Global Warming Storm Ready To Hit The Northeast [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

02-08-2013, 01:53 PM

The timing of these enviro wackos is perfect. A blizzard heading for NJ and this is an op-ed in the paper :laugh2:

and of course the main solution to the "problem" is a tax

Opinion: Carbon fee would put the brakes on global warming before it's too late

The year 2012 saw more than 34,000 U.S. heat records shattered, violent western wildfires, widespread drought, record melting of Arctic ice and many devastating storms — all consequences of a rise in global heat of less than 1 degree Celsius over the past 100 years.

One degree. It sounds like so little — yet, suddenly, we are caught up in a major emergency. Suddenly, the Earth is embraced by an atmosphere laden with nearly 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2), a concentration higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years. The result is a maelstrom of disruptions of the global climate that threaten the stability of every human civilization and natural ecosystem, as well as enormous damage costs.

Climate scientists predicted the oceans would warm and turn acidic, polar ice and permafrost would melt, sea levels would rise and extreme weather events would become ever more violent and frequent. But no one foresaw how rapidly these changes would take place.

Participants at international conferences over the last 10 years agreed that, to avert catastrophe, we must keep the planet’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius, but now we realize that two degrees was too high a limit. All of the science done in the last 15 years has shown that the predicted changes are happening at lower temperatures. The climate is more sensitive than anyone realized and the real threshold of safety is 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is no longer attainable.

We also failed to appreciate the long delay before the planet’s temperature responds to a rise in atmospheric CO2. It is the CO2 accumulated during the last half-century that is causing the planetary fever we are now experiencing. The CO2 we are now accumulating will produce a further rise over the next half-century. Many more destructive impacts of global climate change are in the pipeline and will be delivered in the future.

Even if we halted our emissions tomorrow (and we can’t), the warming to which we are already committed would precipitate at least a three-degree rise. If we do nothing, we are on track for at least a six-degree rise within this century — with unthinkable results.

No question, then: We must take serious action — fast. And we can, thanks to the widespread belief among Americans that we must. The president is willing to lead. Gov. Christie will doubtless also lead, because he knows firsthand the price we pay for violent weather.

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/opinion_carbon_fee_would_put_b.html

Voted4Reagan

02-08-2013, 01:58 PM

we have 24" of Global warming on the way....

last I checked it was 32deg.....

Not very warm actually..... lol

red states rule

02-08-2013, 01:59 PM

we have 24" of Global warming on the way....

last I checked it was 32deg.....

Not very warm actually..... lol

The snow missed me - but it is a balmy 34 degrees now

We might a little of the wrap around later tonight but not much is expected

gabosaurus

02-08-2013, 04:33 PM

http://i.qkme.me/3rnryq.jpg

red states rule

02-09-2013, 06:49 AM

http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/global_warming_fairy_Wallpaper_e29rl.jpg

Voted4Reagan

02-09-2013, 07:06 AM

Liberals..... Pay attention...

I have 28" of fresh GLOBAL WARMING outside my door...

You are welcome to come and stop it from interfering in my life!!!

Bring your shovels...

red states rule

02-09-2013, 07:08 AM

Liberals..... Pay attention...

I have 28" of fresh GLOBAL WARMING outside my door...

You are welcome to come and stop it from interfering in my life!!!

Bring your shovels...

Forget the shovel and bring a back hoe

bingster

02-09-2013, 05:44 PM

Liberals..... Pay attention...

I have 28" of fresh GLOBAL WARMING outside my door...

You are welcome to come and stop it from interfering in my life!!!

Bring your shovels...

Global warming increase moisture into the air. A small drop in atmospheric temperature turns rain into snow. Warming causes the water and changes weather patterns that cause less water in other places.

Sorry, it's not as simple as warm means warm and cold means cold. You should read some science sometime.

red states rule

02-09-2013, 05:47 PM

Global warming increase moisture into the air. A small drop in atmospheric temperature turns rain into snow. Warming causes the water and changes weather patterns that cause less water in other places.

Sorry, it's not as simple as warm means warm and cold means cold. You should read some science sometime.

To bad libs like RFK Jr have to eat their words on so many different occasions

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes (http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2005/12/19/rfk_jr_disses_suvs_flies_in_a_jet_himsel?blog=14) so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year (http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2008_sep_Los_angeles_times.html) on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.

Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend's extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK, Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.

UPDATE: RFK Jr. responds: “Idiots on the right like Rush like to point to any cold-weather anomalies as proof that global warming doesn’t exist.” (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-Rush-Limbaugh-does-it-so-why-cant-I-83957782.html)

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/news/rfk-jr-15-months-ago-global-warming-means-no-snow-or-cold-dc#ixzz2KVIwQ4Hr

Robert A Whit

02-09-2013, 06:30 PM

Liberals..... Pay attention...

I have 28" of fresh GLOBAL WARMING outside my door...

You are welcome to come and stop it from interfering in my life!!!

Bring your shovels...

Can you do me a favor and please do not refer to demo craps as liberals.

They no more are tolerant, liberal or even nice people than was famous dictators of the past.

They prove in CA how they plan to totally control your life and take away the constitution from you yet claiming they support the document.

Well, somebody with plenty of money must fight for CA and do it in court. I refuse to register my weapons and I have some semi automatic types. Thank god I have plenty of ammo. They think I will register guns and ammo with them?

They can ride out of town on that damned camel they came here on.

red states rule

02-09-2013, 06:32 PM

Can you do me a favor and please do not refer to demo craps as liberals.

They no more are tolerant, liberal or even nice people than was famous dictators of the past.

They prove in CA how they plan to totally control your life and take away the constitution from you yet claiming they support the document.

Well, somebody with plenty of money must fight for CA and do it in court. I refuse to register my weapons and I have some semi automatic types. Thank god I have plenty of ammo. They think I will register guns and ammo with them?

They can ride out of town on that damned camel they came here on.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zVP9OvAtOoY/TFAs-WE70zI/AAAAAAAABvA/qIHwZp7YMl8/s1600/Liberalism.jpg

logroller

02-09-2013, 06:35 PM

To bad libs like RFK Jr have to eat their words on so many different occasions
Sorry rsr; rfk jr and the sfexaminer aren't what I'd consider scientific sources.

red states rule

02-09-2013, 06:39 PM

Sorry rsr; rfk jr and the sfexaminer aren't what I'd consider scientific sources.

Like Al Gore, RFK Jr is considered a reliable source with the liberal media. Just as Rev Al and Jesse Jackson are experts on race relations

Of course global warming is just a scam to steal more money from taxpayers - ad libs are worried that more and more people are no longer taking their doom and gloom stories seriously

bingster

02-09-2013, 09:25 PM

To bad libs like RFK Jr have to eat their words on so many different occasions

“Idiots on the right like Rush like to point to any cold-weather anomalies as proof that global warming doesn’t exist.” (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-Rush-Limbaugh-does-it-so-why-cant-I-83957782.html)

That's makes my point.

