Actually, it's American not USian. That's what out retarded cousins across the big lake say in attempts to show their ignorance and piss people off.
I think many people realize that things weren't perfect before Bush. In general however, it seemed that liberty, before Bush, was taken seriously. Now, security is the big thing and is somehow more important than freedom. I guess different generations have different priorities.
Every generation, or portions of it, thinks the president took some freedom away from them. It's generally when they start growing up and realizing their idealized world isn't as they imagined. Sometimes liberties are actually attacked and so on but not really in the Bush case. Most if not all of the so called infringements on freedom either extend from previous administration (free speech zones), or only effect a very small subset of people participating in a very small set of activities (wire taps on international calls, and so on). In fact, most of the so called trampling of freedom and liberty that happened, happened to foreigners found or captured in a battlefield as the result of war.
You can't copyright facts but you can copyright collections of facts.
This would be where anyone standing at the station would be able to know how many people got on the train or what time the train showed up. The collection of facts would be when you do this and present it in a usable form like a database for a real time tracking application.
However, I still think fraud is at play here because he was paid to do X in which he is limiting by breaking a process in X because he wants more pay.
If you actually read it, then you wouldn't have made the comment you did unless you are trolling yourself.
Remember this, you can't use the same style that your railing against in order to discredit something without discrediting yourself. That's your problem, not mine.
Show me a graph with the last 20 years. Or the last 50. Or the last 5. Quoting an unusual number like that is a tactic of political hacks known as "selecting data", and it's a fairly well-known slander.
IIRC, 2001 was the hottest year EVER. It was an outlier, a data point some ten to fifteen years ahead of us. It does not, by itself, disprove the the larger trend.
Actually, 1998 was the hottest year on record, 2001 lost it's place when it was discovered that there was an error in the way they averaged the temps in the US.
As for the graph, if you can find one that matches between different agencies. Anyways, we will simply go with this and this
I had not heard this before. Got a link?
Lol.. You haven't been paying attention then. That or you have only been listening to the quire and not the sermon. You can find this information on any temp map. Most of the glacier melting is caused by volcanic activity and sublimation. This was a point brought out by the misleading claims of Al Gore's reeducation movie where it incorrectly listed Mount Kilimanjaro as a global warming poster child. The glaciers in the antarctic where the temp averages 70 below use a combination of a process called super cooling and warning but through water and water vapor not anthropogenic green house gasses.
Only 700? Are any of them climatologists, with a proven record of predicting climate change on any level? Among this 700, is there a consensus borne about by study, or are they what politics would suggest they are -- shills paid for by those who profit from the status quo.
If you continuously discount someone or something because of where it came from, then you will continuously not know the entire truth. The so called concensus in the first place was only 300 scientists with not all of them meeting your criteria. Hell, most of them didn't even know they were participating until they were told what some of their work was being used for.
In fact, this entire consensus thing is a crock of shit to begin with, science doesn't take a popular vote to determine if something is valid or not. Science doesn't ignore the facts (observations) that screw the experiments up because they don't like the political associations or funding sources of the people bringing it forward. Think about where we would be if we did lock everything into one way because of a consensus. The world would probably still be flat, the sun would still orbit the earth, and Leaches would probably still be the best way to cure serious illnesses. Take your consensus and your criteria and apply it to days of future's past. You can easily see how silly it is.
There are over 6 billion people in the world. (I can provide a link for that if you doubt it.) Even if we assume that only one in a million is a publishing climatologist qualified to speak on the topic, that gives us a body of over 6,000. If the score is 5300 v 700, then the 88.3% have consensus.
Lol.. You making the mistake of assuming that everyone qualified is commenting on it. I can see how obvious but misleading mistakes like this surround you. Not all qualified scientists are commenting, the original consensus existed because a list of papers did not say man was not the cause of global warming. Now many of these papers were there before the concept of global warming existed and I say it's fraudulent to attempt to manipulate the data in that way, but hey, you accept it right? Sure you are, you are automatically assuming that every qualified scientist is working in that area and is commenting on anthropogenic global warming and that a list of 700 who don't agree with the current model or findings, many of which a
No, they did not "ignore" it. They actually READ the fucking paper and debunked it in detail.
Lol.. No they didn't, at least not in any more detail then the paper itself. They picked on two points in a 98 page report, pointed out that he was an economist and then dismissed everything that is from a source they didn't like. That is no better then the report itself.
Why don't you read the fucking link you presented.
I'm really not seeing your counterpoint. If the government charges an oil company $30 for the right to put a ton of CO2 in the air, which cost is passed down to the consumer, and then gives said consumer $30, how is the consumer negatively affected? If he pays all that $30 back to the oil company, then nothing has really changed. If the consumer finds a way to cut his oil use, so that he can spend $20 on other things, then he's made $20 better off.
Where are you getting that the consumer is going to get the $30? The tax isn't going to the people, it's going into the government coffers. I'm not sure where your getting that idea from but please show me.
"The trade part" doesn't have much to do with this part of the discussion. Really, "the trade part" (the ability to sell permits purchased from the government) has nothing but upside, because it reduces the amount that needs to be passed on to the consumer. If you get rid of "the trade part", all that's left is "cap". You buy the permit from the government at a set price, and then you use the permit. You can't sell the permit to a third party if you've found a cheap way to curb your emissions, or buy a permit at a lower price if it's too expensive to do so. There is one price, and that price is the government's wild-assed guess.
The trade part is the most ludicrous idea yet. A company can just relocate their operations off shore and have a surplus of credits to be had at a premium. But more importantly, there are ways to phase a cap in by demanding all expansion and replacement of existing power generation is carbon neutral or a percentage less. This will create a slower transistion and negate all the bullshit and hope that someone will change something. The problem is that they know the alternatives is expensive and instead of doing something about that expense, they are attempting to make regular energy just as expensive while lining their pockets and the pockets of their contributors.
