. The current schedule for the apprenticeship here is 5 years with 32 hours / week in the field and 8 hours a week in the classroom. An unorganized training requires 8000 hours on the job without any specified diversification and 96 hours in the class room in 4 years. There is lots of disparity in the training.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It takes 120 credits to get a ba/bsc. Each credit equates to about 15 hours of class time. So you need 1,800 class/lab hours to get a degree. Of course one needs to study, so add 2 hours study for each hour of class. So 5,400 hours of work to get a degree.

Based on a 5 year apprenticeship:

5 years X 2,000 hours per year = 10,000 hours divided up into 2,000 hours classroom (could be a bit less) 8,000 hours of fieldwork. Plus let's not forget some study time as well, perhaps 2,000 more hours. So 12,000 hours towards a journeyman's ticket.

Am I the only one that sees the disparity here? Why not have a bachelors of trade. I mean we have degrees in kinesthesiology, so anything is possible.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This example is why local yokels shouldn t make decisions about education. There are experts that should do that, not people elected or appointed to the school board.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


I'll skip over your ignorant hubris and and look at the gist of what you are saying. If a school district is a top performer I would wager it isn't yokels running it, but some very knowledgable education experts. By extension if being a top performing district makes you safe from my "nose" than underperforming ones must need help, correct?

Top performers would need to be on a national level of course, being number one in a flyover state isn't saying much.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Am I the only one that sees the disparity here? Why not have a bachelors of trade. I mean we have degrees in kinesthesiology, so anything is possible.
> 
> - RobS888


I probably have a bad attitude after a life time of correcting the designs of college guys and having them mostly PO'd about it ;-) I think it has to do with the snobbery of higher education and their graduates. I was one one job that was closed the days the architect inspected the job because he did not want tradesmen around while he worked. I was on that job to salvage a system that was totally screwed up by a contractor that went bankrupt. Should have let him fix it himself ;-) Our Joint Apprenticeship Committee did offer a 2 year degree in conjunction with a community college a one time. Not sure if they still do, but I do not think so. I think it died for lack of interest. What is the point of a 2 year degree that means nothing to no one? Looked to me to an opportunity to waste time taking a few irrelevant classes at night.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I had a PM and should say I am sorry if I offended some. I did not use the word "all" referring any group of collars, blue or white. Nor, did I intend to say all are incompetent.

Most people in general have a low opinion of contractors. I was a contractor for over 25 years. I'm not offended by their opinions and complaints. I agree them. Far too many are incompetent, fly by nights.

It was sad to see so many supercilious snobs defining a social hierarchy based on degree not ability and performance. It is obviously evident in the two professions I am most familiar with, construction and education. I even had one engineer talking to me like a blue collar peon could not possible know what static and dynamic meant ;-(


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

Unfortunately, there are people in all categories who are really bad at their jobs. There are good and bad people both with college degrees and blue collar being one or another does not tell you how good they are.

The only thing I look for is someone who does a good job and is honest. I do not care if they have a degree or not. A well done job is just that.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Bob -
You prefer the CEO a for profit corporation making those determinations for personal monetary gain and/poor pure cussed orneriness for you rather than a committee of elected officials that can be replaced by the whim of the people?

- TopamaxSurvivor

Even if the elected officials could be replaced by the whim of the people - elections are 2-4 years or even annually - the damage that they can do is incredible. A CEO, on the other hand, is answerable to the board of directors. The board has the power to over ride and fire a CEO any day it wishes. The stockholders can also initiate an election but normally, the board has the shares to make it happen.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Bob - I too have been on both sides of the fence and have experienced the "snobbery" effect. In one job that I had, the mechanical engineer(s) that designed the HVAC in one of my buildings, I was the building engineer at the time, made a big mistake in the design. After about a year of being very uncomfortable, I was called in to meet with the corporate engineers to discuss this. Since the tenant did the design and fit-out, I did not concern myself with the issues they were having. I looked around, poked my head up in the ceiling and in about 3 minutes told these engineers that I could fit the the problem in an afternoon. I did not know that this corporate senior engineer had been fussing with this for a year - my bad! He asked me, "with whom did my sheepskin hale from?" I figured that he was asking about my degree and I told him that I did not have a degree - I fix the problems that engineers create. Never have been politically correct and this stirred a very large hornets nest. The long and short of it was that I told them that if I fixed the problem that Saturday and people were comfortable on Monday that they would pay for the materials, my double time, and a 40% management fee - and a letter of apology from that engineer, on their IBM letterhead - if not, I would quit. I still have that letter someplace.

Universities teach their students their way of thinking and processes, that is all. It doesn't teach them to be intelligent or smart. What you do with your God given abilities are what matters. If people didn't want to believe me because I didn't have a degree, it was their loss. Now that I have a degree, did my Bachelor of Science in less than 2 years, they don't believe I have done the things that I have - who cares!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Even if the elected officials could be replaced by the whim of the people - elections are 2-4 years or even annually - the damage that they can do is incredible. A CEO, on the other hand, is answerable to the board of directors. The board has the power to over ride and fire a CEO any day it wishes. The stockholders can also initiate an election but normally, the board has the shares to make it happen.
> 
> - dbray45


David, I believe you are very naive about corporate governance. That is the way it should work. The management sit on one another's boards. Majority stock holders and institutional investors vote large blocks of stock. The typical stock holders' efforts and initiatives are normally ruled as advisory if they happen to win at the annual meeting. The majority of profit is used to enhance management compensation through a variety of strategies that has nothing to do with the company's best interests or the shareholders interests. There have been efforts in recent years to expose the the compensation packages and other shenanigans of management, but I no longer hold individual stocks since I retired and do not know if those efforts have been successful. Corporate management in the 21st century is about the personal fortunes of upper management ;-( BTW, a couple years ago one of the banks, Bank of America I believe, had financial issues shortly after the first of the year. They would have been in good shape if they had not set aside something like a billion of their cash assets for bonuses that year.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I would like to apologize to anyone whom my stream of consciousness writing style may have offended. The statement about snobbery was not meant to be all inclusive of every graduate. Many who display those attitudes may be doing it unconsciously. I supposed the American obsession with college degrees as a requirement for even the most mundane positions and the pretentious attitudes displayed by many towards those who chose a hands on career path to be common knowledge.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> If a school district is a top performer I would wager it isn t yokels running it, but some very knowledgable education experts.
> 
> - RobS888


Wrong. You've demonstrated ignorance. They're elected folks, normal, just like (you) and me. A CPA, a chemical engineer, an ag salesman to name three. My neighbors and friends. Where do I collect the wager?



> By extension if being a top performing district makes you safe from my "nose" than underperforming ones must need help, correct?
> 
> - RobS888


Your district is the only one subject to your nose, extended or otherwise. That's the point of my comment. Have you run for a position on your local school board? You've got much to contribute.



> Top performers would need to be on a national level of course, being number one in a flyover state isn't saying much.
> 
> - RobS888


^ Enter "hubris."


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

So what high flying school district are you claiming as yours? It should be easy to find out where their policies come from. I doubt the ag salesman comes up with them.

A school district could hire education professionals, *not* that they need to be the ones elected to the board. Same as a CEO or COO or president runs a corporation, but isn't necessarily elected to the board.

I suspect that the vast majority of top performing districts are wealthy and can afford to hire educational professionals.

Are you sure "hubris" is the word you want to use? There are states that have far less money than the coasts and far less economic activity. They tend to be the takers on a national level. They receive more aid than they pay in taxes. They tend to be red also.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Animals can be dangerous… lets ban kids feeding animals on the farm.
> And Hey… no going to the auction or feed lot with dad.
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/
> 
> ...


Indeed they had to backtrack… that is the point though, the usual City slicker "inside the beltway desk driving dumbass" came up with this 'brilliant idea' and ...had it written into the regs and proposed by Hilda Solis the Secretary of for the Dept of Labor push it as an agenda.

but Robs Argument is, as I understand it *"they had to back off because the natives revolted….. ergo it Never happened and is a "Made Up" controversy."*

Brainiacs in DC also had this great plan in the late 50's to deepen a harbor in alaska by detonating a string of nukes….Thankfully that dipweed was 'over-ruled' but that isn't the same as it not being proposed. (See Project Chariot)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chariot

or nuke the panama canal to make it wider… "operation plowshare" along with other not so great ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare#Proposals

or
Project Carryall,[7] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.

So maybe the "expert planners" aren't all genius'


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I would like to apologize to anyone whom my stream of consciousness writing style may have offended. The statement about snobbery was not meant to be all inclusive of every graduate. Many who display those attitudes may be doing it unconsciously. I supposed the American obsession with college degrees as a requirement for even the most mundane positions and the pretentious attitudes displayed by many towards those who chose a hands on career path to be common knowledge.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It sure is common knowledge. A friend of mine that has never demonstrated any common prejudices in 25 years, used to refer to areas as blue collar. To him it meant low brow, I pointed out it was pretty offensive.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> the usual City slicker "inside the beltway desk driving dumbass"
> 
> - DrDirt


Lines like this are why you aren't taken seriously.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

My wife started as a volunteer school volunteer after the kids grew up and I decided I could make a lot more money a lot easier without full time employees and she didn't need to answer the phone and be a girl Friday. The school district eventually made what she volunteered to do a paid position and she was hired. She is a para educator, no degree, enough college credits for a 2 year degree. She took on the tech job for her building. The certified teachers would do without functions on their computers and other gadgets before they would ask her for help.

They would call the district for tech support and it got to be a real PIA. Worse yet, it didn't pay anything. Small stipend that didn't amount to even minimum wage. She was trying to help out for the sake of the kids. Finally a certified staff member agreed to share the position. Now, the certified had a person in the building who they would go to. My wife still did 90% of the work and the certified got all the credit.

One of the teachers with 5 degrees improperly instructed the kids to use an almanac. She was assisting them and was showing them the correct way to do it. The 5 degree guy came unglued as he was embarrassed. At least the kids got 1 question on their tests right.

I have a hard time understanding why people try to bluff their way through life and never admit their short comings?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> The long and short of it was that I told them that if I fixed the problem that Saturday and people were comfortable on Monday that they would pay for the materials, my double time, and a 40% management fee - and a letter of apology from that engineer, on their IBM letterhead - if not, I would quit. I still have that letter someplace.
> 
> - dbray45


Reminds me of a discussion about a transformer shortly after I finished the apprenticeship. An engineer wanted to jack hammer up a lot of concrete and rebuild a 3 phase service to get 120 volts for a small controller at a sewer pump station. This was for remote control over the internet long before the internet was called the internet ;-) I suggested using a 1 KVA transformer for a few dollars rather than spending thousands. During the discussion, he said the grounding of the transformer would screw up the 3 phase service. I casually mentioned he had better call the power company and let them know because the grid and distribution systems can't possibly be working if that were true. He complained to my boss and he told me I couldn't tell them things like that ;-) We put in the 1 KVA transformer rather than remodel the service. I always endeavored to be more tactful after that.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

After the Paris agreement to pay 100 billion a year, now we probably need another 100 billion a year to study global cooling:

Complete turn around - Now NASA says burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet'


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> After the Paris agreement to pay 100 billion a year, now we probably need another 100 billion a year to study global cooling:
> 
> Complete turn around - Now NASA says burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet'
> 
> - mahdee


That link connects to a UK paper that has NO links at all to support its article.

Sorry that is just a long post filtered through a GW denier website without citations to the actual NASA report.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> After the Paris agreement to pay 100 billion a year, now we probably need another 100 billion a year to study global cooling:
> 
> Complete turn around - Now NASA says burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet'
> 
> - mahdee


Here's a link to the NASA site on the subject : http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

It was updated today, so it's current. Please find where it says burning fossil fuels cools the planet.

Here are the appropriate bullets from the site :

• On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

• Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

• A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

• Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

I am waiting for these models to explain the Midieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age. While I have no problem that man has some effect on climate and we should reduce pollution, I do not believe that man is solely responsible for the short term changes reported.