Look, you either believe in science or you don't. The article you posted describes my point. Where's the money, folks? Do you really think that millionaires like Gore and RFK Jr. is where the real money is on this issue? That's just ignorant.

The real money is in lying to you folks so that the billionaires can continue without regulations to pollute our environment to their hearts content. Current regulations don't put a dent in their money flows and oil companies like BP laugh at the fines they have to pay when they ruin people's lives.

Environmentalists don't have 50¢ for every million dollars the other side has, so it's painfully obvious to me why our country is so clueless on this subject.

aboutime

02-09-2013, 09:30 PM

“Idiots on the right like Rush like to point to any cold-weather anomalies as proof that global warming doesn’t exist.” (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-Rush-Limbaugh-does-it-so-why-cant-I-83957782.html)

That's makes my point.

Look, you either believe in science or you don't. The article you posted describes my point. Where's the money, folks? Do you really think that millionaires like Gore and RFK Jr. is where the real money is on this issue? That's just ignorant.

The real money is in lying to you folks so that the billionaires can continue without regulations to pollute our environment to their hearts content. Current regulations don't put a dent in their money flows and oil companies like BP laugh at the fines they have to pay when they ruin people's lives.

Environmentalists don't have 50¢ for every million dollars the other side has, so it's painfully obvious to me why our country is so clueless on this subject.
And, "Idiots on the Left like Al Gore like to point to any Warm weather anomalies as proof that global warming DOES exist."

red states rule

02-10-2013, 06:50 AM

and libs want to ignore the lies and fraud with the "scientists" who say their "research" proves global warming in real

But what about that fudge factor that the BBC exposed?

Even the BBC didn't let this scoop get away.

A segment on the Dec. 3 broadcast of BBC's "Newsnight," showed the implications of the story behind the so-called "ClimateGate" scandal are more than just e-mails concealing data, but an incompetence analyzing the data by way of faulty computer code.

John Graham-Cumming, a British programmer known for the open source "POPFile email filtering program" (http://www.jgc.org/) explained how the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had wholesale problems with its computer programming analyzing climate change data, with billion, if not even trillions of dollars, on the line.
"This is the source code from the Climatic Research Unit," Susan Watts, science editor at the BBC explained. "John Graham-Cumming is a software engineer. He's not a skeptic on climate change, but he is shocked by what he's seen in the programming. He compared it with the code in the same language written by NASA."
Graham-Cumming criticized the CRU programming for its lack of professionalism and showed faults with it.

"Well, if you look at the NASA stuff, it's really professional," Graham-Cumming said. "You can look at it, you can see the history. If you look at -- what's done here by these alleged CRU files - it's not the thing you'd expect to see in certainly a commercial industry. You would not see this sort of source code because it's not clearly documented. There's not audit history of what's happened to it. So it would be below the standard in any commercial software. "

According to the author of "The Geek Atlas," (http://www.amazon.com/Geek-Atlas-Places-Science-Technology/dp/0596523203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260029854&sr=8-1) the programmer even included steps to skip over errors, which shows some of the data analyzed by the East Anglia CRU is completely neglected.

"The programming language actually has a problem," Graham-Cumming said. "And they put in some code to deal with that error. Unfortunately, in doing so they produced another error. And the upshot of this is the error occurs - the underlying error, they will skip over data that they're trying to plot without any warning to the end user. So in some sense there is data that is being lost."

The programmer, unnamed in the BBC segment, even documented his lack of programming skills.

"So in here, he says some things like, ‘Something is very wrong - it's my programming ability, isn't it,'" Graham-Cumming explained. "‘You know, once again, it's further confirmation my abilities are below what is required here.'"

Watts questioned if someone was betting billions or trillions of dollars, should they "be comfortable with" it and Graham-Cumming explained it wasn't.
"I don't think I would be comfortable with that because it is not obvious what it is doing, why it is doing it," Graham-Cumming said. "It needs to be made clear."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/12/05/bbc-exposes-fudge-factor-climategate-global-warming-computer-programming-#ixzz2KYTvvcdF

red states rule

02-10-2013, 07:00 AM

bingster

02-10-2013, 02:17 PM

And, "Idiots on the Left like Al Gore like to point to any Warm weather anomalies as proof that global warming DOES exist."

It does exist, we just have to point out the obvious.

bingster

02-10-2013, 02:20 PM

LOL!!! CNN anchor blames asteroid on global wamring

Is it any wonder more and more people laugh at these enviro wackos?

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/parody-or-does-she-believe-it-cnn-anchor-blames-asteroid-global-warming

Don't equate an ignorant newscaster with scientists. I remember an ignoramous on Fox News saying that Walgreens gives mamograms and pap smears.

bingster

02-10-2013, 02:24 PM

and libs want to ignore the lies and fraud with the "scientists" who say their "research" proves global warming in real

But what about that fudge factor that the BBC exposed?

How long are posters going to keep digging up this 4 year old story? It's a story about one program from one company. Do you really think the entire wealth of data on global warming is based on this one story? You probably do, and you also think the earth is only 6000 years old. Want to buy a bridge?

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 02:39 PM

Like Al Gore, RFK Jr is considered a reliable source with the liberal media. Just as Rev Al and Jesse Jackson are experts on race relations

Of course global warming is just a scam to steal more money from taxpayers - ad libs are worried that more and more people are no longer taking their doom and gloom stories seriously

Were I to take this forum way back in time, we would see that Canada and a lot of the upper part of the USA would be a massive sheet of ice.

and of course a hell of a lot of global warming took place. The earth is in constant flux, We may see some reversal of cold weather and who knows, we may have a long spell of very cold winters. But the nuts that preach we are at fault won't claim the colder weather was our fault.

They are not worried about global warming, they want more and more control over your life.

Some of you that have not visited the land of the tiny cars ought to head to Europe. We have it made by their standards but do you guys asctually want to all drive those mini cars?

Look at the smart car by MB. Maybe one day you will only be able to drive tiny cars. I think it is a slap in the face of consumers to force them to leave the comfort of the large car and be forced into something with 4- 12 inch wheels.

Anything you do to Americans won't change a thing for the Chinese. We get prevailing winds from that part of the world. They have more negative impact on our climate than Americans have. Even the ocean currents make us the receptible for their trash that gets into the ocean. But we don't blame China, we blame Americans. Funny how that works.

cadet

02-10-2013, 02:43 PM

It does exist, we just have to point out the obvious.