You need a brief refresher on the difference between correlation and causation. The Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006. But it is either naive or dishonest to attribute the housing bust, the economic downturn, or the energy price spike to Congressional Democrats. The Republicans had owned the House since 1994, the Senate since 1996, the Presidency since 2000, and arguably the Supreme Court early in 2006. Once the Democrats did obtain control of Congress, they were basically ineffectual, both because they tended towards spinelessness, and because they didn't have the numbers to override a presidential veto.
It seems that you need a refresher course in history. The republicans did not own the house or senate. All but a few of those years was a marginal lead with the better half of 2000 and on being only by a few if not one senator. Remember, it took a gang of 14- 7 republicans and 7 democrats to bust a philobuster threat. That's not owning anything. The dems had a larger lead in 2006 then the republicans did since 1998.
Also, I didn't blame the entire housing bust and economic collapse on energy costs. I said it brought it about which isn't what you think. That means it was a major contributing factor.
would argue that, any time the Republican party has effective control over the House, Senate, or Presidency, the government is essentially a Republican one. The reason is simple: in order for the Democrats to further their political philosophy, they have to actually pass legislation. The Republican political philosophy is such that they can simply win with a tie. They can keep the government from raising taxes or increasing human services, and they can simply wait for old legislation to collapse under the weight of its own unforseen consequences.
And I would argue that you are batshit crazy. Whenever the house and senate are as close as they were, coop
Wow, a pro global warming site ignores claims taken from a anti global warming biased site. The problem is still there, if the information is being ignored with guilt by association, then how is it supposed to be peer reviewed? Or better yet, how can we trust the peer reviewed information when when it is ignoring information based on someone's associations?
Does that make sense to you? I mean if ever peer revised person thinks 2x3 equals 5 and they are ignoring the case that it's actually 6, then their justifications for it solving to 5 is invalid in the first place. Here you are essentially saying that "It's not important, because these people I like say that the content is from those people I don't like." Since when is science about that at all?
But in our country, we have an implicit agreement that it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, so serving the government is at least indirectly serving the people.
No we don't, that was part of lincoln's Gettysburg address created 100 years after our government was. The context is completely different then what you are attempting to claim is as too. The "of the people" meant that the people were chosen from within the citizens instead of a distance king appointing a governor from a far off land as was the case not only before the revolution but also in most other British colonies (remember brave heart?).
The "by the people" meant that the people had a say in who these leaders were. It doesn't mean they elected them to do their bidding. I meant that they got representation. Originally the house of representatives was the only representation to boot. Senators were selected by the state, the president was selected by the state, and the representatives was selected by the people. The federal government is not supposed to be, and never was supposed to be, some wipe your runny nose all encompassing government. It was originally intended to be a state of states handling the complexities of 13 countries (states) working together under a unified front for both the protection and prosperity of the state. The people are within the state but are not the only area of concern.
The "for the people" meant that our efforts and labor was for ourselves and our country/state and not some foreign corporation or king of a distant land. This was also the case before the revolution as with almost all of the British colonies around the world.
Once you realize that the government is not supposed to "serve you" you can easily see that is is no corrupt or anything to the sort. There is nothing implied here and you are falling for a trick used by some politicians in order to gain your confidence and spark outrage at their opposition.
That being said, our public conversation in America has devolved to one nearly exclusively around money, which erodes any truly noble claims to service. Instead of encouraging nobility in our public servants, we are left with a conversation that either government workers are suckers for working for cheap or villains for finding imaginative ways to profit personally from their station.
This is because you are forming the conversation around ignorance and not reality. No country can function if it's inhabitants are not prosperous and money takes a large part in that. The founding fathers were either rich business owners or plantation owners so looking after enterprise shouldn't be anything that surprises you. In fact, the only reason you are surprised or upset over this is because of your misinformed conception that public servant actually means someone to serve you.
The government's job is to make the country prosperous, safe from invaders, and to regulate interactions between the states. And even then, their regulation between the states if somewhat limited. There is a reason the Constitution says that the federal government shall ensure each state has a republic form of government and not a democracy government. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you stop tilting at windmills and can effect some real change if that is you goal.
Because people hired to make noise must be disregarded eventually. But since the noise-making apparently succeded enough to get a slashdot post, I can at least link to an examination at deep climate.
Lol.. You link to a rebuttal on a pro-global warming site that basically says- he has/references work done by people we don't like so we are not going to accept it. Isn't that exactly what I just said was wrong?
Short version: He cut and pasted from various contrarian blogs and astroturf organisations - the ones that are now shouting censorhip - rewriting it slightly to remove too obvious editorialising. The actual content is standard issue denialist fare: misrepresenting papers (and ignoring the protests when the author complains), along with some long discredited talking points (global warming stopped in 1998, and anyway it was the sun and cosmic rays that did it)
And the question is, is that information correct or incorrect. His report was an analysis of the state of global warming, not any particular research. So the question goes back to, why is it that all of the research and crap claimed that global warming supporters don't like is automagically dismissed based on an association instead of the claims when they themselves attempt to claim that peer review of the science makes their evidence strong. We are still at an impasse where certain claims are being completely ignored in favor of reviews of what someone wants to work.
Now, you may be brainwashed to believe that this is perfectly fine, but on the surface, it presents a very real impressions of manipulation of the evidence and a political hijacking. In fact, when you look at how politics dominate this topic, you have to wonder if science is actually driving it at all. Science doesn't dismiss people's claims because they have associations with people, it doesn't ignore claims because of someone's color of skin or religion, it doesn't ignore anything, it either evaluates a claim supports it or refutes it but it does so based on evidence present not because someone got money from an oil company 50 years ago while working on a project in college as they were getting their degree.