If we want to do something then every country needs to be involved. Gutting American jobs and way of life is not the way. Just wait in the next few years when many of the current electrical generation plants are shut down. The cost of electricity will sky rocket. A much better approach to cleaner enough energy is needed rather than throwing billions of dollars at places like Solyndra.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> I am waiting for these models to explain the Midieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age. While I have no problem that man has some effect on climate and we should reduce pollution, I do not believe that man is solely responsible for the short term changes reported.
> 
> If we want to do something then every country needs to be involved. Gutting American jobs and way of life is not the way. Just wait in the next few years when many of the current electrical generation plants are shut down. The cost of electricity will sky rocket. A much better approach to cleaner enough energy is needed rather than throwing billions of dollars at places like Solyndra.
> 
> - Redoak49


This is so incredibly myopic. Please re-read the original post.

While I'm not as pessimistic as Russell, I believe our window of opportunity to act is small. I tend more toward the opinion of the Countries at the recent Climate Conference which concluded swift and decisive action is imperative to avoid an irreversible cataclysm to this civilization that we know.

Jobs and the cost of electricity will be of no consequence. To be concerned about such minute things is to fiddle while Rome burns.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

100 billion is a good start to incentivize new technology that will be actually effective in reducing emissions if that is the real goal.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

We have already gutted the economy and made significant scarifies to our way of life, but China took up the slack and compounded the emissions. There will never be a real international consensus. They will not even agree that we are all on the same side of the moon! ;-(


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> After the Paris agreement to pay 100 billion a year, now we probably need another 100 billion a year to study global cooling:
> 
> Complete turn around - Now NASA says burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet'
> 
> ...


Thanks,

I figured without a link it didn't really say planet is cooling.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I am waiting for these models to explain the Midieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age. While I have no problem that man has some effect on climate and we should reduce pollution, I do not believe that man is solely responsible for the short term changes reported.
> 
> If we want to do something then every country needs to be involved. Gutting American jobs and way of life is not the way. Just wait in the next few years when many of the current electrical generation plants are shut down. The cost of electricity will sky rocket. *A much better approach to cleaner enough energy is needed rather than throwing billions of dollars at places like Solyndra. *
> 
> - Redoak49


Solyndra was loaned $535 million, so 1/2 of a Billion.

By the way the program that loaned the money to Solyndra had a 2.28% loss rate (including Solyndra's loss) and with interest earned is $30 million ahead on a $34 billion investment. So none was thrown away.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Here is a good book to read understand that mother nature works in mysterious ways. 
The summary from NASA claims that areas that are deforested and have high emissions experience a cooling effect due to blocking of the sun and I assume lack of vegetation to keep the heat-in. Very much as the book explains that volcanic activities block sunlight and cause devastating cooling effect.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> the usual City slicker "inside the beltway desk driving dumbass"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Or maybe it is just you? But please tell us what Hilda's minions living over in Chevy Chase, actually know about farming… or have seen "flyover country" from the ground….


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> While I m not as pessimistic as Russell, I believe our window of opportunity to act is small. *I tend more toward the opinion of the Countries at the recent Climate Conference which concluded swift and decisive action is imperative to avoid an irreversible cataclysm to this civilization that we know.*
> 
> Jobs and the cost of electricity will be of no consequence. To be concerned about such minute things is to fiddle while Rome burns.
> 
> - Yonak


Challenge is that the 'Consensus from hundreds of nations (most of which nobody heard of) all agree that *"The USA should fall on their swords today, (AND Cut them billions in Aid today).. and MAYBE after 2050 China will BEGIN to consider their emissions'....but as long as the banana republics, and pacific Islands get their checks now…they don't actually care*
Agreeing that "uncle same should cut everyone a check "-isn't action on global warming
Fact is, look at pictures of Beijing… there is NOTHING that the rest of the world can do to 'OFFSET" China and India which committed to do absolutely squat for the next few decades.

It akin to China is blowing holes in the hull of a ship with dynamite, and we have a shop vac to suck up the water that comes in….. So to the original post…"NO…....... Nothing the USA does will matter…regarding cumulative global emissions and warming" The ONLY way to effect this is a *concerted effort*.

Cap and trade is simply 'rich countries' BUYING the right to pollute… not unlike the fleet of private jets taken to Paris for the current summit, The Rich pay for the fuel for Jets, and Yachts, and just pay the 'tax for their right to pollute' (while everyone else can just go squat in thier huts).... and claim they are saving the world.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> the usual City slicker "inside the beltway desk driving dumbass"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Nope, you make little sense, as this post shows.


----------



## bonesbr549 (Jan 1, 2010)

This is so entertaining. We as mortals think we are in control of our environment. Of all the crap out there to worry about, this is like the smallest of the small.

You watch your freedoms disappearing in front of your eyes and say nothing, but let some lib scream the planets burning the planets burning, and we all go screaming into the night.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben, James, and George are rolling in their graves.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

DrDirt, I don't think you understand the commitments of China and India. After all your negativity about the Climate Conference, the most positive development in years, what plan do you support ?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> This is so entertaining. We as mortals think we are in control of our environment. Of all the crap out there to worry about, this is like the smallest of the small.
> 
> You watch your freedoms disappearing in front of your eyes and say nothing, but let some lib scream the planets burning the planets burning, and we all go screaming into the night.
> 
> ...


What freedoms have you watched disapear? I was born in the 60s what freedoms have disappeared since then?


----------



## Redoak49 (Dec 15, 2012)

I support a plan that has China doing a bit more than its current building of 350 new coal plants and another 800 being planned.(The Times of London…Dec 2,2015) It has "promised" that it's emissions will speak in 15 years and then maybe go down. If everything is so critical now that the U.S. needs to shut down our coal plants and greatly increase our energy costs why is it OK that China builds more.

While we increase energy costs and the cost to produce goods goes up, we are exporting our jobs to China.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

The corps exported pollution along with the jobs. Now we are exporting the energy to run China. Coal and oil trains run through here every day with more to come. Soon the only way across the BN's tracks will be the over passes!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> DrDirt, I don t think you understand the commitments of China and India. After all your negativity about the Climate Conference, the most positive development in years, what plan do you support ?
> 
> - Yonak


I see there is no comittment from the conference at all.
There are no sanctions.
The levels "agreed to" are known to be insufficient to limit change.

ANd China's so called 'comittment' is to "think about it in 2050".... please do tell us what they are actually going to DO ABOUT emissions for the next 30 years?
We will lower our emissions by exporting jobs and converting to fracking gases to run Natural gas turbines. Wind/Solar will still be small players…. while china and India will laugh all the way to the bank with all the jobs we have given them.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

*"What freedoms have you watched disapear? I was born in the 60s what freedoms have disappeared since then"?
*

Many have lost the freedom to choose (or not to choose, without penalty) a health plan of their liking. And if you happen to work for a living the health plan you must choose will cost you a fortune so you can pay for some lazy ass people who sit at home doing nothing but suck the resources from others.

I call that a LOSS OF FREEDOM even though you don't.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> What freedoms have you watched disapear? I was born in the 60s what freedoms have disappeared since then?
> 
> - RobS888


Easy - - Freedom of speech is gone.
If you make a donation to a cause you support - - then years later you will be driven from your position by a vocal minority.
A CEO states he supports traditional marraige… so is banned from building restaurants by government edict, but yet liberals want to claim the government is protecting us, and we have a free market.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chick-fil-a-denver-gay-marriage_55db2157e4b0a40aa3ab5900

If you say people should be allowed to wear halloween costumes… and that it isn't 'people comitting "microagression" you are driven from your job.

Say All Lives Matter - -and (Martin OMalley) and you are forced to make a public apology

If you say that you "Do not find black women hot"... you are expelled from college. for your "Anonymous message board Yik Yak'
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25501/
opposing government mandated healthcare = being a racist.

Public discourse even on this site is mostly 'anonymous' .....we used to cherish and protect free speech even when it is distasteful but now it is mob rule. If you say something an activist doesn't like, they will hunt you down to destroy you personally and professionally.

Now we create 'Safe zones' and 'first ammendment zones' - -but claim no freedoms have been lost??


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Here's a few we have lost under the King.

http://pudge.net/liberty.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> *"What freedoms have you watched disapear? I was born in the 60s what freedoms have disappeared since then"?
> 
> Many have lost the freedom to choose (or not to choose, without penalty) a health plan of their liking. And if you happen to work for a living the health plan you must choose will cost you a fortune so you can pay for some lazy ass people who sit at home doing nothing but suck the resources from others.
> 
> ...


Now that is funny! Millions more have a choice to get healthcare, but you feel put out. How sad.

Are there any actual rights from the bill of rights that have disappeared?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

The corporatists have certainly suppressed freedom for at least half of us, US. Without economic security, one can never be free. I do not mean independently wealthy. Just a reasonably secure job with reasonable benefits by the mid 20th century standards.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> What freedoms have you watched disapear? I was born in the 60s what freedoms have disappeared since then?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


If you are referring to the first amendment, I suggest you read it again. It is a restriction on congress, not on anyone else. You have the freedom to say anything you want, but it doesn't say anything about the repercussions of that speech being restricted. Only that congress can't make a law restricting it. Walk up to your boss and cuss him/her out and then try claiming freedom of speech. See where that gets you.

Did you know if your speech leads to immediate injuries like the oft described yelling fire in a theatre that you have no protections at all?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Here s a few we have lost under the King.
> 
> http://pudge.net/liberty.html
> 
> - AlaskaGuy


Wow, most of those are proposals, 1 of 7 is a law about taxes and the other an executive memorandum about funding overseas clinics that provide abortions.

Really? Is that it? Paying taxes is a reduction of your rights? Good luck getting SCOTUS to hear that one. And please tell me how an overseas clinic doing *ANYTHING* affects your rights?

Do you guys read these links?

Also, if you think the President is acting as a king will you apologize when he steps down? I mean kings don't usually have elections and term limits, so if he is a king he is permanent, if a new president is elected and sworn in he isn't a king is he?

I expect to see an apology on day 1 of Hillary's first term!


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

" Millions more have a choice to get healthcare, but you feel put out."

You're confused between having insurance and receiving healthcare.

No one was ever denied health care. The great doctors and nurses helped anyone

and everyone.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> DrDirt, I don t think you understand the commitments of China and India. After all your negativity about the Climate Conference, the most positive development in years, what plan do you support ?
> 
> - Yonak
> 
> ...


Hmm didn't China just start up the world's largest solar/thermal plant 6×135 megawatt towers? That is a pretty large commitment there puppy.

If it bothers you so much when you have a choice don't buy Chinese.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> " Millions more have a choice to get healthcare, but you feel put out."
> 
> You re confused between having insurance and receiving healthcare.
> 
> ...


Ha ha, you're killing me here. No one was denied emergency care. Why did 45 million people not get any health care at all except at the emergency room? Hmmm? That is the second silliest thing I have read today. Dr dirts freedom of speech comment was the silliest so far.

Seriously, why implement the ACA if the great doctors and nurses helped everyone?


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

The ACA is designed to fail.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> Here s a few we have lost under the King.
> 
> http://pudge.net/liberty.html
> 
> ...


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Here s a few we have lost under the King.
> 
> http://pudge.net/liberty.html
> 
> ...


Interesting, you gave up on the argument (not surprising) and went for an insult based on the last line. Besides not being able to support your previous post about disappearing rights (I take that as admitting defeat) I suspect you have that thing Bill Maher talks about *"I have no proof, but I know it's true*"

I challenge you to prove any of those claims about Hillary. Keep in mind prove has an actual definition and means to demonstrate the truth. Not what some believe, but the truth.

I'm looking forward to your reply, especially the proof that 8 congressional committees couldn't seem to find. We all saw how desperate they were to find something during their 11 hour advertisement for Hillary. Thank you chairman Gowdy.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The ACA is designed to fail.
> 
> - waho6o9


Talk to the Heritage Foundation it was their idea.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Bob - Don't get me started on Bank of America, they have broken so many laws, created illegal fees to their customers and still they are golden by the fed - go figure. There are extremes on all sides.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Really? Haven't noticed any change since the 70's?? Really?