Human fault of CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to about 3-4% of the total. Whereas the vast majority comes from volcanoes or other natural effects.

In fact, CO2 levels don't rise, they fluctuate. Due to tree's and plants continually converting CO2 into O2.

In other words, it's been the same for about... oh say, millions of years since the meteor that killed the dino's dissipated.

4498

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 02:53 PM

Don't equate an ignorant newscaster with scientists. I remember an ignoramous on Fox News saying that Walgreens gives mamograms and pap smears.

Why can't your arguments win the debate with Ph.D. Richard Lindzen. I have not shown this forum the letters he sent to me only because AOL killed the account that had the letters in the mail to me.

Lindzen is one of the top world climate experts and it is his living. And he does not accept global warmng is mostly man made.

I asked him what is the problem. He mailed me links to his papers and directed me to some of them. And he not only publishes solo, more often his papers have several collaberators.

Lidzen told me that the very way they measure is all wrong.
besides, all this fuss over 1 degree celsius over a very long time span.

If you do the graph, called the hockey stick, and you try to use a better scale, you get a virtually flat line of temperatures.

Besides were would be all be but for global warming?

We would not have the great lakes. NY City could not be were it is since it was once ice covered.
CA would not have Yosemite but for global warming.

This is nothing new at all. Earth can't remain the same temperature. It is not how the system operates.

Man is a pimple on the ass of Earth. We may think we manage climate globally but those who think that also rush to bash religion where some church guys believe in a new earth rather than one doing back over 4 billion years.

You can't use those non scientits as your kind of thinking. And of course if you see God as intelligent, and I do, much of what you enjoy is ID work of God.

I wish a lot of people quit trying to paint God as religion and accepted God as science.

I would mock anybody that actually believes in the concepts that one moment there was no universe and the next all hell broke out and a universe was forming, and it just happened. God had to do that. Nature can't create something in that fashion.

The other day this week, I saw some scientist now promoting the idea that himans came from some animal that resembles a rodent or perhaps it might be looked at as more like a large wierd looking semi fox looking animal. It has several features that are sort of hard to describe. Maybe I can find a picture somewhere.

Though not exact, the picture I saw on TV was something like this picture.

4499

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 03:09 PM

Human fault of CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to about 3-4% of the total. Whereas the vast majority comes from volcanoes or other natural effects.

In fact, CO2 levels don't rise, they fluctuate. Due to tree's and plants continually converting CO2 into O2.

In other words, it's been the same for about... oh say, millions of years since the meteor that killed the dino's dissipated.

4498

And the total Carbon Dioxide is trace amounts as well. And of those microscopic amounts, smaller amoints come from human events.

They will have you thinking that the total CO2 must be like 10 percent. But you measure CO2 in the atmosphere in parts of a million. And 400 parts per million is a very tiny figure.

Say you had 400 parts per million dollars.

You would have 400 dollars but the total is one million dollars.

You in short have not much money. Same with Carbon Dioxide.

The other day some brilliant scientist woke up and says, hey the Sun is producing more heat.

Ya think? :cool:

Robert A Whit

02-10-2013, 03:32 PM

Don't equate an ignorant newscaster with scientists. I remember an ignoramous on Fox News saying that Walgreens gives mamograms and pap smears.

Wow, talking of lurching way off topic.

So, I had a hell of a time trying to locate a video to back up your claim but now for the rest of the story.

Doocy and Kilmeade were saying that about Walgreen.

So, so what?

That is a talk show. Do you left wingers go to the former Oprah Winfrey show for factual news? What about those women on the View? Do you think of them as factual news sources?

Doocy and Kilmeade by now realize they were bull shitting.

Any customer of Walgreens knows the truth.

But my question is why blame FOX NEWS? That program ought to be called Fox and Friends.

Wait, by golly it is called that. So it is not FOX NEWS. News is different. News has to be something really going on. We call that reporting. Fox and friends is a morning show where like Colbert, they tend to poke some fun.

If you left wingers see Fox and Friends, maybe you rely on that scat brain Rachel Maddow for your news.

My god.

And you guys claim you are thinkers?

I treat Fox and Frends as a form of comedy.

bingster

02-10-2013, 03:49 PM

bingster

02-10-2013, 03:51 PM

Wow, talking of lurching way off topic.

So, I had a hell of a time trying to locate a video to back up your claim but now for the rest of the story.

Doocy and Kilmeade were saying that about Walgreen.

So, so what?

That is a talk show. Do you left wingers go to the former Oprah Winfrey show for factual news? What about those women on the View? Do you think of them as factual news sources?

Doocy and Kilmeade by now realize they were bull shitting.

Any customer of Walgreens knows the truth.

But my question is why blame FOX NEWS? That program ought to be called Fox and Friends.

Wait, by golly it is called that. So it is not FOX NEWS. News is different. News has to be something really going on. We call that reporting. Fox and friends is a morning show where like Colbert, they tend to poke some fun.

If you left wingers see Fox and Friends, maybe you rely on that scat brain Rachel Maddow for your news.

My god.

And you guys claim you are thinkers?

I treat Fox and Frends as a form of comedy.

The huge difference is Stephen Cobert knows he's making comedy, those idiots on Fox and Friends don't know any better at all.

And it was a big deal- we all got stern memos and directions from our general office on how to deal with this misinformation!
Regardless, this thread is about a newscaster asking a dumb question. The posters are directing it against environmentalists.

Drummond

02-10-2013, 04:06 PM

jimnyc

02-10-2013, 04:12 PM

The earth has warmed and cooled for like a gajillion years. 'nuff said.

bingster

02-10-2013, 04:12 PM

And the total Carbon Dioxide is trace amounts as well. And of those microscopic amounts, smaller amoints come from human events.

They will have you thinking that the total CO2 must be like 10 percent. But you measure CO2 in the atmosphere in parts of a million. And 400 parts per million is a very tiny figure.

Say you had 400 parts per million dollars.

You would have 400 dollars but the total is one million dollars.

You in short have not much money. Same with Carbon Dioxide.

The other day some brilliant scientist woke up and says, hey the Sun is producing more heat.

Ya think? :cool:
this is just wiki, I could get plenty more from environmental sites.
Anthropogenic CO2 increase

While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-Gosh03-19) Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-Gosh03-19) as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal) and petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment) CO2; deforestation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation) is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigatonne) of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-Peters-20) In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in 1990.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-Peters-20) In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Southeast_Asian_haze) were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels) around the world in a single year.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-22)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-23) In the period 1751 to 1900 about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-24)
This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-25) As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#cite_no te-carbon_budget-3)
Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink).