In short, what you are accepting is not science at all. It's more like a religion and yelling blasphemy is the best way to counter those who say the world is not flat or it revolves around the sun-not the other way around. And no, you cannot refute my statement by doing the same I am complaining about.
So are you saying that we should believe as you do and ignore the false teachings of Blasphemers?
Seriously, Either evaluate their claims or don't mention them. This entire idea that your position is more right because whoever you believe said so and I'm going to find a way to ignore your position because I don't like what's behind you is exactly as a religion has historically done. It isn't science, and dismissing something based on association of because they have red socks on says nothing about the legitimacy of their claims and more or less shows how people of the religion are scared to actually think about them.
It sure as hell isn't science, well maybe it is and your science book is outdated.
First, the earth has not gotten warming in the last 11 years, since 2001, it has actually been cooling despite a rise in Co2 and other GHGs. Second, melting glaciers when the outside air is below freezing is not caused by global warming. We did have the sensors set up with the sea ice and after 11 months of claims of it disappearing, they finally had to track down the problem of drift which is a natural occurrence and make a statement about it that got just a few days coverage. Australia who is operating the other half of the antarctic claims that the glaciers there are growing and they don't understand the American side making all the claims about everything diapering.
And finally, there are more scientist disputing or questioning global warming or the hysteria and rush to tame it as it stands then there was in the consensus to begin with. There is 700 or more world wide speaking out against the doom and gloom. IF you have to make a claim that scientists got together and unified on something, then it's only fair to show the updated unification.
This isn't religion, this is science. In religion you can have as extraorindary a claim as you like. Science is ALL ABOUT the ordinary view, though -- challenging it, testing it, and above all accepting it when it passes whatever test you can throw at it.
sign of religions has typically been the inability to let go of old values and knowledge and accept new ones as they present themselves to be more right. Maybe you should update your textbooks or risk being labeled as something that was obvious.
See here is where I have a HUGE problem with all these "it's an environmental conspiracy" theories.
I'm not sure why your limiting the poll of suspected to just environmentalist. They may be riding on the conspiracy too but it's not different then someone pretending to be religious just to meet trusting people and take advantage of them.
Anyways, the problem isn't really the environmentalist to begin with. All they did was cheer lead the expedition. The problem is that the entire concept of global warming was hijacked early on by political entities with the goals of gaining more power or control, collecting more taxes, and redistributing wealth. Blaming that crap on the environmentalist is like saying all hotel maids are thieves because they all clean you room and one maid took something of your one time while cleaning the room.
If Global Warming was just a grand conspiracy amongst extreme environmentalists then they picked the worst possible culprit imaginable. The solutions all undo decades of work by the environmental movement. The problem is extremely intangible. If you blame a global epidemic of cancer on... shit I don't know... coal dust then EVERYBODY has a story about someone they know dieing from cancer. Almost nobody has a story about "wow... I've been noticing it's a lot hotter lately."
I would say a majority of environmentalist are completely oblivious to the realities we are facing and actually do believe the global warming crap. They are mostly cheerleaders, not crafters of the conspiracy. That would be politicians looking for control and power.
Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.
It really surprises me and make me wonder how much of a scam this crap really is when the global warming skeptic is shot down because of his qualifications or lack thereof, some connection to an oil or energy company- even when it was 20 year prior, connections to some political party or whatever without ever reviewing the claim itself, then the global warming support claims their evidence is peer reviewed and solid because of it.
Well, here is a hint, if you refuse to review something, then the fact that it isn't peer reviewed means nothing. This guys report should have made it out of his group, his peers should have discussed it, flags any problems, and then forwarded it if there was something left that was still meaningful to the discussion. To just hide it, then bash the man who has been more then qualified in the past when it suited their needs once outsiders became aware of the situation is totally unacceptable if you ever expect anyone capable of thinking critically to believe the your claims.
This entire global warming bullshit has been politically hijacked from the start. Kyoto was little more then a redistribution of wealth scheme designed to gain more control and power. every where it has been implemented has saw increased unemployment and massive drops in GDP. Spain is/was in worse shape then they suggested America would be in if we didn't do the bailouts just because they implemented a cap and trade program which destroyed their economy.
They are not necessarily corrupt. The just adjust easily. Perhaps this is why they are called 'servants'.
No, they are not called servants for that reason. The entire term comes from the Greek separation of the public government jobs verses the private sector jobs that needed to be duplicated but separate to run a government. Public service is serving the government, not the people. The public servant serves his office, not the people.
Except there's NO SUCH THING as the lesser of two evils.
Perhaps that's why I said least of two evils.
That's where the joke is on everyone who thinks that way. How many people voted for Obama because he was the "lesser" of two evils? And what are we getting now? Not only do we have someone who has no intention of any real "change" but his party is also in control of congress which can help expedite tyranny.
Many people voted for Obama because they thought he would be different and because he is black. Not too many people voted for him on the pure basis of voting against McCain but you have a small point.
And, as I always say, give me the greater of two evils. Democracy is a useless fat asshole who will always follow the path of least resistance and apathy. In order to get that fat ass to rise to action, the situation has to get really, really bad. I was really hoping McCain made it in to office because I think he was losing it anyway and with Palin we'd have had a pair of lunatics that would have caused such an obvious nightmare that maybe, just maybe, the bloated and disgusting Cheeto-eating diabetic soda drinking toothless brainless blob that best represents the American people may have been so scared that it moved.