> This is so entertaining. We as mortals think we are in control of our environment. Of all the crap out there to worry about, this is like the smallest of the small.
> 
> You watch your freedoms disappearing in front of your eyes and say nothing, but let some lib scream the planets burning the planets burning, and we all go screaming into the night.
> 
> ...


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Mike Van Biezen, a professor of Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science and a former believer in the global warming hoax, has presented a definitive debunking that will probably earn him IRS audits every year that liberals are in power. To summarize:

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today's temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980's, but for many parts of the world the 1980's was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations.

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes.

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution.

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years.

10. "Data adjustment" is used to continue the perception of global warming.

- See more at: http://moonbattery.com/?p=66929#sthash.xSTc722T.dpuf


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Mike Van Biezen, a professor of Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science and a former believer in the global warming hoax, has presented a definitive debunking that will probably earn him IRS audits every year that liberals are in power. To summarize:
> 
> 1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today's temperatures are unusual.
> 
> ...


...and yet we've had the hottest year on record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/21/after-record-shattering-september-2015-in-commanding-lead-for-earths-hottest-year-on-record/

Hey look the next 6 records hot years are all after 1998.

Did you have any snow for Xmas?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Really? Haven t noticed any change since the 70 s?? Really?
> 
> This is so entertaining. We as mortals think we are in control of our environment. Of all the crap out there to worry about, this is like the smallest of the small.
> 
> ...


Changes yes, for the better. Have any rights from the bill of rights disappeared? I know many people got the ability to vote in the 60's, especially black women, so I see increases in rights, not decreases.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Really? Haven t noticed any change since the 70 s?? Really?
> 
> This is so entertaining. We as mortals think we are in control of our environment. Of all the crap out there to worry about, this is like the smallest of the small.
> 
> ...


What happened to rights to privacy since creation of the DHS and the expansion of data collection.
You really ONLY see positives through all of Reagan and Bush 1 and 2…. NOTHING has gotten worse.. you are feeling more free than ever??

Interesting perspective… I didn't think Maryland legalized weed yet…..


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Changes yes, for the better. Have any rights from the bill of rights disappeared? I know many people got the ability to vote in the 60 s, especially black women, so I see increases in rights, not decreases.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


What number on the bill of rights is the right to privacy? I checked and didn't see it. Is it one of them secret rights?

I certainly don't feel less free, which was my point that we haven't had a reduction in rights or "watched our rights disappear right in front of our eyes".

That makes 3 pitifully weak answers for a simple question: what rights on the bill of rights have disappeared since the 60s?

*Come on it shouldn't be hard to prove. *


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> Really? Haven t noticed any change since the 70 s?? Really?
> 
> - mahdee


Which Constitutionally guaranteed rights have disappeared ?

You might say our ability to feel safe from the propagation of firearms is threatened but that's not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.



> What happened to rights to privacy since creation of the DHS and the expansion of data collection.
> 
> - DrDirt


Unfortunately, the right to privacy is not guaranteed in the Constitution. If it were, perhaps it would have prevented our privacy from being stripped immediately following 9/11/2001 with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and data collection without a warrant.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Are you not aware of the debate regarding the Bill of Rights, and fact that several prominent framers opposed it entirely? Because every power not specifically granted to the Government was reserved for the people? Madison himself originally opposed the Bill of Rights; Wilson of Pennsylvania opined that "...enumerating the rights of the people would have been dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist," (from Wiki) a position shared by Alexander Hamilton. So no, there's no 'right to privacy,' but there's also no Right of the Government to intrude upon / to be pervasive in our lives.

Unless you're a Wilsonian Progressive, in which case a Government of experts, i.e.: a ruling class, is better suited to Govern than the People.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

What does the debate matter now? We are left with it the way it is.

Anyway, aren't some of the main points of the constitution to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare?

Those sound pretty broad to me.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Promote the general welfare is in the preamble. If it were in the body of the document, the ruling that speech is money would be unconstitutional.

No right to privacy? When did the 4th and 9th Amendments get repealed?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

The ninth is where other right are protected, but not enumerated, exactly. The fourth is what many refer to as the right to be left alone. We're in agreement Topo, it's just that the phrase isn't there.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

So, are we in agreement? No rights have disappeared since the 60s.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

The government has no right to make you purchase anything, let alone fine

you for not purchasing something.

Did the ACA originate in the House of Representatives? No, so it's null and void.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> The government has no right to make you purchase anything, let alone fine
> 
> you for not purchasing something.
> 
> ...


SCOTUS says they can.

Could you show me in the constitution where it says an idea that becomes a bill, that becomes a law must originate in the house?

You feel it is wrong, I get that. I felt many things Bush the Dumber did were wrong, but the law wasn't on my side. Same as in your case.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

There are plenty of examples where the US government requires its citizens to buy things and services. On the micro scale, when I was in the army (not by my choice, believe me) I was required to buy a razor and a toothbrush. I was required to pay for haircuts and laundry services. On the macro scale, I am required to buy fighter jets and bridges. I don't actually have to go out and purchase them but I must pay my share for them.

If you tell me I don't have to pay for military purchases if I don't make any money, it's the same for health insurance.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Valid points, thank you.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Well said Yonak!

We are making so much progress today!

Our rights aren't disappearing before our eyes and the ACA is legal.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

> So, are we in agreement? No rights have disappeared since the 60s.
> 
> - RobS888


I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I was asking the group, not you specifically. You may notice I didn't reply to you.

I asked for proof on losing rights, so you were participating in my topic.

What are you 12 now?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

^ Typical response.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

You shouldn't let you feelings get in the way of a discussion, if I'm right admit it and move on. These childish responses make you look silly and generally outside of this thread and the wealth distribution thread you are a great asset to LJs. However you seem to let this stuff get under your skin. Look back at your hissy fit over school districts, just not adult responses.

I don't have anything against you, and have tried to remedy the situation, but you want to persist. Why?


----------



## Hammerthumb (Dec 28, 2012)

Don't worry about it Smitty. In review of Rob's postings on many threads over the last year, I can tell you that without a doubt, Rob has never found himself to be wrong on any subject.

Other than that, I will post no opinion on this thread as these political discussions have become very tedious to read.

Have fun guys.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Not true, I thought the Earth spun at 770 miles an hour and it was pointed out to me by Topomax it really is 1,000 mph at the equator.

Question, why on such a thread as this would I find myself to be wrong? Shouldn't my posts be shown to be wrong? As in I lied or tried to pull something like dr dirt constantly does?

And what are the many threads you are referring to?

Oh, speaking of dr dirt, a couple months back I told him that the US had less upward mobility than any developed country. Well, I realized I was wrong, that the UK had slightly less upward mobility than the US and apologized to him for posting something that was wrong.

Did you see that in your perusal? If not, an apology is in order.


----------



## Hammerthumb (Dec 28, 2012)

Rule #6


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Had to look that one up. Rule Number Six - it's simple 'Don't take yourself so * darn seriously.



> Rule #6
> 
> - Hammerthumb


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rule #6
> 
> - Hammerthumb


Oh, that was a joke?

EDIT:

You obviously take my posts far more seriously than I do since you reviewed my posts for the past year on many threads. I mean why would you do that? Was it to find cases where I was wrong and didn't admit it? Yet you posted none, just a general attack.

This was Smittie's MO, drop by throw an insult at someone then dis the thread in general as a waste of time (one they voluntarily wasted) then disappear for a while. I suspect you will follow it now as well.

Too bad all that reading was wasted on a closed mind, there was some great stuff in there.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

The North pole is gonna melt this week!

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/iceland-storm-melt-north-pole-climate-change/422166/


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

Can't we all just get along ?

- - Rodney King


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

It would be nice.


----------



## darinS (Jul 20, 2010)

I thought Rule #6 was "Never say you're sorry. It's a sign of weakness."

Guess I was wrong. Sorry.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Promote the general welfare is in the preamble. If it were in the body of the document, the ruling that speech is money would be unconstitutional.
> 
> No right to privacy? When did the 4th and 9th Amendments get repealed?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


4th went by the wayside with the creation of the Patriot Act.

The 4th and 14th are our right to privacy 
*
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized*

The Patriot act has been used to justify use of executive order to execute terrorists including US citizens by drone attack.
Ask the residents of New ORleans during Katrina that were systematically disarmed by the government (National Guard).Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. *"No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."* Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58‑year‑old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie.

But sure… we are "MORE Free now" Cough Cough


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Not seeing the word privacy in there puppy. Many a times people have taken the constitution and bill of rights literally. So sorry, no matching verbiage, no matching right.

Only you could confuse "no rights disappearing" with "more free now", I seriously doubt your comprehension or you intentions.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

Rob, what happened to getting along "would be nice" ?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Was puppy too much?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Not seeing the word privacy in there puppy. Many a times people have taken the constitution and bill of rights literally. So sorry, no matching verbiage, no matching right.
> 
> Only you could confuse "no rights disappearing" with "more free now", I seriously doubt your comprehension or you intentions.
> 
> - RobS888


YOU said nothing has been lost and it has IMPROVED…. since 1965. (Your post 1133 - where you close saying "so I see increases in rights, not decreases")
I think it has gotten worse - much so since 2000.

But you think there has NEVER been a right to privacy.

Can't help you there, if you aren't willing to read.
4th and 14th are about privacy…. just as the specific WORD "Abortion" is not in the Constitution either, but that "RIGHT" Exists, as a constitutional right - without being spelled out in the ammendments, nor the articles themselves. Civics can be odd that way…. C'est compris?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

It used to be USA and has now transformed into USA, Inc. Very much like a corporation, we have a political machine that is supported by the super packs and institutional donors domestic and international. The machine does the bidding of the donors instead of representing the people. I believe in the 60's and prior the political machine represented the people's interest a lot more. Recently Patriot act became a permanent law so, read the Act and see if we have more rights than before.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Not seeing the word privacy in there puppy. Many a times people have taken the constitution and bill of rights literally. So sorry, no matching verbiage, no matching right.
> 
> Only you could confuse "no rights disappearing" with "more free now", I seriously doubt your comprehension or you intentions.
> 
> ...


I was referring to black women being able to vote in the 60s. It took federal laws for them to be able to vote in many states, so spin it to include everyone if you chose. Not showing the quote is pretty interesting.

So to be clear, no one has lost rights, some people got to finally use their "rights".

Still not seeing our rights disappearing before our eyes. You can interpret the constitution and what you think they meant all you like, but the word privacy is not there. The concept of electronic privacy wasn't either.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

Rob - whens the last time you took an arguement/discussion, similar to this, face to face with another person?


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

Rob, what happened to getting along "would be nice" ?


> Rob - whens the last time you took an arguement/discussion, similar to this, face to face with another person?
> 
> - chrisstef


To what purpose, may I ask ?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob - whens the last time you took an arguement/discussion, similar to this, face to face with another person?
> 
> - chrisstef


No, I dont think I have ever been in a face to face discussion where random people showed up and made personal attacks. Is that common for you?


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

Not common at all.

When others, yourself included, use the relative anonimity of the internet to say things you wouldnt otherwise say, face to face, to another person, i feel like theres a problem with that. It seems all too common across the internet that people do this. Its troubling to me.

The internet has taken away the great equalizer and i think that before we all post something, either here or elsewhere, we should ask ourselves the question "am i going to get punched in the face if i say this?"

It would cut down on a lot of fruitless squabbling.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Shouldn't that rule have been applied to the freeway first? How many of those hostile and aggressive drivers will push their way into a line at the store. The internet did not invent that type of behavior, not that Rob is guilty of it. Biggest problem is Altemeyer's studies show authoritarians are not capable of critical thinking and will not believe anything they are not predisposed to believing.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Not common at all.
> 
> When others, yourself included, use the relative anonimity of the internet to say things you wouldnt otherwise say, face to face, to another person, i feel like theres a problem with that. It seems all too common across the internet that people do this. Its troubling to me.
> 
> ...


Actually, I don't think I say much that I wouldn't say to someone's face. I use puppy to let people know they are way off base/silly in person, as well as on the webs. I can't think of anything I've posted I would be embarrassed to have my wife or mother read. Are you aware of something I've posted that is deserving of a punch in the nose? Not for the concept, but the way it was said?