You guys keep living in your dream land. Fortunately 82% of our country believes it. Gazillions (jimmy's word?) are spent to counter global warming regulations so nothing will pass congress.

cadet

02-10-2013, 04:16 PM

Says you and that stoner in the picture? Guilt by association?

That all you can say? Do you not like hearing science when it proves you wrong? :rolleyes:

And hell, I didn't even have to look up those numbers. You'd be surprised how much taking a simple chemistry course will teach you about the atmosphere. I did that math myself.

Grant it, I did make sure to Google it to see if I was right.

aboutime

02-10-2013, 04:22 PM

That all you can say? Do you not like hearing science when it proves you wrong? :rolleyes:

And hell, I didn't even have to look up those numbers. You'd be surprised how much taking a simple chemistry course will teach you about the atmosphere. I did that math myself.

Grant it, I did make sure to Google it to see if I was right.

cadet. Bingster is a total waste of time. The One, and Only person on this forum today who is ALWAYS RIGHT about everything, no matter what topic, is Bingster.

It's much easier for bingster to maintain the Liberal techniques where only Liberal thinking is permitted, and everyone else who dares to disagree is...ALWAYS WRONG.

red states rule

02-11-2013, 03:11 AM

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/politifake.org/image/political/1005/the-poll-results-are-in-al-gore-global-warming-hoax-political-poster-1274828883.jpg

red states rule

02-11-2013, 03:13 AM

The huge difference is Stephen Cobert knows he's making comedy, those idiots on Fox and Friends don't know any better at all.

And it was a big deal- we all got stern memos and directions from our general office on how to deal with this misinformation!
Regardless, this thread is about a newscaster asking a dumb question. The posters are directing it against environmentalists.

http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/190728054/liberals_hate_facts_mug.jpg

bingster

02-11-2013, 01:40 PM

http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/190728054/liberals_hate_facts_mug.jpg

Yea, right. Like posted before, this is Fox's idea of "facts" we call them "lies"

Obama started the free cell phone program

Benghazi was a coverup

Obama wasn't born in America

Obama messed with the unemployment numbers to win an election

All of the election polls are skewed for Democrats-that's why Romney will win in a "landslide"

Voter fraud is a proven problem

Stimulus did not create a single job

Stimulus has no tax cuts

Obama is a muslim

Islamaphobia

Foreign trip to India will cost $200 million per day

Acorn assists child smuggling ring- which was a setup and later reported on all other stations as such except for Fox

Virtually anything Glenn Beck says, like Obama is a communist because he has a bunch of Czars, MSNBC headquarters was designed to appeal to communists (Fox is part of the same Kennedy center and designed the same way and by the same designers); Obama a secret Muslim and hates white people, etc.....

bingster

02-11-2013, 01:46 PM

cadet. Bingster is a total waste of time. The One, and Only person on this forum today who is ALWAYS RIGHT about everything, no matter what topic, is Bingster.

It's much easier for bingster to maintain the Liberal techniques where only Liberal thinking is permitted, and everyone else who dares to disagree is...ALWAYS WRONG.

I love this argument that I think I'm always right. Did you learn that in kindergarten? Do you write things you think are wrong? You always write what you think is right, don't you? Do you think you're always right?

If you read my posts, you also see me do one thing that some posters NEVER do. I admit when I'm mistaken. How does that jive with your opinion that "I'm always right"?

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 01:47 PM

So wait a minute, am I supposed to believe that the polar ice caps melting is a sign of global warming. Hot weather throughout the US in summer is another sign of this global warming. When it snows, it's due to global warming. When it rains, it's due to global warming. I've seen many blame just about every piece of weather and every piece of climate on global warming. Kind of a neat trick to make ones argument unbeatable as such.

And I say that every single one of these "events" is proof of history repeating itself for the billionth time. Nothing out of the ordinary, just the same changes that have happened before, and more changes will happen in the opposite direction.

tailfins

02-11-2013, 01:48 PM

cadet

02-11-2013, 02:45 PM

Yea, right. Like posted before, this is Fox's idea of "facts" we call them "lies"

Obama started the free cell phone program

Benghazi was a coverup

Obama wasn't born in America

Obama messed with the unemployment numbers to win an election

All of the election polls are skewed for Democrats-that's why Romney will win in a "landslide"

Voter fraud is a proven problem

Stimulus did not create a single job

Stimulus has no tax cuts

Obama is a muslim

Islamaphobia

Foreign trip to India will cost $200 million per day

Acorn assists child smuggling ring- which was a setup and later reported on all other stations as such except for Fox

Virtually anything Glenn Beck says, like Obama is a communist because he has a bunch of Czars, MSNBC headquarters was designed to appeal to communists (Fox is part of the same Kennedy center and designed the same way and by the same designers); Obama a secret Muslim and hates white people, etc.....

Um, hate to burst your bubble, but fox does a good job differentiating their facts, and opinions.

You can't exactly say a bald faced lie on national news without being fired. If you look at fox with that kind of eye, do what the rest of us do and watch both sides like that, then make up your mind.
Also, Idk where you're getting your info, I don't hear that kind of stuff on the news... It's more anti-terrorism (not islamaphobia). Some of my good friends are Muslim. (and total pervs) We don't have an issue with the non-radicals...
And the unemployment numbers have always been messed up. They don't count in the people that gave up.

But back to my point. Watch both sides, and realize they're both leaning to their side of things. But you'll still get the whole story if you watch either, just not as much if you ignore one. Try it out.

bingster

02-11-2013, 04:11 PM

Um, hate to burst your bubble, but fox does a good job differentiating their facts, and opinions.

You can't exactly say a bald faced lie on national news without being fired. If you look at fox with that kind of eye, do what the rest of us do and watch both sides like that, then make up your mind.
Also, Idk where you're getting your info, I don't hear that kind of stuff on the news... It's more anti-terrorism (not islamaphobia). Some of my good friends are Muslim. (and total pervs) We don't have an issue with the non-radicals...
And the unemployment numbers have always been messed up. They don't count in the people that gave up.

But back to my point. Watch both sides, and realize they're both leaning to their side of things. But you'll still get the whole story if you watch either, just not as much if you ignore one. Try it out.

You're not bursting my bubble at all. These are the things people believe after watching Fox News. Pew loves to play with Fox News viewers in their polls. One recent poll said that 47% of Republicans believe that Acorn stole the election for Obama even though Acorn has been out of business for years. And if the b.s. didn't come from Fox, where else?

You can, conceivably, mislead without lying, but the proof in the pudding is what "truth" the viewers come away with.

Other than basic ideological differences which can be argued both ways with equal credibility, what outrageous conspiracies or fantasies do you think we learn from MSNBC?