Perhaps you should just go back to school and learn a little more about our government. First, we live in a republic which uses elements of democracy, we never have had a democracy and will never have one (as long as i'm alive). Second, the US federal government is not the same type of government with the same type of powers as other countries. The US government's powers and abilities are specifically limited in order to preserve the states. In my experience, everyone else who talks like you generally has no clue of this and is pissed because the feds won't do something they have absolutely not power to do in the first place.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is more dangerous than putting a lunatic in office who is bad enough to wake the people from their collective stupor. It slows the erosion of liberty down to a slow enough pace that the Kentucky Fried Majority never even notices they've been robbed of their rights.
Liberty is not the only concern of the people. Taxes, crime, and many other things make the list a lot more times before liberty comes up. However, that is often because people don't know what liberty is anymore.
You can't mitigate the damage coming down from on high in Washington. They're ALL bought and paid for. Obama is as much of a stooge as Bush... and Clinton... and Reagan... etc. You can be a harbinger of POSITIVE change while working for one of the two political machines that's been sodomizing this nation for the past century plus. Neither of those organizations is designed with anything in mind but consolidation of power and wealth lining its own pockets.
Here is where you lost all creditability. They are not bought and paid for, they are not obligated to do what you want them to do, and being in a republic, they are representing us in that they make decisions for us, not follow our orders. A representative and senator is supposed to take care of the product of their office not the people. Sometimes that includes the people but not always and judging by your vocabulary in your post, not only don't you understand that, but you have an active imagination in attempting to determine why they don't listen to you.
If every asshole out there who voted for the "lesser of two evils" (and make no mistake, Democrats are not the only people who do that) voted their conscience and went third party or independent instead, I don't know who would win but I can tell you, it probably won't be any of the front runners since virtually ALL their "supporters" cast their vote while holding their
I'm not talking about "having" people give up their homes. I'm talking about making them pay for the environmental cost of their energy usage. If they want to, they can just reduce their energy usage without moving. If that's genuinely scientifically and economically impossible, then they can move. That's free markets for you; nobody ought to subsidize your inability to afford the lifestyle you want.
Wow, you imposing increased costs supported by arbitrary and fallacious reasoning is the free market. Wow, now I have seen it fucking all. Hey, you owe me $20 because your computer uses more energy then mine thereby polluting my air. You can either pay it or turn the damn thing off, that's the free market in your world.
To say that I'm forcing people to "give up their homes" by making them pay for their energy is like claiming that not subsidizing the local supermarket is forcing people to give up their food.
Yes you are. You attempting to punish people by forcing them to pay more for decisions made under completely different rules then you are willing to work by. You changed the rules and now for some reason seem to think that it's perfectly fine causing economic damage and strife to innocent people because of it. Why don't you ask your doctor to schedule a kranial-rectal extraction procedure.
So, what you're saying is that you'd be happy to support cap and trade, if only some of the money collected were refunded to the working poor?
No, I'm saying I would support it if it didn't negatively effect the poor and middle class people period. That's pretty hard to do with the trade part because all costs of passed down to the consumer.
I'd say, "Right there with you, buddy," except I've learned from time-worn experience that any time a conservative talks about the effects of a policy on the working poor, they're invariably working to protect the interests of the rich.
You know, we didn't have massive defaults on loans and people loosing their jobs left and right until around 2006 when the democrats took congress. The interesting part here is that gas prices didn't go above $2.50 until them. Maybe you should rethink this conservative verses liberal thing because I don't think it's panning out the way your seeing it.
As for helping the rich, I don't care if someone gets ahead or if someone already ahead gets more ahead. We don't have a finite amount of money and if they hoard it all, we just create more with value and worth caused by out actions. What I am apposed to is purposely holding someone back which is what this cap and trade will do. If Joe Sixpack is happy working at the factory and living the way he does, then who am I to say he needs more or less, it's his life to live how he wants.
Energy prices were only a small contributor to this recession. In Feb. 2008, when oil was near its peak, energy accounted for about 6% of the family budget (up from 4% in the 1990s) [src]. The real causes of the bust are the ones that have been widely reported, and your attempt to scare us with the specter of rising energy costs is more than a little bastardesque.
That's only if you don't figure in the increases in the costs of food, clothing, and so on, all of which was inflated because of their reliance on energy. BTW, gas peaked at $4.02 a gallon, not $3.14 in which the article stated it's current price was in 2008. This is important because at the tipping point for everything else, gas was roughly 30% higher and other things like electricity costs were jumping to. And please look at the dates, your article is 2/27/2008 and the increase in rate demands were in 8 of 2008- a little lag. Taking a wild guess, I'm going to say that right before the collapse, the budget was more like 8-10% for energy and the over all increase in costs due to energy costs rising was between 30% and 60% depending on how much driving you had to do.
Thanks! I just used some abstract rules in my efficiency, and cut my heating bills by 27%!
That would be your fault for over paying in the first place.
Your quoted costs are from The Heritage Foundation. Frankly, I trust the CBO numbers to be closer to reality. To get where the Heritage Foundation wants you to go, the permits have to auction at around $50/ton, and the money has to simply disappear from the economy.
I don't know where you got the $50/ton number the heritage foundation supposedly uses. I just checked and they seem to be getting the the $1,870 by factoring the hit to the GDP that the CBO admits they ignored. Perhaps you should read both for yourself instead of blindly trusting someone who is obviously out to screw you. That, or you could show me how this $50/ton number comes into play.
he $1300 figure comes from the Britain Taxpayer Alliance. Since their numbers are exactly the sort an anti-tax group could use as the basis of a splashy, self-promoting report, I refuse to accept the figure without outside verification. They have an agenda, The Heritage Foundation has an agenda. The CBO at least has a mission of non-partisanship.
You mean like your $50/ton figure that doesn't seem to fit where you want it too? You have the ability to refuse to accept anything but it's you that will be ignorant, not everyone else.