Are you really sure I'm the one that needs this talk?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob - whens the last time you took an arguement/discussion, similar to this, face to face with another person?
> 
> - chrisstef
> 
> ...


It's a common tactic here to point the light at the speaker instead of the topic. I think I'm relatively tolerant of he 'tudes, I just point out the, ah, shall we say inaccuracies I see.

Nobody cares that millions of black women were prevented from voting until the 60s, they just harp on my saying they (black women) have more rights from the 60s when I should have said they are finally able to express those rights. It seems to me there is a disconnect there.

Is it a right if you are prevented from using it?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I think it is and has been. UN human rights declaration state:
Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

So the rights are there for everyone but most are denied.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So Rob - 
Is Abortion a Constitutionally Guaranteed right?

Since the word "Abortion" is nowhere in the constitution, it must not be…. correct?

Marriage of Same sex people - isn't in the constitution either… Yet that has been deemed a "Right".

So you are correct "Privacy" is not in the text. BUt…

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> So Rob -
> Is Abortion a Constitutionally Guaranteed right?
> 
> Since the word "Abortion" is nowhere in the constitution, it must not be…. correct?
> ...


I'm gonna have to take a pass on your abortion gambit and enquire again: what rights have disappeared before our eyes since the 60s?


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

Here are a couple of rights that have gone away :

The right of people who don't have certain state-prescribed forms of identification, sometimes difficult or onerous to acquire, from voting in those states.

The right to participate in the election process lest your influence as a citizen is diluted, indeed diminished, by entities now regarded as rightful citizens which were never intended to be citizens by the framers and 222 years of use of our Constitution.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Only when it affect them they start the moaning, groaning and bitching.

Spying on Congress and Israel: NSA Cheerleaders Discover Value of Privacy Only When Their Own Is Violated.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)




----------



## MrUnix (May 18, 2012)

Even Snopes debunked that one: The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes doesn't vastly outstrip the amount created by humans.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Interesting, thanks MrUnix.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Equal access to the courts has been dinished, if it ever existed. It is a direct function of financial capicty.

Money becoming free speech has had significant impacts on one man one vote.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Equal access to the courts has been dinished, if it ever existed. It is a direct function of financial capicty.
> 
> Money becoming free speech has had significant impacts on one man one vote.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I spent the worst ten months of my life living in a smallish town in SC, the richest family in town had a son that didn't need to, but liked to sell cocaine. He was arrested several times, but was allowed to pay restitution. I had never heard of it before and had to ask what it was. Basically pay money and don't go to jail. I was quite surprised that wealthy people could pay to not go to jail.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> - waho6o9


Earlier in this thread with Dr Dirts help we calculated that man produces the equivilance of 11 Krakatoas every year!

And that was assuming Krakatoa only spewed CO2.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Greenland has some new rivers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104130436.htm


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Equal access to the courts has been dinished, if it ever existed. It is a direct function of financial capicty.
> 
> Money becoming free speech has had significant impacts on one man one vote.
> 
> ...


What was better is that being rich and spoiled is a acceptable legal defense.

Affluenza - - gets you probation after killing 4 people. Even though there is not a true 'legal definition' to claim affluenza….. it worked with the judge!http://www.slate.com/articles/healthandscience/medicalexaminer/2013/12/ethancouchaffluenzadefensecritiqueofthepsychologyofno_consequences.html

Eminent domain… to decide that "public Good" means a new condos from a developer is more important than your house… because "public good" includes collecting higher property taxes. Not just Schools or Highways that are really for "everyone"

Due process with 'Civil Forfeiture'... you can have someone seize your hotel because 'somebody' did a crime there.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> ... you can have someone seize your hotel because somebody did a crime there.
> 
> - DrDirt


 ..Or, have your cash money, house or car seized because some cop thinks it may be involved in drugs. Then the Justice System is turned topsy turvy when you have to prove you didn't do anything wrong instead of them proving you did.

This is a clear violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments and goes as far as making human, indictable entities out of property. The Constitution never intended that, despite the Citizens United ruling.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> ... you can have someone seize your hotel because somebody did a crime there.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Indeed - - yet there are those delusional folks that refuse to admit that there has been erosion or any loss of rights in this country.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

First they were disappearing, now they are eroding, and yet you can't prove that, just claim it has happened.

I've asked many times for proof and I don't get any, just opinion. I've cited a case of a group finally getting to use their rights, but you can't show me where others have lost rights.

Tell me of a right we all had under the bill of rights in 60s that we don't have now.?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Seems like the court actions in that Newyorker article are pretty clear.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> First they were disappearing, now they are eroding, and yet you can t prove that, just claim it has happened.
> 
> I ve asked many times for proof and I don t get any, just opinion. I ve cited a case of a group finally getting to use their rights, but you can t show me where others have lost rights.
> 
> ...


Due Process…. Burdens of proof used to be with the state to PROVE you did something wrong.

Now you have to file suit and "PROVE" you didn't do anything wrong, or have your property or children seized.

But you seem not to read evidence, so TTTH


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> I've asked many times for proof and I don t get any….
> 
> - RobS888


If you don't see the proof it's because you're ignoring it. The New Yorker article is one, the Citizens United Supreme court decision is another, as well as the onerous voting rules enacted by many State legislatures.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Citizens United disenfranchised most of us, US.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Voting is a right, so stopping someone from voting for any reason other than citizenship or age feels wrong to me. I also don't think corporations are people.

However, the 5th amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think that those seizures, in the article, were legal based on state or local laws, as is allowed. Not saying it is right or proper, but sounds legal. In a way this is forced paying of restitution.

You can't have it both ways, scream about the federal government overreach then scream about local yocals making up crazy laws, which is what they do without the federal government watching them.

Example: within hours of portions of the civil rights acts being struck down Texas changed voting laws. They had them all queued up and ready to go. Is it right no, is it legal (at the moment) yes.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Voting is a right, so stopping someone from voting for any reason other than citizenship or age feels wrong to me. I also don t think corporations are people.
> 
> However, the 5th amendment says:
> 
> ...


But you are only forced to pay restitution when you are "FOUND GUILTY" of a crime.

Not when someone just thinks you 'shouldn't have cash'

Or seize your home because your grandson living in the basement sold drugs….Indeed that crime can LEAD to the loss of the house.
But you cannot just Seize something without ever even indicting a person for a crime (the make a case against the home or hotel). So if someone commits a crime in a hotel room… the hotel owner loses the hotel to be sold at auction….This guy got it struck down - but it was the federal government that went after them.
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_23658513/tewksbury-motel-owner-lobbying-congress-reform-federal-civil

To the voting example
You have a first ammendment right to "Petition the government for redress of grievance".... but you cannot enter the building in DC without an ID either.

Suppose if the 'proving who you are' is to be forbidden as a practice to excercise of your rights - we can start getting rid of background checks for the excercise of your second ammendment rights?

Remember you cannot have it both ways!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Voting is a right, so stopping someone from voting for any reason other than citizenship or age feels wrong to me. I also don t think corporations are people.
> 
> However, the 5th amendment says:
> 
> ...


Apparently they had the choice to go to trial instead of paying restitution. Not a good choice, but they could have gone to trial, think of it as plea restitution if you like.

You are missing the fact that it is legal for for a locality to make a law allowing the seizure of assets where a crime took place. I'm not saying it is right, just don't see the erosion of rights. Look up some of the dumb laws that exist already, some are blue laws, but some are still considered enforceable.

*"Suppose if the proving who you are is to be forbidden as a practice to excercise of your rights"*

I can't unpack that in any meaningful way… could you bring that back to reality for me?

Suppose we get rid of the second amendment altogether, or make shoes illegal or having hair or looking up at night.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Most of these transgressions are from the war on drugs correct? I think that has perhaps gone a little too far as it is, especially against pot.

I can see though, that if the kid in the basement sold pot or heroin it is the same severity of crime to the law, both are schedule 1 drugs. I don't think pot should be illegal, but it is.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Civil asset forfeiture probably stem from the war on drugs and last year, the amount of seized assets by law enforcement exceeded all property stolen by criminals. The money they seize goes directly to the entity of the state/county so there is a huge temptation there. If my neighbor's kid jump my fence and plant some pot in my 120 acres, I can loose everything; my car, home, its content, my shop and equipments. Everything in that property is seized. How does one prove a negative in this case? It makes the situation what they call easy money. Basically, there are enough "laws" out there so an average Joe can be charged with 3 felonies a day Either those "laws" don't need to be there or they are there for a reason.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Civil asset forfeiture probably stem from the war on drugs and last year, the amount of seized assets by law enforcement exceeded all property stolen by criminals. The money they seize goes directly to the entity of the state/county so there is a huge temptation there. If my neighbor s kid jump my fence and plant some pot in my 120 acres, I can loose everything; my car, home, its content, my shop and equipments. Everything in that property is seized. How does one prove a negative in this case? It makes the situation what they call easy money. Basically, there are enough "laws" out there so an average Joe can be charged with 3 felonies a day Either those "laws" don t need to be there or they are there for a reason.
> 
> - mahdee


It seems to be a problem in the wording of the amendment, if you enact a law it is legal then to seize property. I'm not saying it is right, just legal.

I give changing the second a better chance since states like the revenue they get and won't vote to cut it off.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I agree fully. I mean look at how each administration bend the rules to execute their agenda. One of the main reasons corporations fled this country and set up shop overseas is that every 4-8 years they change the tax laws. As a small businessman if I am going to invest a million dollars on a project but I don't know how the new elected officials are going to change the tax laws next year, I would be a fool to proceed. Likewise, how do I conduct a 5-10 years strategic planning for the business not knowing the incoming elected official's intentions? As they say in the investment community, "the only 4 letter word in investment is RISK" and if one can not predict his or her investment risk, then it is better off to look for an alternative.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Most of these transgressions are from the war on drugs correct? I think that has perhaps gone a little too far as it is, especially against pot.
> 
> I can see though, that if the kid in the basement sold pot or heroin it is the same severity of crime to the law, both are schedule 1 drugs. I don t think pot should be illegal, but it is.
> 
> - RobS888


Unfortunately no - - If you make withdrawls from your own bank account.. the IRS will seize your account.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/15/how-the-irs-seized-a-north-carolina-businessmans-life-savings-without-ever-charging-him-with-a-crime/

that is done WITHOUT due process… and WITHOUT a charge being filed.

Then it is up to you to fight uncle Sam (having essentially unlimited legal and financial resources) to get it back.

As agents put it:"*"We don't have to prove that the person is guilty. It's that the money is presumed to be guilty."*

The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. $107,702.66 in United States Currency, Defendant.
So where is the Due Process in that?

John Oliver did a nice job showing how corrupt this is


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Unfortunately no - - If you make withdrawls from your own bank account.. the IRS will seize your account.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/15/how-the-irs-seized-a-north-carolina-businessmans-life-savings-without-ever-charging-him-with-a-crime/
> 
> that is done WITHOUT due process… and WITHOUT a charge being filed.
> ...


I saw the John Oliver show last year and while I don't think it is right, it is legal and therefore not violating the 5th amendment. The lawyer opposing it in the John Oliver video says it is *legal* robbery.

From the Washington Post article:

It is, quite obviously, 100 percent legal to make make deposits of less than $10,000. But it is *illegal* to do so with the express purpose of avoiding the closer IRS scrutiny that comes with larger deposits-a practice known as "structuring."

He was warned by the FBI not to continue doing it that way:

In its complaint against McLellan, the IRS noted a pattern of bank deposits "which appeared to be structured to evade the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) threshold of $10,000" (emphasis added). The IRS also had informed McLellan *several years prior* that "structuring bank deposits to avoid federal reporting requirements was a violation of the law," and warned him that any future violations "could result in prosecution and/or seizure and forfeiture of all property involved in, or traceable to, such violations."

I don't see any violation of his rights here based on the 5th amendment. It may not be right, but it isn't illegal.

So any other rights that are "disappearing before our eyes"?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Why is it not a 5th violation? He isn't being held to answer for a crime he did not commit.