I know your answers will be subjective, but come up with something solid, like we think Bush had illegitimate kids or something.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 04:13 PM

You're not bursting my bubble at all. These are the things people believe after watching Fox News. Pew loves to play with Fox News viewers in their polls. One recent poll said that 47% of Republicans believe that Acorn stole the election for Obama even though Acorn has been out of business for years. And if the b.s. didn't come from Fox, where else?

You can, conceivably, mislead without lying, but the proof in the pudding is what "truth" the viewers come away with.

Other than basic ideological differences which can be argued both ways with equal credibility, what outrageous conspiracies or fantasies do you think we learn from MSNBC?

I know your answers will be subjective, but come up with something solid, like we think Bush had illegitimate kids or something.

Let's see this poll, and the questions asked and who they asked? I think we would need to know that stuff before judging any poll.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 04:22 PM

cadet

02-11-2013, 05:04 PM

bingster

02-11-2013, 05:27 PM

The poll in question was actually 49% of Republicans - or the measly 700 people they asked the question of. Hardly indicative of the masses.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/a-quarter-of-republicans-want-to-secede-half-think-election-stolen.html

Q9 Do you think Democrats engaged in voter fraud
to ensure that Barack Obama won the election,
or not?
Democrats engaged in voter fraud.................. 30%
They did not .................................................. .. 59%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 11%
Another funny one.....

I think 700 is pretty average. Gallup, according to Gallup, polls 1000. Big dif?

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 05:31 PM

Q9 Do you think Democrats engaged in voter fraud
to ensure that Barack Obama won the election,
or not?
Democrats engaged in voter fraud.................. 30%
They did not .................................................. .. 59%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 11%
Another funny one.....

And I'm sure I can find equally stupid polls from a handful of liberals looking like idiots too. But I won't run around and post as if it somehow speaks for the entire left. It's nothing more than a flawed poll trying to be passed off as some major "gotcha" against the rest of Republicans. What's worse though, is that some DO take these polls to heart and think that Republicans are dumb as a result. Or is it what they want when they went searching for the poll? Who knows.

gabosaurus

02-11-2013, 05:33 PM

It is quite humorous to see all these "global warming" threads and posts from people who obviously don't know what global warming actually is.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 05:35 PM

I think 700 is pretty average. Gallup, according to Gallup, polls 1000. Big dif?

Legit places don't ask leading questions like the one below. Anyone with 1/99th of a brain could look at that list of questions and see it's obviously leading in every other question. WHY ask about Acorn unless it was even a possibility? They prey on the uninformed and stick a possibility into their heads, then they run with it. It's a crap poll with crap questions.

Q8 Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately
won the Presidential election this year, or do
you think that ACORN stole it for him?

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 05:36 PM

It is quite humorous to see all these "global warming" threads and posts from people who obviously don't know what global warming actually is.

I do.

But let me ask - how do YOU know who knows/understands and who doesn't? Would you like to write 2-3 paragraphs on the subject and edumucate us? :slap:

gabosaurus

02-11-2013, 05:37 PM

Strangely enough, the same people who feel the Dems stole the 2008 and 2012 elections do not feel that GW Bush stole the 2000 election.
Imagine that. :rolleyes:

bingster

02-11-2013, 05:50 PM

Legit places don't ask leading questions like the one below. Anyone with 1/99th of a brain could look at that list of questions and see it's obviously leading in every other question. WHY ask about Acorn unless it was even a possibility? They prey on the uninformed and stick a possibility into their heads, then they run with it. It's a crap poll with crap questions.

I'll give you that one. It was definitely a leading question. I'll admit to that. Want to look at the NRA poll now? Half of their questions were obviously geared to get a reaction to get what they wanted out of the poll also.

bingster

02-11-2013, 05:56 PM

And I'm sure I can find equally stupid polls from a handful of liberals looking like idiots too. But I won't run around and post as if it somehow speaks for the entire left. It's nothing more than a flawed poll trying to be passed off as some major "gotcha" against the rest of Republicans. What's worse though, is that some DO take these polls to heart and think that Republicans are dumb as a result. Or is it what they want when they went searching for the poll? Who knows.

I think it does, however, uncover misconceptions in the general public. All of the swing states changed their voting rules right before the election and even admitted they were doing it to secure Republican victories. Then you add Fox's coverage talking up voter fraud, you end up with a large amount of people believing it's true.

I haven't seen one single survey that has shown more than a handful of voter fraud convictions in the last 13 years, but 30% of people believe it's a big enough issue to allow the Democrats to win an election? That's incredible to me and demonstrates the force of Fox News-and that FORCE is not "balanced".

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 05:56 PM

I'll give you that one. It was definitely a leading question. I'll admit to that. Want to look at the NRA poll now? Half of their questions were obviously geared to get a reaction to get what they wanted out of the poll also.

I got news for ya - probably 90+% of polls are for shit. As I'm certainly not the first to say, I think a poll can be found supporting pretty much any position. That's why I always want to read the specific questions, and the rest of the data. The closest to a poll I can refer to, is 'realclearpolitics' - on some polls. where they take an aggregate from polls around the country and various outlets. Even then...

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 05:57 PM

I think it does, however, uncover misconceptions in the general public. All of the swing states changed their voting rules right before the election and even admitted they were doing it to secure Republican victories. Then you add Fox's coverage talking up voter fraud, you end up with a large amount of people believing it's true.

I haven't seen one single survey that has shown more than a handful of voter fraud convictions in the last 13 years, but 30% of people believe it's a big enough issue to allow the Democrats to win an election? That's incredible to me and demonstrates the force of Fox News.

link?

bingster

02-11-2013, 06:04 PM

I got news for ya - probably 90+% of polls are for shit. As I'm certainly not the first to say, I think a poll can be found supporting pretty much any position. That's why I always want to read the specific questions, and the rest of the data. The closest to a poll I can refer to, is 'realclearpolitics' - on some polls. where they take an aggregate from polls around the country and various outlets. Even then...

I'm with you on that especially on realclearpolitics.

bingster

02-11-2013, 06:18 PM

link?

Here's a couple links that list all of the laws attempted, blocked, and enacted. The second link explains impact on voting and mentions the purposeful blocking of early voting to stop black voters from voting.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2012-voting-laws-roundup

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/1033872/gop%27s_new_voter_id_laws_could_impact_10_million_ voters/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 06:36 PM

bingster

02-11-2013, 06:45 PM

I think voter ID is necessary. We have so many other things where it's essential that an ID be presented for verification, this should certainly be applied nationwide, IMO.

Oh, and NOTHING you posted shows states actively involved in maneuvering laws to secure republican victories. Maybe in an indirect way it might help, if the ID was mandatory and potential fraud wiped out. Simply have money funded then, to help pay those who can't foot a $2-5 bill for a county ID or similar.