Finally, since you've said you're not against caps in general, how would you construct a cap so that it caused no undue hardship to anybody? What is your path to reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, and why is it superior to what is now before Congress?
First of all, I don't think I would need a hard cap in the first place. All we need is a target number and a process to outline a transition in which power companies have to move over to renewable or relatively carbon neutral production capabilities by requiring them to plan all new expansions after 10 years in either of the two, estimating an useful life on existing production facilities, then require them to stick to that number and replace the facilities with one of the newer availible alternative models. This could take somewhere between 20 to 80 years to get all electric generation on something more friendly to the environment. It would also cause the transition to be gradual over this time and allows for improvements in designs and efficiencies that limit the impact of inflation. The other thing is to increase the cafe standards for new cars 20-50 years out to be either carbon neutral or completely renewable. This again allows for a graceful transition where the increases are in line with inflation without harming the economy. Finally, I would employ government funded research to assist in finding the technology making this possible and instead of the current model of licensing a patent, I would offer it free to any company/person based in America and paying taxes in America under the condition of them having a compulsory licensing policy in which any improvements they make are to be shared for a small fee with other American people or companies and allow them to license to foreign companies based on however they see fit.
Finally, once the electricity is all neutral and friendly, we should offer one time gas-electric conversions for HVAC and water heaters for all private citizens at their convenience and allow companies to use a portion of
I understand the difference between obscenity and indecency. That was the point I was making. If it is merely indecent then this whole thing is rather moot.
Of course it would be moot, however, the difference is subjective which is pretty important. This is because it's subjective to the community in which it resides, it may be perfectly ok in your community and completely unacceptable in someone else's.
But a picture of you and your girlfriend is unlikely to pass prong (2) of the obscenity test (i.e., being "patently offensive"). And prong (3) can be difficult to prove. The main thing, however, is that it most definitely does not pass the tests from the 2002 decision to qualify as child pornography. That is what I was getting at.
Once again, this is subjective. if your community gets taken over by a group of mormon's, it may be easier then you think for 2 and 3 to be made. Point 3 however seems like the opposite of innocent until proven guilty in which as a defense, you have to prove the legitimacy of the material. That can be difficult when people won't always see things you way. Saying the picture is a marriage aid and it helps you keep your fidelity pretty much proves 1 and 2. If they don't buy that as legitimate, you have just lost the battle.
In any case, I was (and just about everyone else here, apparently, were) not aware of the other facts surrounding this case. That complicates it beyond any reasonable speculation.
I agree. I found out the facts after attempting to find out how the cops found the pictures. If he was distributing them, harm could probably be shown just as in slander harms your reputation.
It's funny. If someone cannot afford a paid off dodge caravan, how do you expect them to afford another $400 a month payment to replace it when the gas savings will be minimal?
Here is the problem, people need large cars for a couple of times a year, sometimes more and sometimes all of the time. When I purchased my full sized Chevy van, I was a single person who had to take an ailing grandparent to and from doctors appointments and so on. I chose the van because a wheelchair lift could be installed and there are devices to lock the wheel chair to the flooring making it as safe as a seat. After about 2 years of needing this only twice a month to go to dialysis and possibly a fishing trip or two with some buddies, the grandparent died and I didn't need it again. Almost two years were left till payoff and I would have taken a %5,000 hit of I traded in for a new car. Anyways, when the gas prices doubled in 2006, I would have been spending more by getting rid of it and buying a cheap more fuel efficient car.
Crap like that happens to everyone. It isn't a matter of just buying something that costs more then you would ever hope to save because they can. It's a matter of because they can't until the vehicle needs replaced.
If you had a choice and knew I was going to do something bad to you, would you pick me shooting you anywhere on your body except your chest or would you pick me stabbing you twice at random locations on your chest?
Third party candidates are generally always the same except for a few issues. This means you are still selecting the least evil of the bunch.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not USians but I try to follow along.
Actually, it's American not USian. That's what out retarded cousins across the big lake say in attempts to show their ignorance and piss people off.
Every generation, or portions of it, thinks the president took some freedom away from them. It's generally when they start growing up and realizing their idealized world isn't as they imagined. Sometimes liberties are actually attacked and so on but not really in the Bush case. Most if not all of the so called infringements on freedom either extend from previous administration (free speech zones), or only effect a very small subset of people participating in a very small set of activities (wire taps on international calls, and so on). In fact, most of the so called trampling of freedom and liberty that happened, happened to foreigners found or captured in a battlefield as the result of war.
You can't copyright facts but you can copyright collections of facts.
This would be where anyone standing at the station would be able to know how many people got on the train or what time the train showed up. The collection of facts would be when you do this and present it in a usable form like a database for a real time tracking application.
However, I still think fraud is at play here because he was paid to do X in which he is limiting by breaking a process in X because he wants more pay.
If you actually read it, then you wouldn't have made the comment you did unless you are trolling yourself.
Remember this, you can't use the same style that your railing against in order to discredit something without discrediting yourself. That's your problem, not mine.
Actually, 1998 was the hottest year on record, 2001 lost it's place when it was discovered that there was an error in the way they averaged the temps in the US.
As for the graph, if you can find one that matches between different agencies. Anyways, we will simply go with this and this
Lol.. You haven't been paying attention then. That or you have only been listening to the quire and not the sermon. You can find this information on any temp map. Most of the glacier melting is caused by volcanic activity and sublimation. This was a point brought out by the misleading claims of Al Gore's reeducation movie where it incorrectly listed Mount Kilimanjaro as a global warming poster child. The glaciers in the antarctic where the temp averages 70 below use a combination of a process called super cooling and warning but through water and water vapor not anthropogenic green house gasses.