There are lots of things in this country that are not constitutional, including the way the Supreme Court operates.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Why is it not a 5th violation? He isn t being held to answer for a crime he did not commit.
> There are lots of things in this country that are not constitutional, including the way the Supreme Court operates.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As I mentioned, it is against the law to try to hide the transaction from the IRS, they warned him and he kept on doing it.

The fifth says …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*... that means if a law is enacted the fifth isn't violated. There is a law about trying to hide transaction on purpose by making them less then $10,000.

Right or wrong if there is a law agin it, the 5th isn't broken. It seems to be to prevent the gubment just rounding people up as it feels, but if you make a law….

From Wiki:

Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from *arbitrary* denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government *outside the sanction of law*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

Topo, I'm just refuting claims that our rights are disappearing before our eyes, just because we don't like something or feel it is wrong, doesn't make it illegal. With Republicans controlled states we see things like laws about mandatory ultrasound! Fortunately higher courts felt this wasn't right and stopped it.

I'm not saying things are even close to perfect, just that we really haven't had a reduction in rights, whereas some groups have actually got to use their rights, that had been denied them.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

Rob, it occurs to me you're splitting hairs. If the question is : "Have we lost rights as citizens in the last 35 years ?" the answer is, clearly, "Yes." We have lost rights to privacy as well as personal sovereignty and security due to the NSA and, broadly, the police. We have lost rights in the election process. Women have lost rights to manage their own bodies. The police now have the agency to extract tissue from within our bodies. We have lost the right to own personal property due to police overreach. I'll think of more examples but I'll post this for now.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

It isn't so clear to me Yonak, I can't think of anything I could have done in the late 60s I can't do now. I don't think privacy is a right, especially of things you send out into the world. The NSA has a legal mandate for what they do and so do the police. We still have the right to vote, its value has just has been diluted.

I'm not trying to split hairs, but "our rights are disappearing before our eyes" is preposterous to me. So what if the police can take a tissue sample? It seems that some issues are only a concern if you have something to hide. I wouldn't care if the police had a security camera on my street.

I'm pretty sure I can buy anything *I* want, so not sure how we have lost the right to own personal property.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

The weather has been unseasonably warm this year:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

Propaganda from the world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists? Nefarious adjustments to the temperature record? Natural temperature fluctuation?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Hey Greg,

I read that the temps used to be recorded at noon, but they changed to record them at midnight instead. Do you know if that was because the noon temp was affected by sunshine? That change makes it appear that we have lower lows and lower highs.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

The weather fluctuates ?

OMG! Quick raise taxes and imposes new burdensome regulations.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Hey Greg,
> 
> I read that the temps used to be recorded at noon, but they changed to record them at midnight instead. Do you know if that was because the noon temp was affected by sunshine? That change makes it appear that we have lower lows and lower highs.
> 
> - RobS888


Honestly I would suspect they had trouble with "heat islands" and some of the semi-urban areas, that stations picked up more influence of black streets and roofs… and the heat exchangers of AC units running full blast etc.

So testing when a cooling load is lower, and many people are sleeping probably gives more 'stable' results for measuring mean temperature. Still challenges - but measuring temps at 'high noon' was likely a poor choice in general for detecting trends in the noise.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Hey Greg,
> 
> I read that the temps used to be recorded at noon, but they changed to record them at midnight instead. Do you know if that was because the noon temp was affected by sunshine? That change makes it appear that we have lower lows and lower highs.
> 
> ...


Could be, I thought perhaps cloud cover or other atmospheric events could affect the total and as with the heat island give you a less accurate reading.

I believe this is why the '30s appear to be hotter than subsequent decades and also gives the appearance of subsequent decades being lower in temperature. Sort of an artificial trough until the warming actually caught up with the daytime readings.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

It also depends upon where you are - in downtown Washington DC for example, it can be 5-10 degrees warmer (and colder at night in the winter time) than at my house about 30 miles away. A lot of this has to do the solar aspects, window reflection, lack of trees, asphalt, etc…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> It also depends upon where you are - in downtown Washington DC for example, it can be 5-10 degrees warmer (and colder at night in the winter time) than at my house about 30 miles away. A lot of this has to do the solar aspects, window reflection, lack of trees, asphalt, etc…
> 
> - dbray45


That has always been the challenge in global warming. With urban sprawl, the "rural" temp station gets some construction around it…. is the global temperature warmer? Or has the data from that site been 'corrupted' (lack of a better word) by development?

But it is a catch 22… how do you measure the impact of man on temperature… without man impacting the temperature sensors?










or


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> That has always been the challenge in global warming. With urban sprawl, the "rural" temp station gets some construction around it…. is the global temperature warmer? Or has the data from that site been corrupted (lack of a better word) by development?
> 
> But it is a catch 22… how do you measure the impact of man on temperature… without man impacting the temperature sensors?
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't see this as much of a challenge at all. Firstly, it affects only some stations. Secondly, these effects have been well known for a long time and it should not be so hard to figure out reasonable corrections:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

Thirdly, other sources of temperature data show similar trends
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/february-smashes-earths-alltime-global-heat-record-by-a-jawdropping

If anything I would have most confidence in the latest portion of the temperature record and most concern about the earliest portion of the temperature record. But short of assessing all the data myself I am comfortable deferring to the assessments from the US National Academies.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> ...I am comfortable deferring to the assessments from the US National Academies.
> 
> - Greg D.


 ..Also, NASA and NOAA and the US military.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Ice melting in the Arctic and glaciers receding should be a reliable way to verify.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> T
> 
> I don t see this as much of a challenge at all. Firstly, it affects only some stations. Secondly, these effects have been well known for a long time and it should not be so hard to figure out reasonable corrections:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
> ...


True you can always filter your data, however from your link they show this.










I struggle to think that a temperature sensor like the prior post, is really accurate to represent a 0.1 degree/decade temperature change (the slope I see from 1910-2010)

Then extract from that data what fraction of that climb is "normal" and which part is Anthropogenic


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Ice melting in the Arctic and glaciers receding should be a reliable way to verify.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Thing is that the glaciers have been retreating in most areas since the ice ages. There isn't any argument that we are warmer now.

The question is that the proponents want to claim that essentially ALL warming is man caused, and that simply cannot be true, tracking data back through pre-industrial times, when we only had a couple billion people on our rock, and factories had water wheels, and not so many giant steel forges etc.

No doubt we have been poor stewards of the environment, but regulation of CO2 is simply a tool for those in power to control economies and societies. You regulate and tax coal out of business, while giving government grants to 'green energy'

Pretty far from how we developed in the days of Edison vs Westinghouse.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Ice melting in the Arctic and glaciers receding should be a reliable way to verify.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


"*ALL warming is man caused*" no one is saying that. Where has anyone said that?

The concern is that we are affecting it and making it worse, not causing it. Earlier in this thread we discussed and IIRC you accepted (actually, you assisted in calculating the weight of a cubic mile of CO2) that humans release an equivalent volume of CO2 equal to the amount of ash and whatever of 10 Krakatoas each year! 
That is a massive amount being pumped into the air.

You may not believe the data or all the scientists, but most people do at this point. You may get the last laugh, but I really doubt it.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> It also depends upon where you are - in downtown Washington DC for example, it can be 5-10 degrees warmer (and colder at night in the winter time) than at my house about 30 miles away. A lot of this has to do the solar aspects, window reflection, lack of trees, asphalt, etc…
> 
> - dbray45


Yup, that is why they changed to reading at midnight, so they could measure the base temperature.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

How do we know that humans are the major cause of global warming?

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures *since the mid-20th century.*"
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#1

From the graph above - I don't see a big difference in slope of that curve before vs after 1950…


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Rob - That too is skewed. At night, the city will be much hotter at night and colder in the winter. In a rural setting, the trees create wind breaks and retain much more heat in the winter and keeps things cooler in the summer.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Rob - That too is skewed. At night, the city will be much hotter at night and colder in the winter. In a rural setting, the trees create wind breaks and retain much more heat in the winter and keeps things cooler in the summer.
> 
> - dbray45


Why would a city be colder in the winter?

Shouldn't we at least go for the least skewed we can find?


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

EPA Chief: Crippling Global Warming Regs Are to Show "Leadership," Not to Change the Weather
It amazes some that Obama and his EPA are eager to inflict punitive regulations in the name of global warming that would have no perceptible effect on temperatures even according to their own bogus climate models. At last we have an explanation. Hamstringing the economy is not actually meant to fight unavoidable climate change, but to show leadership:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy … admitted as much after being questioned by West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley, who pressed the EPA chief on why the Obama administration was moving forward with economically-damaging regulations that do nothing for the environment.

"I don't understand," McKinley said in a Tuesday hearing. "If it doesn't have an impact on climate change around the world, why are we subjecting our hard working taxpayers and men and women in the coal fields to something that has no benefit?"

"We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris," McCarthy responded.

Maybe if we cripple our economy out of sheer moonbattery, other countries will do it too.

Then again, maybe they won't…

"But even then no one is following us," McKinley said. "Since that Paris accord China has already announced that they're going to put up 360 [coal plants]. India has announced that they're going to double their use of coal since the Paris accord."

That's a relief. If we are lucky, in the future these countries will remember that we sent them aid when the shoe was on the other foot, back before we were reduced to poverty by our own government.

McKinley was referring to EPA's so-called Clean Power Plan, which forces states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. The CPP is expected to double the amount of coal plant closings in the coming years, and even EPA admits it won't have a measurable impact on projected global warming.

But you can be sure it will have a measurable impact on electricity costs, which will drive up the costs of everything else, in addition to increasing unemployment by breaking the backs of businesses that are already struggling due to high tax burdens.

http://moonbattery.com/?p=70274


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

I suspect if the entire US domestic output was turned towards stopping global warming we wouldn't see an affect in our lifetimes. That is a ridiculous assumption.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)




----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

I sure wouldn't trust CNN, NBC or other left wing outlets.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I sure wouldn t trust CNN, NBC or other left wing outlets.
> 
> - waho6o9


Yeah, or them scientists! Fox and drudge are real sources.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> I sure wouldn t trust CNN, NBC or other left wing outlets.
> 
> - waho6o9


It seems to me that popular media do a poor job of representing scientific results. Typically there is a lot of detail and nuance in scientific results, and this is hard to appreciate without substantial time and effort. Any account that includes all that detail and explores the important nuances is likely to be long and boring. Not very good for a media business model.

Popular accusations that an entire scientific community is biased toward or against some particular outcome are illogical. They have a small point that such a situation is in principle possible, but fail completely in considering other possibilities, such as the absence of the alleged bias. They also fail to include any reasonable assessment of the probability of each of the competing explanations. It is not at all easy to pull off a large conspiracy in general. The process of science makes this far more unlikely; whether caused by a conspiracy or a simple mistake the process is intended to recognize when something is wrong and fix it. Advocates of bias fail to acknowledge their own bias and make no attempt to account for that. It may be unfair, but I'm thinking of Dr. Dirt here. This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black; no doubt my postings have their own logical flaws.

I would expect climate science to be pretty difficult. The fundamental data are not nearly as clean and neat as we would like. The processes involved are complicated. We can't exactly do controlled experiments; one Earth with no human activity and an identical Earth with human activity and observe the differences. We are stuck taking imperfect models and extrapolating into the future. Critics point to these challenges and conclude that they are insurmountable. That is wrong; other fields of science face these same challenges and succeed (geology and cosmology come to mind). Critics are also wrong when they fail to accept that climate science, in spite of its challenges, provides absolutely positively the best guess we have on what is likely to happen. But in response to these critics, climate scientists and their advocates may not always convey the full implications of the challenges, and may not always precisely capture the logic of the analyses.

What is of most interest to me is a process in which interested non-specialists can have meaningful and productive exchanges on complicated issues and questions. Clearly I'm an idiot thinking about this while writing on an Internet forum…


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

The way to counter attacks on the focused scientific studies that are difficult to explain and are, for reasons I don't really understand, subject to these conspiracy theories, is to show broad irrefutable data, such as that the average temperature on our planet has risen generally and alarmingly sharply since the advent of the industrial revolution, as well as that arctic ice is melting in proportions that have never been recorded nor determined to have ever happened before by geological evidence. These are just two examples. There are many, many indications that, when viewed collectively, show an undeniable trend. The studies serve as support for the observations and determinations.