I'd buy the ID thing if they were pushing it now, which they are not. They will wait until 2016 to push again when it's more likely to stop Democrats from voting.
The only people pushing voting laws are Republican. The vast majority of the population that needs a voter ID are from groups that vote Democrat. Florida, a state with historically long lines, cut early voting. Why do you think they did that? Many of the laws that were struck down were done so because there wasn't enough evidence of fraud to have the laws in the first place. I think voter ID is even in the Republican platform-not political?
Here's some history of Republican's efforts from the Bush administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all

Robert A Whit

02-11-2013, 06:50 PM

The huge difference is Stephen Cobert knows he's making comedy, those idiots on Fox and Friends don't know any better at all.

And it was a big deal- we all got stern memos and directions from our general office on how to deal with this misinformation!
Regardless, this thread is about a newscaster asking a dumb question. The posters are directing it against environmentalists.

But Colbert is just a show. Fox and Friends is also just a show. Maybe you don't understand Kilmeades type of comedy.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 06:56 PM

I'd buy the ID thing if they were pushing it now, which they are not. They will wait until 2016 to push again when it's more likely to stop Democrats from voting.
The only people pushing voting laws are Republican. The vast majority of the population that needs a voter ID are from groups that vote Democrat. Florida, a state with historically long lines, cut early voting. Why do you think they did that? Many of the laws that were struck down were done so because there wasn't enough evidence of fraud to have the laws in the first place. I think voter ID is even in the Republican platform-not political?
Here's some history of Republican's efforts from the Bush administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all

It doesn't matter, ALL voters will be held to the same standards. The standards now suck! When a young WHITE man can walk into the polls, and vote as Eric Holder, who is black, one of the most notable people in the nation - then I think it's time we ID those coming to the polls. Is it a "democrat only" thing to no possess some sort of ID already? You can't have a bank account, a credit card, you can't fly, get a drink, drive... Let's face it, people just don't want to show the ID is the problem.

bingster

02-11-2013, 07:13 PM

It doesn't matter, ALL voters will be held to the same standards. The standards now suck! When a young WHITE man can walk into the polls, and vote as Eric Holder, who is black, one of the most notable people in the nation - then I think it's time we ID those coming to the polls. Is it a "democrat only" thing to no possess some sort of ID already? You can't have a bank account, a credit card, you can't fly, get a drink, drive... Let's face it, people just don't want to show the ID is the problem.

Like I said. Do it now and make it easy. Republicans won't push it now, they want to wait until 2016.

There is no "papers please" law. You don't have to have an ID. Poor people don't have them. College students who don't drive don't have them. Old people don't renew them. But, voting is a constitutional right. George W. put a lot of effort into exposing voter fraud and came up just about empty.

It isn't hard to prove voter fraud, it just doesn't happen often enough to be an issue. Face it, though, only half of our country even bothers to vote in the first place. Do you really think there enough people who want to vote extra times, or at all when they're not supposed to, to make a difference?

I get the logic of voter ID. It should happen sometime, but it better be extremely easy and virtually free-poll taxes are illegal. But it is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; while the solution, by enlarge, does affect Democratic voters.

aboutime

02-11-2013, 07:16 PM

Like I said. Do it now and make it easy. Republicans won't push it now, they want to wait until 2016.

There is no "papers please" law. You don't have to have an ID. Poor people don't have them. College students who don't drive don't have them. Old people don't renew them. But, voting is a constitutional right. George W. put a lot of effort into exposing voter fraud and came up just about empty.

It isn't hard to prove voter fraud, it just doesn't happen often enough to be an issue. Face it, though, only half of our country even bothers to vote in the first place. Do you really think there enough people who want to vote extra times, or at all when they're not supposed to, to make a difference?

I get the logic of voter ID. It should happen sometime, but it better be extremely easy and virtually free-poll taxes are illegal. But it is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; while the solution, by enlarge, does affect Democratic voters.

bingster. Have you been a dumb Liberal all of your life, or did you just become one?

Kathianne

02-11-2013, 07:25 PM

Paper ballots, voter posses positive ID. Simple. Eliminate electronic voting and no ID. The only 'electronic data' should be death records.

bingster

02-11-2013, 07:32 PM

bingster. Have you been a dumb Liberal all of your life, or did you just become one?

What's your argument squid? Just insults or do you have actual intelligent thought?

bingster

02-11-2013, 07:37 PM

Paper ballots, voter posses positive ID. Simple. Eliminate electronic voting and no ID. The only 'electronic data' should be death records.

You know what? I keep agreeing that some kind of ID would be reasonable, but some of the voter ID laws have even made military ID's invalid. If you really want people to show ID, then you accept all forms of ID and make it incredibly easy and virtually free to get a voter ID. This is not what the laws are doing, and they always wait until 6 months before the general to propose the laws.

cadet

02-11-2013, 07:40 PM

Like I said. Do it now and make it easy. Republicans won't push it now, they want to wait until 2016.

There is no "papers please" law. You don't have to have an ID. Poor people don't have them. College students who don't drive don't have them. Old people don't renew them. But, voting is a constitutional right. George W. put a lot of effort into exposing voter fraud and came up just about empty.

It isn't hard to prove voter fraud, it just doesn't happen often enough to be an issue. Face it, though, only half of our country even bothers to vote in the first place. Do you really think there enough people who want to vote extra times, or at all when they're not supposed to, to make a difference?

I get the logic of voter ID. It should happen sometime, but it better be extremely easy and virtually free-poll taxes are illegal. But it is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; while the solution, by enlarge, does affect Democratic voters.

The reason no one's pushing it now is because no one's thinking about the election. It's out of every regular joe's minds right now.
The point is, is that those of us that pay attention are still pushing it!
Here's this, use a ss number to vote! Easy peasey!
And with everything electronic, you can't really have two of the same SS number vote twice.

bingster

02-11-2013, 07:46 PM

The reason no one's pushing it now is because no one's thinking about the election. It's out of every regular joe's minds right now.
The point is, is that those of us that pay attention are still pushing it!
Here's this, use a ss number to vote! Easy peasey!
And with everything electronic, you can't really have two of the same SS number vote twice.

Sounds like an OK answer to me, but not good enough for the Republicans. They require a picture, expiration date, date of birth, description, etc... That's why a military ID doesn't even qualify.

The regular Joe isn't thinking about it now, but if Republican politicians were sincere and not trying to steal an election, they would continue to push it early enough to allow people to comply. That's why they will wait until 2016.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 07:53 PM

You know what? I keep agreeing that some kind of ID would be reasonable, but some of the voter ID laws have even made military ID's invalid. If you really want people to show ID, then you accept all forms of ID and make it incredibly easy and virtually free to get a voter ID. This is not what the laws are doing, and they always wait until 6 months before the general to propose the laws.