If you continuously discount someone or something because of where it came from, then you will continuously not know the entire truth. The so called concensus in the first place was only 300 scientists with not all of them meeting your criteria. Hell, most of them didn't even know they were participating until they were told what some of their work was being used for.
In fact, this entire consensus thing is a crock of shit to begin with, science doesn't take a popular vote to determine if something is valid or not. Science doesn't ignore the facts (observations) that screw the experiments up because they don't like the political associations or funding sources of the people bringing it forward. Think about where we would be if we did lock everything into one way because of a consensus. The world would probably still be flat, the sun would still orbit the earth, and Leaches would probably still be the best way to cure serious illnesses. Take your consensus and your criteria and apply it to days of future's past. You can easily see how silly it is.
Lol.. You making the mistake of assuming that everyone qualified is commenting on it. I can see how obvious but misleading mistakes like this surround you. Not all qualified scientists are commenting, the original consensus existed because a list of papers did not say man was not the cause of global warming. Now many of these papers were there before the concept of global warming existed and I say it's fraudulent to attempt to manipulate the data in that way, but hey, you accept it right? Sure you are, you are automatically assuming that every qualified scientist is working in that area and is commenting on anthropogenic global warming and that a list of 700 who don't agree with the current model or findings, many of which a
Lol.. No they didn't, at least not in any more detail then the paper itself. They picked on two points in a 98 page report, pointed out that he was an economist and then dismissed everything that is from a source they didn't like. That is no better then the report itself.
Why don't you read the fucking link you presented.
Where are you getting that the consumer is going to get the $30? The tax isn't going to the people, it's going into the government coffers. I'm not sure where your getting that idea from but please show me.
The trade part is the most ludicrous idea yet. A company can just relocate their operations off shore and have a surplus of credits to be had at a premium. But more importantly, there are ways to phase a cap in by demanding all expansion and replacement of existing power generation is carbon neutral or a percentage less. This will create a slower transistion and negate all the bullshit and hope that someone will change something. The problem is that they know the alternatives is expensive and instead of doing something about that expense, they are attempting to make regular energy just as expensive while lining their pockets and the pockets of their contributors.
It seems that you need a refresher course in history. The republicans did not own the house or senate. All but a few of those years was a marginal lead with the better half of 2000 and on being only by a few if not one senator. Remember, it took a gang of 14- 7 republicans and 7 democrats to bust a philobuster threat. That's not owning anything. The dems had a larger lead in 2006 then the republicans did since 1998.
Also, I didn't blame the entire housing bust and economic collapse on energy costs. I said it brought it about which isn't what you think. That means it was a major contributing factor.
And I would argue that you are batshit crazy. Whenever the house and senate are as close as they were, coop
Wow, a pro global warming site ignores claims taken from a anti global warming biased site. The problem is still there, if the information is being ignored with guilt by association, then how is it supposed to be peer reviewed? Or better yet, how can we trust the peer reviewed information when when it is ignoring information based on someone's associations?
Does that make sense to you? I mean if ever peer revised person thinks 2x3 equals 5 and they are ignoring the case that it's actually 6, then their justifications for it solving to 5 is invalid in the first place. Here you are essentially saying that "It's not important, because these people I like say that the content is from those people I don't like." Since when is science about that at all?
No we don't, that was part of lincoln's Gettysburg address created 100 years after our government was. The context is completely different then what you are attempting to claim is as too. The "of the people" meant that the people were chosen from within the citizens instead of a distance king appointing a governor from a far off land as was the case not only before the revolution but also in most other British colonies (remember brave heart?).
The "by the people" meant that the people had a say in who these leaders were. It doesn't mean they elected them to do their bidding. I meant that they got representation. Originally the house of representatives was the only representation to boot. Senators were selected by the state, the president was selected by the state, and the representatives was selected by the people. The federal government is not supposed to be, and never was supposed to be, some wipe your runny nose all encompassing government. It was originally intended to be a state of states handling the complexities of 13 countries (states) working together under a unified front for both the protection and prosperity of the state. The people are within the state but are not the only area of concern.
The "for the people" meant that our efforts and labor was for ourselves and our country/state and not some foreign corporation or king of a distant land. This was also the case before the revolution as with almost all of the British colonies around the world.
Once you realize that the government is not supposed to "serve you" you can easily see that is is no corrupt or anything to the sort. There is nothing implied here and you are falling for a trick used by some politicians in order to gain your confidence and spark outrage at their opposition.
This is because you are forming the conversation around ignorance and not reality. No country can function if it's inhabitants are not prosperous and money takes a large part in that. The founding fathers were either rich business owners or plantation owners so looking after enterprise shouldn't be anything that surprises you. In fact, the only reason you are surprised or upset over this is because of your misinformed conception that public servant actually means someone to serve you.
The government's job is to make the country prosperous, safe from invaders, and to regulate interactions between the states. And even then, their regulation between the states if somewhat limited. There is a reason the Constitution says that the federal government shall ensure each state has a republic form of government and not a democracy government. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you stop tilting at windmills and can effect some real change if that is you goal.
Lol.. You link to a rebuttal on a pro-global warming site that basically says- he has/references work done by people we don't like so we are not going to accept it. Isn't that exactly what I just said was wrong?
And the question is, is that information correct or incorrect. His report was an analysis of the state of global warming, not any particular research. So the question goes back to, why is it that all of the research and crap claimed that global warming supporters don't like is automagically dismissed based on an association instead of the claims when they themselves attempt to claim that peer review of the science makes their evidence strong. We are still at an impasse where certain claims are being completely ignored in favor of reviews of what someone wants to work.