..And to suggest that organizations such as NASA, NOAA and the US military are party to this daft conspiracy nonsense is ludicrous.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> The way to counter attacks on the focused scientific studies that are difficult to explain and are, for reasons I don t really understand, subject to these conspiracy theories, is to show broad irrefutable data, such as that the average temperature on our planet has risen generally and alarmingly sharply since the advent of the industrial revolution, as well as that arctic ice is melting in proportions that have never been recorded nor determined to have ever happened before by geological evidence. These are just two examples. There are many, many indications that, when viewed collectively, show an undeniable trend. The studies serve as support for the observations and determinations.
> 
> ..And to suggest that organizations such as NASA, NOAA and the US military are party to this daft conspiracy nonsense is ludicrous.
> 
> - Yonak


Look back through this thread for examples where your suggested strategies did not work so well. Every discussion involves filtering and summarizing. And what one side considers appropriate filtering and summarizing can usually be challenged by the other side as cherry picking and oversimplification.

Some conspiracies actually happened.

Time for me to get up from the computer and do something IRL.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Greg - I like your points and logic. Where I have the main problem(s) are when the science (whether right or wrong) is manipulated strictly for the "control" for the sake of money or control. The idea that we as people are going to "kill" the Earth is in itself ridiculous. The Bikini Islands are a prime example of this. With our "nuclear testing", we made the islands uninhabitable for people. When scientists went there, the radiation was still way too high for people but there were a surprising amount of critters living and thriving there.

Most decisions and laws are not based upon the science, the science is presented to justify the law - even if it means not telling the whole story or even making things fit a "what if" that is really off the wall just to say, "prove I'm wrong," knowing that it cannot easily be proven in the next 1,000 years. This is the real problem - it is not a conspiracy, it is control and manipulation to create fear and uncertainty.

The other problem is that many people eat it up because they are seriously scared that it might happen.

If you show me the real science that includes a model that is representative over a period of time (50-100 years is not covering a clear model that could be a several 1,000 year cycle), I am all ears. I will even go so far as a model that covers 75 years without volcanic activity (volcanoes have a profound impact on the climate and temperatures of the earth).

People DO have the ability to kill all of the people on the Earth!


----------



## Woodcut1 (Feb 23, 2016)

Man's arrogance and pride. Now he thinks he can control the environment and even destroy it. Man I have a surprise for you. God is in control. If man keeps shoving God aside like he is then we won't have to worry about the effects of global warming we will have to worry about the judgement of an angry God.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Greg - I like your points and logic. Where I have the main problem(s) are when the science (whether right or wrong) is manipulated strictly for the "control" for the sake of money or control. The idea that we as people are going to "kill" the Earth is in itself ridiculous. The Bikini Islands are a prime example of this. With our "nuclear testing", we made the islands uninhabitable for people. When scientists went there, the radiation was still way too high for people but there were a surprising amount of critters living and thriving there.
> 
> Most decisions and laws are not based upon the science, the science is presented to justify the law - even if it means not telling the whole story or even making things fit a "what if" that is really off the wall just to say, "prove I m wrong," knowing that it cannot easily be proven in the next 1,000 years. This is the real problem - it is not a conspiracy, it is control and manipulation to create fear and uncertainty.
> 
> ...


We've seen in this thread that humans produce (equivalent CO2) 11 Krakatoa eruptions every year.

Total CO2 production = total volume produced by 11 Krakatoas eruptions year after year. That would be 11 times the eruption that caused the loudest sound in modern history, heard 3,000 miles away and produced many climate events for a few years.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Man s arrogance and pride. Now he thinks he can control the environment and even destroy it. Man I have a surprise for you. God is in control. If man keeps shoving God aside like he is then we won t have to worry about the effects of global warming we will have to worry about the judgement of an angry God.
> 
> - Woodcut1


Thank you for your post, do you have any proof?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Most decisions and laws are not based upon the science, the science is presented to justify the law - even if it means not telling the whole story or even making things fit a "what if" that is really off the wall just to say, "prove I m wrong," knowing that it cannot easily be proven in the next 1,000 years. This is the real problem - it is not a conspiracy, it is control and manipulation to create fear and uncertainty
> 
> - dbray45


Exactly. The politicians who now want criminal charges for being a skeptic bring this on
As already shown the EPA regs are only to show political will. Regardless of having any effect on climate

The earth has been warming as we exited the ice ages.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Most decisions and laws are not based upon the science, the science is presented to justify the law - even if it means not telling the whole story or even making things fit a "what if" that is really off the wall just to say, "prove I m wrong," knowing that it cannot easily be proven in the next 1,000 years. This is the real problem - it is not a conspiracy, it is control and manipulation to create fear and uncertainty
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> ...


Really are there a lot of them? Are there pending bills to make it illegal? Has the president signed any laws making it a crime to be stupid, I mean a climate denier?

The regs are a start, I doubt the entire US industrial output poured into reversing climate change would be detectable on world climate. We need to start.

Do you have kids? I don't, I should be the one that doesn't want to pay… but as you said I'm selfish that way because I want to help people.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> Exactly. The politicians who now want criminal charges for being a skeptic bring this on
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Grossly misleading characterizations. I presume the first is in reference to Exxon, whose own research identified climate change as a business risk and not only did not divulge this risk to their share holders but also funded PR efforts to discredit any discussion of the possibility of climate change. Not divulging business risks to shareholders is a kind of fraud, even if there is significant uncertainty as to whether the risk will be realized. And the current warming rate is unlike anything observed previously (kinda like driving through the mountains and claiming the bolder in the road up ahead is of no concern because the road goes up and down more than that anyway).

The confidence with which DrDirt dismisses the possibility of human-driven climate change causing serious problems is completely unwarranted. There really isn't much question that human activity has caused a change; burning fossil fuels has indeed changed the composition of the atmosphere and in a way that warming is expected. The suggestion that this *cannot* cause serious problems is preposterous. The probability of serious problems may be less than 100%, *but it certainly is not 0%*.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Biologic activity can significantly change the Earth. It has before. The oxygen-rich atmosphere we depend upon is the result of biologic activity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologicalhistoryof_oxygen


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Lets talk about Co2 - Plants use Co2 to make oxygen - not a bad thing. Without it, we would would not have plants.

The more CO2, the greener the plants - now if we cut down all the trees and such, this could be a real problems


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Has the president signed any laws making it a crime to be stupid…...................?


No, but too bad they don't relax some of the standards that prevent them Darwining out before they can do much damage. Ignorance can be fixed, but stupid can't be ;-( Back when antibotics were first introduced, the warning was issued against over use and abuse. Nobody cared or listened. Today one risks infection by a superbug checking into a hospital. Too bad the greedy, the ignorant and worse are taking us all to mass extinction with them .


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

As for regulations - how about the EPA's push to eliminate oil based finishes? This puts such a burden on the ecology.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Speaking of EPA pushes, I hope they are successful in eliminating oxycodone from salmon's flesh in Puget Sound. I hate the nasty side affects after dinner ;-(


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> The confidence with which DrDirt dismisses the possibility of human-driven climate change causing serious problems is completely unwarranted. There really isn t much question that human activity has caused a change; burning fossil fuels has indeed changed the composition of the atmosphere and in a way that warming is expected. The suggestion that this *cannot* cause serious problems is preposterous. The probability of serious problems may be less than 100%, *but it certainly is not 0%*.
> 
> - GregD


That is pretty pathetic greg.

Never said this CANNOT be a problem with burning fuels.

What is missing is 
(1) What amount of warming is human caused… and more specifically caused by Americans.
(2) what POLICIES that ONLY affect Americans, would have on the global climate. (EPA says the regs they pass are "Just for Show")
(3) If we are indeed "adding" to the natural warming….is the global warming alarm, solely just a matter of time? That we will get 2 C temperature increase "NO MATTER WHAT"... it just may be a few years earlier on our present course? NO MATTER WHAT the polynesian islands will be covered by rising oceans, in the complete absence of man made warming?

Maybe if we were addressing the issue with SOLUTIONS… that are expected to have a Measurable impact within say a generation…. you get less push back.

Instead the Global Warming agenda is simply one of Control, not of problem solving.

Fact is that if the USA went cold turkey and didn't so much as burn parrafin Candles for light… would have no effect on global climate. China India Brazil Russia pump out more than us, and their emissions are increasing.

Subsahara Africa is also using more resources as the expand their electrical grids and infrastructure.

What the USA could honestly impact… by even draconian measures, is suspect. 
http://www.livescience.com/9281-global-warming-dire-prediction-year-3000.html
These folks say a global cold turkey on CO2 and we will still be getting hotter in the year 3000.

So what is being proposed that would affect this.
Instead of doing a better job of communication - we have the brownshirts, who plan to go after deniers.
Thought police…. some hoped the dark ages and "the inquisition" tactics were confined to history books… we have the new self appointed arbiters of the truth, to punish dissent…. how very Mao of them. our own little cultural revolution.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/attorneys-general-create-axis-for-global-warming-shakedown/


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Lets talk about Co2 - Plants use Co2 to make oxygen - not a bad thing. Without it, we would would not have plants.
> 
> The more CO2, the greener the plants - now if we cut down all the trees and such, this could be a real problems
> 
> - dbray45


Sure, and mammals use it to regulate their O2, that means as the CO2 goes up your body thinks you are getting more O2 than you are. What??? My body has a built in CO2/O2 ratio!! Ever use a paper bag to cure hiccups? That is what you did, you increased your CO2 intake and your body was satisfied that it was getting enough O2.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> As for regulations - how about the EPA s push to eliminate oil based finishes? This puts such a burden on the ecology.
> 
> - dbray45


Is it the oil itself or the VOCs liberated by using the finish? Try to think outside your little sandbox and think of millions of gallons of it being used.

I'm actually amazed in the retrograde mentality we have in congress that there is still and EPA.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Speaking of EPA pushes, I hope they are successful in eliminating oxycodone from salmon s flesh in Puget Sound. I hate the nasty side affects after dinner ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hmmm,

Take 2 Salmon steaks and call me in the morning.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> That is pretty pathetic greg.
> 
> Never said this CANNOT be a problem with burning fuels.
> 
> ...


Greg is spot on, as usual.

Here is a little table showing use by country and CO2 per person. Since China uses more than us, of course your little list is correct, however look at how close we actually are to China… We use more than Russia, India, Japan, & Germany combined. We need to lead by example on this issue, not whine like little babies about how unfair it is that others aren't trying yet The world needs a seachange on this issue.

1. China 8,715.31 6.52
2. United States 5,490.63 17.62
3. Russia 1,788.14 12.55
4. India 1,725.76 1.45
5. Japan 1,180.62 9.26
6. Germany 748.49 9.19
7. Iran 624.86 8.02
8. South Korea 610.95 12.53
9. Canada 552.56 16.24
10. Saudi Arabia 513.53 19.65
11. United Kingdom 496.80 7.92
12. Brazil 475.41 2.41


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

> (3) If we are indeed "adding" to the natural warming… in the complete absence of man made warming?
> 
> - DrDirt


Huh?



> Instead of doing a better job of communication - we have the brownshirts, who plan to go after deniers.
> Thought police…. some hoped the dark ages and "the inquisition" tactics were confined to history books… we have the new self appointed arbiters of the truth, to punish dissent…. how very Mao of them. our own little cultural revolution.
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/attorneys-general-create-axis-for-global-warming-shakedown/
> 
> - DrDirt


This seems like bait and switch. Your points 1 and 2 are not completely unreasonable. But this last bit is inflammatory rubbish.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

> Never said this CANNOT be a problem with burning fuels.
> 
> Maybe if we were addressing the issue with SOLUTIONS… that are expected to have a Measurable impact within say a generation…. you get less push back.
> 
> - DrDirt


Now we're getting somewhere. This is a turning point in this conversation. Maybe now that we've got past the silliness of whether science is real or not, we can move on and work together finding a solution. Whether it's possible to get significant rebound within a generation or not .. after all it's taken 150 years to get to the sorry state we're in .. is scarcely pertinent. We need to work toward a solution no matter how long it takes. The alternative outcome wound be just too catastrophic.