What kind of ID do you need in order to present yourself to serve your country in the military, or do they take enlistees on the honor system?

You can't accept any ID as even the ID systems are fraudulent, that's why it needs to be good verifiable picture ID systems. Anything less is a waste of time. If demands can be made so SO MANY things in our lives, then surely we can work out a system where voters prove who they are. It's asinine to have people fork over an ID for so many other things BUT for elections.

obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription

Robert A Whit

02-11-2013, 08:14 PM

bingster

02-11-2013, 08:23 PM

What kind of ID do you need in order to present yourself to serve your country in the military, or do they take enlistees on the honor system?

You can't accept any ID as even the ID systems are fraudulent, that's why it needs to be good verifiable picture ID systems. Anything less is a waste of time. If demands can be made so SO MANY things in our lives, then surely we can work out a system where voters prove who they are. It's asinine to have people fork over an ID for so many other things BUT for elections.

obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription

I don't remember what ID I used, I think I was stoned back then.

Again, none of that is guaranteed by the constitution and nobody has proven that fraud is a problem. In fact, opposite of his intentions, George W. Bush, in effect, proved that fraud is not a problem.

Also, a military ID is a hell of lot more secure than an electricity bill.

Oh, and actually, you don't by law in California have to present an ID to pick up a prescription unless it's a CIII drug or was it CII, I forget (controlled). I really sucked in the pharmacy.

bingster

02-11-2013, 08:29 PM

When I was in the Army, I knew for a fact that some of our guys were not American citizens yet they had military ID cards.

What you fail to understand is that voting for president was not part of the Constitution but since we now vote for president, at least let's keep that priviledge for those who are actually American citizens.

Let me tell you spunky what Al Gore Pulled.

He directed the then head of Immigration to pull in as many Mexicans as they could and make them citizens, tell them who did it and get them registered to vote.

Suppose President Bush later tried that crap.

Do you back that sort of crap? Thousands of those Mexicans getting instant citizenship later were investigated and those thousands had crimnal records.

That still ok with you?

Calm down and enjoy this.

http://youtu.be/RYq-4nLPuYY

Did she get clobbered by a glacier ice cube? Damn, I hate when that happens.
I don't know about what Gore did, I never heard that.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 08:31 PM

I don't remember what ID I used, I think I was stoned back then.

Again, none of that is guaranteed by the constitution and nobody has proven that fraud is a problem. In fact, opposite of his intentions, George W. Bush, in effect, proved that fraud is not a problem.

Also, a military ID is a hell of lot more secure than an electricity bill.

Point is, none of those things can be done without a valid ID. The people affected by having to get one for the first time will be in the extreme minority. If that be the case, then let their be a fund to help cover the costs for those people. The only way to truly know we are without fraud is to go the route of verified ID.

bingster

02-11-2013, 08:46 PM

Point is, none of those things can be done without a valid ID. The people affected by having to get one for the first time will be in the extreme minority. If that be the case, then let their be a fund to help cover the costs for those people. The only way to truly know we are without fraud is to go the route of verified ID.

Like I said. I'm good with that, but do it now, and make it easy and almost free. I'm telling you, though, that's not the mission of the Republican party. They know, like I do, there is no fraud. They will wait until mid 2016 to push this again. It's not about fraud, it's about winning an election against the will of the people.

Wait and see, prove me wrong.

jimnyc

02-11-2013, 09:13 PM

Like I said. I'm good with that, but do it now, and make it easy and almost free. I'm telling you, though, that's not the mission of the Republican party. They know, like I do, there is no fraud. They will wait until mid 2016 to push this again. It's not about fraud, it's about winning an election against the will of the people.

Wait and see, prove me wrong.

My God, is EVERYTHING with you about party? And some wonder why there is such a disparity, such a disconnect across America. Why can't there just be issues to be discussed without blaming a party. Did you ever think that maybe an awful lot of CITIZENS believe it would be a good idea to ensure our elections were as secure as possible, and photo ID was a good way of moving in that direction? And it's not a mission, it's just common sense. If you're so sure there is no fraud, then no harm and no foul - but at least the better system will be in place. No one will be being harmed by *gulp* having an ID that is all but necessary to live with anyway.

bingster

02-12-2013, 02:16 PM

My God, is EVERYTHING with you about party? And some wonder why there is such a disparity, such a disconnect across America. Why can't there just be issues to be discussed without blaming a party. Did you ever think that maybe an awful lot of CITIZENS believe it would be a good idea to ensure our elections were as secure as possible, and photo ID was a good way of moving in that direction? And it's not a mission, it's just common sense. If you're so sure there is no fraud, then no harm and no foul - but at least the better system will be in place. No one will be being harmed by *gulp* having an ID that is all but necessary to live with anyway.

No, the point I'm making is that the public is being misled on this issue by their politicians. There is no fraud. The only reason to push this the way they have is ONLY about party to them. Yes, it's a common sense measure and I look forward to them pushing it now, early, before it can impact an election. THEY WON'T DO IT THOUGH BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING ABOUT PURPOSE.

Look at what they did with early voting. Florida had every reason to open up more early voting, but they cut early voting because in-person early voting is usually done by a majority of Democrats. They didn't touch absentism balloting which yields a slight majority to Republicans.

And the voting laws are all about party. All surveys show a majority of those without an ID vote Democrat. And they will wait until too late to try new laws.

Then all of the swing states considered changing how the electoral college is counted in their states because they saw that if they would have done this before the election, Romney would have won. Thankfully, even the Republicans have backed off this tack because nobody could deny this was an obvious attempt to steal the election.

And of course, there was the gerrymandering done to maintain their majority in the house, which I've posted before. Even though almost 2 million more Americans voted for House Democrats, the Republicans kept the majority.

Yes, it is all about party. But not just to me. I agree with the common sense of a voter ID if we do it now and not wait.

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 02:43 PM

No, the point I'm making is that the public is being misled on this issue by their politicians. There is no fraud. The only reason to push this the way they have is ONLY about party to them. Yes, it's a common sense measure and I look forward to them pushing it now, early, before it can impact an election. THEY WON'T DO IT THOUGH BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING ABOUT PURPOSE.

Look at what they did with early voting. Florida had every reason to open up more early voting, but they cut early voting because in-person early voting is usually done by a majority of Democrats. They didn't touch absentism balloting which yields a slight majority to Republicans.

And the voting laws are all about party. All surveys show a majority of those without an ID vote Democrat. And they will wait until too late to try new laws.