Now, you may be brainwashed to believe that this is perfectly fine, but on the surface, it presents a very real impressions of manipulation of the evidence and a political hijacking. In fact, when you look at how politics dominate this topic, you have to wonder if science is actually driving it at all. Science doesn't dismiss people's claims because they have associations with people, it doesn't ignore claims because of someone's color of skin or religion, it doesn't ignore anything, it either evaluates a claim supports it or refutes it but it does so based on evidence present not because someone got money from an oil company 50 years ago while working on a project in college as they were getting their degree.
In short, what you are accepting is not science at all. It's more like a religion and yelling blasphemy is the best way to counter those who say the world is not flat or it revolves around the sun-not the other way around. And no, you cannot refute my statement by doing the same I am complaining about.
Oh yea, it's modded redundant. The zealots must have their mod point and think mods mean "I do not agree".
You know your making them nervous with the truth when crap like that happens.
Oh yea, the only reply to the post to date and it's modded redundant. The zealots must have their mod point and think mods mean "I do not agree".
You know your making them nervous with the truth when crap like that happens.
So are you saying that we should believe as you do and ignore the false teachings of Blasphemers?
Seriously, Either evaluate their claims or don't mention them. This entire idea that your position is more right because whoever you believe said so and I'm going to find a way to ignore your position because I don't like what's behind you is exactly as a religion has historically done. It isn't science, and dismissing something based on association of because they have red socks on says nothing about the legitimacy of their claims and more or less shows how people of the religion are scared to actually think about them.
I agree...No wait, where is the heard going again?
Can I change my answer?
It sure as hell isn't science, well maybe it is and your science book is outdated.
First, the earth has not gotten warming in the last 11 years, since 2001, it has actually been cooling despite a rise in Co2 and other GHGs. Second, melting glaciers when the outside air is below freezing is not caused by global warming. We did have the sensors set up with the sea ice and after 11 months of claims of it disappearing, they finally had to track down the problem of drift which is a natural occurrence and make a statement about it that got just a few days coverage. Australia who is operating the other half of the antarctic claims that the glaciers there are growing and they don't understand the American side making all the claims about everything diapering.
And finally, there are more scientist disputing or questioning global warming or the hysteria and rush to tame it as it stands then there was in the consensus to begin with. There is 700 or more world wide speaking out against the doom and gloom. IF you have to make a claim that scientists got together and unified on something, then it's only fair to show the updated unification.
sign of religions has typically been the inability to let go of old values and knowledge and accept new ones as they present themselves to be more right. Maybe you should update your textbooks or risk being labeled as something that was obvious.
I'm not sure why your limiting the poll of suspected to just environmentalist. They may be riding on the conspiracy too but it's not different then someone pretending to be religious just to meet trusting people and take advantage of them.
Anyways, the problem isn't really the environmentalist to begin with. All they did was cheer lead the expedition. The problem is that the entire concept of global warming was hijacked early on by political entities with the goals of gaining more power or control, collecting more taxes, and redistributing wealth. Blaming that crap on the environmentalist is like saying all hotel maids are thieves because they all clean you room and one maid took something of your one time while cleaning the room.
I would say a majority of environmentalist are completely oblivious to the realities we are facing and actually do believe the global warming crap. They are mostly cheerleaders, not crafters of the conspiracy. That would be politicians looking for control and power.
Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.
It really surprises me and make me wonder how much of a scam this crap really is when the global warming skeptic is shot down because of his qualifications or lack thereof, some connection to an oil or energy company- even when it was 20 year prior, connections to some political party or whatever without ever reviewing the claim itself, then the global warming support claims their evidence is peer reviewed and solid because of it.
Well, here is a hint, if you refuse to review something, then the fact that it isn't peer reviewed means nothing. This guys report should have made it out of his group, his peers should have discussed it, flags any problems, and then forwarded it if there was something left that was still meaningful to the discussion. To just hide it, then bash the man who has been more then qualified in the past when it suited their needs once outsiders became aware of the situation is totally unacceptable if you ever expect anyone capable of thinking critically to believe the your claims.
This entire global warming bullshit has been politically hijacked from the start. Kyoto was little more then a redistribution of wealth scheme designed to gain more control and power. every where it has been implemented has saw increased unemployment and massive drops in GDP. Spain is/was in worse shape then they suggested America would be in if we didn't do the bailouts just because they implemented a cap and trade program which destroyed their economy.
No, they are not called servants for that reason. The entire term comes from the Greek separation of the public government jobs verses the private sector jobs that needed to be duplicated but separate to run a government. Public service is serving the government, not the people. The public servant serves his office, not the people.
Perhaps that's why I said least of two evils.
Many people voted for Obama because they thought he would be different and because he is black. Not too many people voted for him on the pure basis of voting against McCain but you have a small point.
Perhaps you should just go back to school and learn a little more about our government. First, we live in a republic which uses elements of democracy, we never have had a democracy and will never have one (as long as i'm alive). Second, the US federal government is not the same type of government with the same type of powers as other countries. The US government's powers and abilities are specifically limited in order to preserve the states. In my experience, everyone else who talks like you generally has no clue of this and is pissed because the feds won't do something they have absolutely not power to do in the first place.
Liberty is not the only concern of the people. Taxes, crime, and many other things make the list a lot more times before liberty comes up. However, that is often because people don't know what liberty is anymore.
Here is where you lost all creditability. They are not bought and paid for, they are not obligated to do what you want them to do, and being in a republic, they are representing us in that they make decisions for us, not follow our orders. A representative and senator is supposed to take care of the product of their office not the people. Sometimes that includes the people but not always and judging by your vocabulary in your post, not only don't you understand that, but you have an active imagination in attempting to determine why they don't listen to you.
140 million years ago? sure, who else could it be?
Wow, you imposing increased costs supported by arbitrary and fallacious reasoning is the free market. Wow, now I have seen it fucking all. Hey, you owe me $20 because your computer uses more energy then mine thereby polluting my air. You can either pay it or turn the damn thing off, that's the free market in your world.