----------



## roadwarrior (Sep 1, 2014)

Thanks Russel - good shout about the media - I think they gag themselves - The US recently aired a documentary series by the legendary David Attenborough, the last program in the series was NOT aired because it detailed climate change and population explosion stuff. Very sad - still when the temperate tree species are dead we'll have a glut of very cheap oak on the market and we will be able to grow exotic tropical trees in England.
Silver lining )


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> (3) If we are indeed "adding" to the natural warming… in the complete absence of man made warming?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Not a trick question… if tyhe only thing humans are doing is increasing the slope of natural warming.
Isn't the melting of icecaps inevitable?.... No matter what man does?
If so…
The sea level will rise…. all we are talking about is pushing it up a few years? exactly how many years are we talking about.?

if it is happening no matter what… should our resources be focused on fortifications of shoreline, and engineering solutions, because Warming is happening… and less on REGULATION of CO2?

Maybe we should consider getting the politics… and the "lets fall on our collective swords to be good examples" bunk. To the person that loses their job and trains their foreign replacements…. CO2 is far down the list vs. rent and groceries, while we give those that are getting our jobs a pass on regulation.


----------



## MapleJack1 (Mar 28, 2016)

Great Share and I totally agree. It is unfortunate the development of human error, greed, carelessness, and predictions were downplayed because it had too many other scientists that were not quite convinced, basically, it's ignorance or willful blindness, "If there is knowledge that you could have had and should have had but chose not to have, you are still responsible." for more than 100 years it has been proven there is a problem. It started in late 1800 with a scientist who noticed and documented with strong advice that we are producing way too much carbon fast forward to 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. who conveyed their predictions to us a clear view of catastrophic events to come and our government and other leaders til this day continue to ignore and neglect our future of well-being, has been long lost due to greed. It is unfathomable with the amount carelessness, you can call it a form of genocide but with the HUMANRACE , not any particular race or ethnicity. Perhaps a lack of better word "annihilation"!

It has been forgotten the excrement by human and animals are also part of the increase of carbon. We are just eating and wasting way too much food along with all of the increase of animals to feed our world, which is not a problem for how many people who are starving when others eat too much. That is another story! I should stop here. It can be a book before I am done. LOL

Just some thoughts to share. Thank you for allowing me to vent!


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/carbon_delusions_and_defective_models.html


----------



## Woodcut1 (Feb 23, 2016)

Thank you for your question. If you won't believe God and the Bible why would you believe me. God is in control of all of this. Yes, we are responsible to be good stewards of this earth and I am all for that and do my part the best I can . There has always been warm and cold cycles in the earth for years. This doesn't mean we are doomed. They said they had proof that carbon emissions were causing global warming, ice burgs to melt, sea to rise etc. Except it has been proven more than once that the data they based this on was in error. We see some of this data in these post. I am not against anyone for believing this way. You are scared of what is happening and have genuine concern for the environment. It just that I don't rest in my hope in man to fix it. If you are right and global warming exist man caused the problem. Not just in the US but around the world. Many nations today pollut much more than we do. Man is not going to fix this problem and I am sorry you refuse to believe this but God is in control of all things. The proof is in history as far back as we can go. If man sins against God, God is long suffering and will forgive and forgive until finally if man continues to decay morally and serves other gods the only true and living God will pass judgement.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

We're doomed.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

From American Thinker *The relentless war on carbon is justified by the false assumption that global temperature is controlled by human production of two carbon-bearing "greenhouse gases." *

Of course it is not. However, when they cancelled all airplane flights after 911 for a day, the temperature rose 1.5 degrees due to the jet vapor not reflecting heat back into to space. WE do not control, but we certainly have significant impact. The issue is probably moot; it is too late to change the significant impacts. Specie extinction is increasing at an alarming rate.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Thank you for your question. If you won t believe God and the Bible why would you believe me. God is in control of all of this. Yes, we are responsible to be good stewards of this earth and I am all for that and do my part the best I can . There has always been warm and cold cycles in the earth for years. This doesn t mean we are doomed. They said they had proof that carbon emissions were causing global warming, ice burgs to melt, sea to rise etc. Except it has been proven more than once that the data they based this on was in error. We see some of this data in these post. I am not against anyone for believing this way. You are scared of what is happening and have genuine concern for the environment. It just that I don t rest in my hope in man to fix it. If you are right and global warming exist man caused the problem. Not just in the US but around the world. Many nations today pollut much more than we do. Man is not going to fix this problem and I am sorry you refuse to believe this but God is in control of all things. The proof is in history as far back as we can go. If man sins against God, God is long suffering and will forgive and forgive until finally if man continues to decay morally and serves other gods the only true and living God will pass judgement.
> 
> - Woodcut1


I envy your certainty. I have to decide how I feel on each issue on what I see.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Not a trick question… if tyhe only thing humans are doing is increasing the slope of natural warming.
> Isn t the melting of icecaps inevitable?.... No matter what man does?
> If so…
> The sea level will rise…. all we are talking about is pushing it up a few years? exactly how many years are we talking about.?
> ...


Build a 50 foot dam around NYC or the whole coast from Texas to Maine? That won't cost much at all. Perhaps you should rethink that one puppy. I calculate that will cost 7,856 times the world's economic output. Which is far more than changing our current habits will cost.

Also, we have ice cores that are dated to 750,000 years, so nothing is inevitable. That is just more inflammatory rubbish.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> WE do not control, but we certainly have significant impact. The issue is probably moot; it is too late to change the significant impacts. Specie extinction is increasing at an alarming rate.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I just liken it to a few thousand people driving Prius' does not mean they are saving the world.. just polluting LESS than somebody else..
Similarly, if we are going to exempt the largest polluters, and those that are on the uptick on pollution… deforestation of Brazil=less carbon uptake… Climate issues around rainfall and erosion into the amazon basin. But that 'doesn't count" because they are developing
Same with China, and India.

The whole "be a leader" schtick, sounds good. But when the result of those "LEADERSHIP efforts" is just more offshoring production to the places that have opted out of such agreements, while we implement higher standards, is a double hit:

(1) We lose in our economy for jobs income and growth, but additionally, the products will now be made in a MORE POLLUTING factory than it would have been if it stayed here.

When the result of our effort is to simply screw ourselves because everyone else is "bending us over for doing the right thing".... what have we accomplished to avoid extinction? *We defacto made the WORLD WORSE… by moving production to dirtier locations.* And pounding our chests about how much cleaner we are now that we got rid of those nasty factories

Not unlike the jobs discussion on the Wealth Thread… some of this can be better managed by tariffs on Trade. Making Ford Cars in the USA instead of Mexico is cleaner…. but Mexico has cheaper labor, and fewer controls on environment.

We need to make it attractive to make things HERE….CLEANLY (or UNATTRACTIVE to offshore)


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Toyota has sold 1.5 million Prius in the US alone, so you are off by a huge factor. That is 15,000 thousands in your parlance. They are not saving the world, but they are trying to help save the world. polluting less is important to them, who are you to mock them?

Mexico is doing as well as we are on changing. 
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/newzealand.html

Imagine what will happen as Mexico's economy grows. They will approach the US and Canada. Isn't that pretty good?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Toyota has sold 1.5 million Prius in the US alone, so you are off by a huge factor. That is 15,000 thousands in your parlance.
> 
> - RobS888


No Poindexter… you are off by a factor of 10… 15,000 thousands would be 15 million not 1.5 million.


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

What do Prius use for fuel?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> What do Prius use for fuel?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Coal and Gasoline


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Mexico is doing as well as we are on changing.
> http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/newzealand.html
> 
> Imagine what will happen as Mexico s economy grows. They will approach the US and Canada. Isn t that pretty good?
> ...


Good Question… Lets use your source…. The USA is declining… Canada and Mexico are both increasing… Canada is flagged as "inadequate" 
I will certainly concede that Mexico is WAY WAY better than India, China and Brazil… but the baseline in the discussion is USA, so…..
'
'


























'
'

Then if we look at the major polluters,... and those set to pass the USA up China, Brazil and India…
ESPECIALLY the green curve for Brazil which is the effect of Deforestation I already addressed
'
'



























'
'

It appears that my analysis is dead on Accurate, using your sources. Offshoring to these polluters is making the world worse.
*
SEEMS LIKE WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH A NEGATIVE SLOPE FOR POLICY THROUGH 2030*


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Toyota has sold 1.5 million Prius in the US alone, so you are off by a huge factor. That is 15,000 thousands in your parlance.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Good catch, I was indeed of by a factor ten, however you were off by a factor of more than 100, just for the US!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> What do Prius use for fuel?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Gasoline and momentum.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Dr dirt,

If we are only talking about who needs to fix it (ignoring our former massive pollution) then as Yonak says you have made great strides grasshopper. Good job!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Let's talk about the 22,000 mile dam around the US now.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Good catch, I was indeed of by a factor ten, however you were off by a factor of more than 100, just for the US!
> 
> - RobS888


I wasn't off at all. I only said:
I just liken it to a few thousand people driving Prius' does not mean they are saving the world.. just polluting LESS than somebody else.

Not that a few thousand represents the total of a decade of Toyota sales of G/EV hybrids. Just the general point that hybrids are insignificant…. like measuring sea level before and after pissing in the ocean.

But if you want to base it on numbers:
http://time.com/money/3654905/toyota-prius-hybrids-sales-decline/

What's more, according to the Detroit Free Press, overall sales of gas-electric hybrids like the Prius were on pace to fall 9% for the year.

In 2013, gas-electric hybrids accounted for 3.2% of all light vehicle sales in the U.S. Last year, that figure dipped to just 2.8%.

Prius is about 1/3 of the total hybrid market… SO point is that 1% or the driving market making a 'choice' doesn't move the needle on CO2 emissions.

Cars represent ~7% of CO2 (Half of the 14% of CO2 coming from transportation)

so if you look at current USA Average MPG… it is now 25.5mpg according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
Prius' gets 50 mpg. (so uses 1/2 the fuel of average)

So then for CO2, you have 1% of the 7% using 50% less fuel.
1% or 7% is 0.07% of the 'polluters'... reduced thier piece by 50%. (assuming equal driving distance per year)

so there is a 0.035% reduction changing from an "average" car to a prius.
I doubt there are a lot of SUV drivers that made the switch…. more likely the people that biought a Hybrid, were already driving a Corolla to start with… so the improvement is even less.










Just makes them feel good about themselves, as they go to therapy after seeing "trump" written in chalk on the sidewalk.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Another rabbit hole that means nothing. We all know the difference between a few and 1,500 puppy.

Could you show me where the students requested therapy, with direct quotes from the school or students asking please?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Cricket,

Since Dr dirt has seen the light you may as well close this thread down!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Another rabbit hole that means nothing. We all know the difference between a few and 1,500 puppy.
> 
> Could you show me where the students requested therapy, with direct quotes from the school or students asking please?
> 
> - RobS888


Here
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7441
"This is so reflective of our student campus and the depths of racism and the things that students of color have to endure and that the administration is continuously silent on," said Banen Al-Sheemary, one of the students who contacted police about the chalkings.

Al-Sheemary also complained that she had to call campus police at all, saying the university* should provide other resources that students can turn to when they encounter such emergencies* as pro-Trump slogans.

Emergency Emergency!!! Somebody posted a slogan….. ha ha ha ha What would the 'police' do if somebody felt threatened by "Hillary 2016" written on the ground…. pffffft!

-----------
Ahh Rob the arbiter of speech… wants the thread closed, after being owned by his own sources, and lack of basic math skills.
Priceless!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> WE do not control, but we certainly have significant impact. The issue is probably moot; it is too late to change the significant impacts. Specie extinction is increasing at an alarming rate.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Since *a few thousand people driving Prius* cannot save the world, they should pollute more to keep up with us?

A year or two ago, I think National Geographic reported on the escalating rate of specie extinction. I suppose we shouldn't worry to much about them. After all, they ain't us. But, clear back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there was a sporing goods company whose motto was *"Man cannot live where wildlife cannot survive."* Herter's is long gone. I guess too much extinction in Minnesota for them ;-(


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Here
> http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7441
> "This is so reflective of our student campus and the depths of racism and the things that students of color have to endure and that the administration is continuously silent on," said Banen Al-Sheemary, one of the students who contacted police about the chalkings.
> 
> ...


Oh, a new incident, where is the counciling? When I t comes to racism, I defer to the people that are the (sadly all too common) target in this very prejudiced country. Disturbing thing is to some people Trump is as scary as the KKK.

My source proved you wrong *puppy*, and your logic *fail* is far worse than an extra zero, but dream on.

I suggested closing the thread as a joke because the last vocal, uh lunkhead has finally givin up and moved on to claiming we shouldn't have to pay for what we did

Let's talk about your 22,000 mile dam now? Will you get Mexico to pay for it?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Why not have China make enough shovels and give them all H1Bs so they can build it at a bargain rate?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Why not have China make enough shovels and give them all H1Bs so they can build it at a bargain rate?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Lol, I can see it now, the gw bush III (the dumbest) government after years of denying that the water flooding the mall was actually water, hires 1 million Chinese dam builders to construct the Dam bush, I mean bush dam. To save money they use cheap imported dirt and 50% air entraining cement that breaks off and floats away during the first storm to hit it. President Bush, who inherited his grandfathers big ears and prolonged vacant stares, claimed the floating cement would help slow the daily flooding along the east coast.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

No worries mate; man will fix this mess in a jiffy.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Since *a few thousand people driving Prius* cannot save the world, they should pollute more to keep up with us?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not the extrapolation I was shooting for, rather that a relative handful making a change is not going to make a dent in the problems. If you buy a Prius, and Everyone in teh neighborhood drives a hummer.. (1) you are only polluting LESS…not CLEANING squat. and your choice is not going to "FIX" the global temperature.

That is what we have here…. our EPA and other agencies point to climate as the greatest existential threat facing mankind

I'm not saying "Fu-k it… Lets trash the place" I believe:
If we are the only ones that are going to make any significant changes…. that won't work, and perhaps make things worse..

Rather - If we truly believe that Carbon Trading is the way to go… it is a painful crap sandwich… that EVERYONE should take a bite of - and that our competitors in global trade shouldn't have a pass.

Second - when the *net results of our regulation, is moving manufacturing from the USA to China* (or Brazil or Mexico or India or or or)... that is actually moving BACKWARDS

Which factory do you think is less polluting (scaled to plane size)... Boeing there in Washington, or Embraer in Brazil? (Today)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

DR Dirt, All that needs to be addressed with public trade policy by a Congress of civilized citizens, not corporate prostitutes.



> No worries mate; man will fix this mess in a jiffy.
> 
> - mahdee


What will people do? Sit on the beach sipping Tequila Sunrises? Where will find enough beaches?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Since *a few thousand people driving Prius* cannot save the world, they should pollute more to keep up with us?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Where is 1.5 million Prius owners a handful? How about all hybrids in US? 3.5 million of them, do they constitute more than a "handful" Ted?

What do you care what they do or say if they are helping? They are polluting less on purpose.

You are just arguing out of habit now, you have pretty much admitted we are right. You just seem to be saying you hate their smugness? Did you date a Prius owner? Was your boss into them? Why so much hatred towards people that are trying to help?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> DR Dirt, All that needs to be addressed with public trade policy by a Congress of civilized citizens, not corporate prostitutes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No argument there.
But it seems we do a lot of stuff … To LOOK like we are taking action. (like the EPA story above) Instead of implementing plans with Measureable Goals, and a bit of forethought into how to ensure the results (like the trade policy piece). If we just demand "our factories" meet some new draconian regulation…

When they shut down and move away… the US people have lost their jobs, and the Factory is now polluting more, just somewhere else, Yet the goal is GLOBAL Climate Change mitigation.

I see nobody that will offer any kind of reasoned approach.
Frankly Trump is right when he points out that the Trade deals are negotiated by politicians, who are poor negotiators. In the end, the goal becomes "A Deal" with a clever name to be held up as a presidential accomplishment


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Where is 1.5 million Prius owners a handful? How about all hybrids in US? 3.5 million of them, do they constitute more than a "handful" Ted?


Lowering the emission on ~1% of the US cars is pissing in the wind. If it makes their socks roll up and down… Great.
But it accurate to say their impact is ….UN measureable vs. Imeasureable.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

- mahdee

What will people do? Sit on the beach sipping Tequila Sunrises? Where will find enough beaches?

- TopamaxSurvivor
[/QUOTE]
I am sure a few more "just wars" will take care of that as well. When humans are in charge, solutions are easy.


----------



## Yonak (Mar 27, 2014)

. . . Meanwhile, Nero fiddles.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Some Tango


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> DR Dirt, All that needs to be addressed with public trade policy by a Congress of civilized citizens, not corporate prostitutes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> ...


Do you have a solution that would pass a republican congress? Otherwise we all do what we can, while some sit on the side pointing and whining.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Some Tango
> 
> - waho6o9


Ah you prefer presidents that hold hands with other men?









Or that give a little kiss…









Or do this?









How many wars or financial crisises were going on this day?









Seriously what is this a cheerleader face?


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

Democrats always start the wars and republicans finish them so, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show. 
And here is the result of $15 minimum wage:


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

No Rob, you missed the point:

You have to hand it to the Community Organizer in Chief. While the rest of the world fretted about the terror attacks in Brussels that killed at least two Americans, Obama kept his head. Cool as a cucumber, he did the wave at a ballgame with a communist dictator, and then headed to Argentina to enjoy the nightlife:

- See more at: http://moonbattery.com/?s=tango#sthash.hSMHn7od.dpuf


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

> Democrats always start the wars and republicans finish them so, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.
> And here is the result of $15 minimum wage:
> 
> 
> ...


If you are going to do it yourself may as well do it at home for 25% cost ;-)

Rob, 
That just say no to everything was started when Jim Demint convinced the R leaders to just say no to Obama everything even things the Rs support. They are bound and determined the first black president will not get credit for a single thing accomplished. One of the biggest problems with Romney care that was adopted nationwide as Obama care is all the R states refused to participate. They would rather see their citizens die. Isn't that murder, or at least negligent man slaughter?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> No Rob, you missed the point:
> 
> You have to hand it to the Community Organizer in Chief. While the rest of the world fretted about the terror attacks in Brussels that killed at least two Americans, Obama kept his head. Cool as a cucumber, he did the wave at a ballgame with a communist dictator, and then headed to Argentina to enjoy the nightlife:
> 
> ...


Then your comment makes less sense! What should he have done? Sat with a book upside down for 9 minutes?

Nothing he does while he is black will ever be ok with you guys. Tell me what he could have done to improve the situation? Also, the trip was a pretty big deal.

And isn't it to soon to talk about the deaths? I mean, when there is a mass shooting republicans always say this isnt the time.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Democrats always start the wars and republicans finish them so, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.
> And here is the result of $15 minimum wage:
> 
> - mahdee


Interesting, but how does that apply? It is for specialty coffees that come out of a machine, not drip coffee. Also it was in Chicago, not Seattle or CA.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Embracing communists is a Fools errand.

Inking an Iranian deal is another Fools errand.

It's the content of the character Sir, not the color of ones skin.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Democrats always start the wars and republicans finish them so, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.
> And here is the result of $15 minimum wage:
> 
> - mahdee
> ...


 I heard that, Bill Maher says they act like he is President Blackenstein!

Wasn't it 10 years ago congress flipped democratic again? Time for a big change. Hopefully as those idiot governors are replaced they can join the ACA (based on Republican idea).


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?AID=7236

The American Climate Change Inquisition has no use for the First Amendment. 








16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against 'Climate Change Disbelievers'

Democrats are going to ram this like they did that stupid ACA whether you like it or not.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Do you have a solution that would pass a republican congress? Otherwise we all do what we can, while some sit on the side pointing and whining.
> 
> - RobS888


NO… but I think they should pass "SOLUTIONS".... The EPA sets the rules without congress.
Congress can strike down regulations… just as the Supreme court cand be a check/balance for unconstitutional laws.
That doesn't change the fact that the people that are PAID to be experts in environmental policy… are a bunch of stuffed shirts, passing off some window dressing, and suing people for having a pond on thier ranches.

Your opinion that we should "pass a bunch of crap just for SHOW… INSTEAD of real action…. is not the path forward, regardless of what you feel about congressional cooperation.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Ah you prefer presidents that hold hands with other men?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow you play the race card against anyone regarding obamacare….

but it appears you need to put your hood back on you Homophobe.

While cultural norms are appropriate, why do you have a problem with a president that would hold another mans hand? Are you afraid you might "catch their Gay"?

Suppose you also hate the French and Italians, because they kiss on the cheek too?

You need to move from Maryland to Biloxi Mississippi, where you would fit right in.


----------



## Mahdeew (Jul 24, 2013)

I just noticed, Bush has small hands!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?AID=7236
> 
> The American Climate Change Inquisition has no use for the First Amendment.
> 
> ...


The "author" of that story works for the people that came up with the basics of the ACA.

Also, he has no understanding of the Spanish inqusition.

It was primarily an antisemitic inquisition. They were looking for Jews and Muslims pretending to be Christians.

You are criticizing the ACA and quoting an employe who works for the conservative group that came up with the idea. He is using an ignorant comparison that is as stupid as comparing President Obama to Hitler!

Sheesh how sad!

P.S. Did you know that more people are killed in the US with handguns in 4 months than were executed in the Spanish Inqusition (3,000)?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Do you have a solution that would pass a republican congress? Otherwise we all do what we can, while some sit on the side pointing and whining.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Another straw man rabbit hole there.

If that pond runs to a river than you had better keep it clean! I'm totally behind that.

Are actual degrees scientists stuffed shirts to you?


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Wow you play the race card against anyone regarding obamacare….
> 
> but it appears you need to put your hood back on you Homophobe.
> 
> ...


I feel racism is the main issue for many Obama haters. I think he has been great, I just wish he didn't try to get a long with the brain dead republicans that would rather see the country suffer for several years than work with him.

So are you defending Obama's tango? You are full of progressive ideas of late Ted.

I think I'll stay here in the very progressive MD. I hate the Deep South.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Embracing communists is a Fools errand.
> 
> Inking an Iranian deal is another Fools errand.
> 
> ...


I just find that really hard to believe.

If Bush had done either of those things you would be proud of him,

Could we stay on climate change here, we can discuss why you hated Obama in Jan-09 in another thread.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Wow you play the race card against anyone regarding obamacare….
> 
> but it appears you need to put your hood back on you Homophobe.
> 
> ...


Just wondering what you have against gay people that in Your words :
Ah you prefer presidents that hold hands with other men?
Or that give a little kiss…

Meaning you would NOT support such a person….??

Suppose your weekend plan is to put on your sheet, and go tie someone to a fencepost?

As for the Tango… don't care, just that when you say Obama had huge important things to do on that Presidential trip, rather than the latest terror attacks,.
Cuba I Agree. - - long history there…. we deal with and trade with and travel to Russia now, time to move on with Cuba.

He should have returned afterwards… but instead his "quick trip to Argentina" was pretty useless… except of course the real reason to go:
The US president will now travel to the southern tourist resort of Bariloche, nearly 1,000 miles from Buenos Aires, on 24 March to play golf.
Figures! A round of golf always seems to trump terror bodycount.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/04/obama-urged-not-visit-argentina-40th-anniversary-military-coup


----------



## roadwarrior (Sep 1, 2014)

Woodcut one - if its god's will, who gets the money ? )


----------



## Cricket (Jan 15, 2014)

Reminders…

Respect For Others
http://lumberjocks.com/CricketWalker/blog/42535

Fine Line of Inflammatory Topics
http://lumberjocks.com/CricketWalker/blog/45321


----------