Yes you are. You attempting to punish people by forcing them to pay more for decisions made under completely different rules then you are willing to work by. You changed the rules and now for some reason seem to think that it's perfectly fine causing economic damage and strife to innocent people because of it. Why don't you ask your doctor to schedule a kranial-rectal extraction procedure.
No, I'm saying I would support it if it didn't negatively effect the poor and middle class people period. That's pretty hard to do with the trade part because all costs of passed down to the consumer.
You know, we didn't have massive defaults on loans and people loosing their jobs left and right until around 2006 when the democrats took congress. The interesting part here is that gas prices didn't go above $2.50 until them. Maybe you should rethink this conservative verses liberal thing because I don't think it's panning out the way your seeing it.
As for helping the rich, I don't care if someone gets ahead or if someone already ahead gets more ahead. We don't have a finite amount of money and if they hoard it all, we just create more with value and worth caused by out actions. What I am apposed to is purposely holding someone back which is what this cap and trade will do. If Joe Sixpack is happy working at the factory and living the way he does, then who am I to say he needs more or less, it's his life to live how he wants.
That's only if you don't figure in the increases in the costs of food, clothing, and so on, all of which was inflated because of their reliance on energy. BTW, gas peaked at $4.02 a gallon, not $3.14 in which the article stated it's current price was in 2008. This is important because at the tipping point for everything else, gas was roughly 30% higher and other things like electricity costs were jumping to. And please look at the dates, your article is 2/27/2008 and the increase in rate demands were in 8 of 2008- a little lag. Taking a wild guess, I'm going to say that right before the collapse, the budget was more like 8-10% for energy and the over all increase in costs due to energy costs rising was between 30% and 60% depending on how much driving you had to do.
That would be your fault for over paying in the first place.
You can listen to lies on blind faith all you want, just don't expect anyone else to seriously consider your opinion. The CBO pretty much backs my conclusion that it will decrease the standard of living for many people by attempting to assert an offset in the cost per household by the inflation it causes and thereby automagically reducing the tax burden.
I don't know where you got the $50/ton number the heritage foundation supposedly uses. I just checked and they seem to be getting the the $1,870 by factoring the hit to the GDP that the CBO admits they ignored. Perhaps you should read both for yourself instead of blindly trusting someone who is obviously out to screw you. That, or you could show me how this $50/ton number comes into play.
You mean like your $50/ton figure that doesn't seem to fit where you want it too? You have the ability to refuse to accept anything but it's you that will be ignorant, not everyone else.
First of all, I don't think I would need a hard cap in the first place. All we need is a target number and a process to outline a transition in which power companies have to move over to renewable or relatively carbon neutral production capabilities by requiring them to plan all new expansions after 10 years in either of the two, estimating an useful life on existing production facilities, then require them to stick to that number and replace the facilities with one of the newer availible alternative models. This could take somewhere between 20 to 80 years to get all electric generation on something more friendly to the environment. It would also cause the transition to be gradual over this time and allows for improvements in designs and efficiencies that limit the impact of inflation. The other thing is to increase the cafe standards for new cars 20-50 years out to be either carbon neutral or completely renewable. This again allows for a graceful transition where the increases are in line with inflation without harming the economy. Finally, I would employ government funded research to assist in finding the technology making this possible and instead of the current model of licensing a patent, I would offer it free to any company/person based in America and paying taxes in America under the condition of them having a compulsory licensing policy in which any improvements they make are to be shared for a small fee with other American people or companies and allow them to license to foreign companies based on however they see fit.
Finally, once the electricity is all neutral and friendly, we should offer one time gas-electric conversions for HVAC and water heaters for all private citizens at their convenience and allow companies to use a portion of
Of course it would be moot, however, the difference is subjective which is pretty important. This is because it's subjective to the community in which it resides, it may be perfectly ok in your community and completely unacceptable in someone else's.
Once again, this is subjective. if your community gets taken over by a group of mormon's, it may be easier then you think for 2 and 3 to be made. Point 3 however seems like the opposite of innocent until proven guilty in which as a defense, you have to prove the legitimacy of the material. That can be difficult when people won't always see things you way. Saying the picture is a marriage aid and it helps you keep your fidelity pretty much proves 1 and 2. If they don't buy that as legitimate, you have just lost the battle.
I agree. I found out the facts after attempting to find out how the cops found the pictures. If he was distributing them, harm could probably be shown just as in slander harms your reputation.
It's funny. If someone cannot afford a paid off dodge caravan, how do you expect them to afford another $400 a month payment to replace it when the gas savings will be minimal?
Here is the problem, people need large cars for a couple of times a year, sometimes more and sometimes all of the time. When I purchased my full sized Chevy van, I was a single person who had to take an ailing grandparent to and from doctors appointments and so on. I chose the van because a wheelchair lift could be installed and there are devices to lock the wheel chair to the flooring making it as safe as a seat. After about 2 years of needing this only twice a month to go to dialysis and possibly a fishing trip or two with some buddies, the grandparent died and I didn't need it again. Almost two years were left till payoff and I would have taken a %5,000 hit of I traded in for a new car. Anyways, when the gas prices doubled in 2006, I would have been spending more by getting rid of it and buying a cheap more fuel efficient car.
Crap like that happens to everyone. It isn't a matter of just buying something that costs more then you would ever hope to save because they can. It's a matter of because they can't until the vehicle needs replaced.
If you had a choice and knew I was going to do something bad to you, would you pick me shooting you anywhere on your body except your chest or would you pick me stabbing you twice at random locations on your chest?
Third party candidates are generally always the same except for a few issues. This means you are still selecting the least evil of the bunch.