Then all of the swing states considered changing how the electoral college is counted in their states because they saw that if they would have done this before the election, Romney would have won. Thankfully, even the Republicans have backed off this tack because nobody could deny this was an obvious attempt to steal the election.

And of course, there was the gerrymandering done to maintain their majority in the house, which I've posted before. Even though almost 2 million more Americans voted for House Democrats, the Republicans kept the majority.

Yes, it is all about party. But not just to me. I agree with the common sense of a voter ID if we do it now and not wait.

Having an ID would apply equally to ALL citizens and ensure fraud doesn't exist. There is really no was possible to say fraud doesn't happen without. Many politicians argue the same thing I am, in favor of ID's, and you're saying they are lying, which would mean I am lying. Why is it not just possible that they want ID's to prove one is eligible and who they are? How does having that line of thinking make one a liar?

And now we're back to stealing elections when people want to ensure everyone is who they say they are and are elections are on the up and up?

Go over the list above again, how many people do you think can live now without having an ID? It's nearly impossible. Even the college kids you referred to - sorry, they need ID to get into school. And pharmacies - maybe not every time - but if you think you could have walked in originally, and filled a script with no ID, you're mistaken. You would still need to present ID and Ins. if necessary.

bingster

02-12-2013, 02:56 PM

Having an ID would apply equally to ALL citizens and ensure fraud doesn't exist. There is really no was possible to say fraud doesn't happen without. Many politicians argue the same thing I am, in favor of ID's, and you're saying they are lying, which would mean I am lying. Why is it not just possible that they want ID's to prove one is eligible and who they are? How does having that line of thinking make one a liar?

And now we're back to stealing elections when people want to ensure everyone is who they say they are and are elections are on the up and up?

Go over the list above again, how many people do you think can live now without having an ID? It's nearly impossible. Even the college kids you referred to - sorry, they need ID to get into school. And pharmacies - maybe not every time - but if you think you could have walked in originally, and filled a script with no ID, you're mistaken. You would still need to present ID and Ins. if necessary.

I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm accusing politicians who timed their laws just before a presidential election of lying about their intent.

An intent, as I've said, that has dried up now that the presidential election is over. They'll forget their "noble" intentions until it would affect their not so noble intentions in 2016.

I'm just surprised you don't see the pattern of party politics:
1st the gerrymandering in 2010, then the crack down on registration drives, then the voter law changes, then after they lost, the effort to change the rules for next year.

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 02:58 PM

In order to cash a paycheck, of have direct deposit, one needs a bank account. If one doesn't have a bank account, they need to use a check cashing service. Both would require ID. Same with the elderly and pensions and other government services. The only way it would be avoidable would be if someone were getting paid cash. I can't imagine anyone other than the homeless who don't already have an ID, and even then many of them have ID's. It's nearly impossible to survive in this world without an ID.

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 03:00 PM

I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm accusing politicians who timed their laws just before a presidential election of lying about their intent.

An intent, as I've said, that has dried up now that the presidential election is over. They'll forget their "noble" intentions until it would affect their not so noble intentions in 2016.

I'm just surprised you don't see the pattern of party politics:
1st the gerrymandering in 2010, then the crack down on registration drives, then the voter law changes, then after they lost, the effort to change the rules for next year.

I'm surprised you didn't see the Democrats paying voters, offering food to others, busing in people from all over, working with the homeless... THAT'S why many Republicans want ID's at the polls, to stop the perpetual crap that the democrats try, every election. Republicans may try to change laws, which would be legal, as opposed to the scum on the left who feel it's an American right to fuck with elections.

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 03:06 PM

Let me ask you a question, bing...

If only 30 incidents of voter fraud could be proven, should it be overlooked?

mundame

02-12-2013, 03:11 PM

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 03:14 PM

If they can't predict the weather next week, they sure can't predict the climate.

True dat!

Robert A Whit

02-12-2013, 03:20 PM

It is quite humorous to see all these "global warming" threads and posts from people who obviously don't know what global warming actually is.

Since they use average temperatures, you don't understand it eaither. When you have a very famous global climate expert insisting it is a scam job, but other scientists saying it is true, soembody, even scientists can't agree.

earth has so many climates that to average them out is very very dumb. Besides, how to you think the great lakes came into being other than warming climate. Thank god they do not blame humans for warming earth creating places like Yosemite, Yellowstone and of course New York City lands.

gabosaurus

02-12-2013, 04:04 PM

Robert A Whit

02-12-2013, 04:57 PM

Global Warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or from deforestation, which trap heat that would otherwise escape from Earth.

Excellent, non-political and scientific explanation here:

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/Global_Warming/fossil_fuels_and_global_warming.htm

One problem. You can't average out the temperatures. While techincally you might be able to, it means nothing. Read the papers of Ph.D. Richard Lindzen all available on the internet.

It would be like you are inside the rim of an active volcano. Said volcano is located in Iceland where the outside of the volcano has snow on parts of it. Then like a dumb shit, you try to average the temperature.

Take the Sahara desert. Then average it's temperature to the rest of Africa. Stupid waste of time.

I had a good talk with Richard Lindzen of MIT about averages and he says it is crap. He says if they want to try to do that, at least they ought to speak of medians and not averages.

Thus earth is so enormous that to average it means nothing at all.

But if you want to cling to that myth, at least deal with the fact that a whole lot of heating happened over time and no human had a hand in it. What do you think took place so the glaciers melted leaving the great lakes? Who gives a shit anyhow. This earth is always changing.

bingster

02-12-2013, 05:56 PM

I'm surprised you didn't see the Democrats paying voters, offering food to others, busing in people from all over, working with the homeless... THAT'S why many Republicans want ID's at the polls, to stop the perpetual crap that the democrats try, every election. Republicans may try to change laws, which would be legal, as opposed to the scum on the left who feel it's an American right to fuck with elections.

I'm not buying the bribery charges, but getting out the vote is what political parties do. As for helping the poor and homeless, I don't mind being accused of that (although I'm not claiming a partisan monopoly in that area, Republicans help the poor and homeless too).

"as opposed to the scum on the left who feel it's an American right to fuck with elections." -That's just a Republican talking point that is utter horse s***!

bingster

02-12-2013, 06:11 PM

One problem. You can't average out the temperatures. While techincally you might be able to, it means nothing. Read the papers of Ph.D. Richard Lindzen all available on the internet.

It would be like you are inside the rim of an active volcano. Said volcano is located in Iceland where the outside of the volcano has snow on parts of it. Then like a dumb shit, you try to average the temperature.

Take the Sahara desert. Then average it's temperature to the rest of Africa. Stupid waste of time.

I had a good talk with Richard Lindzen of MIT about averages and he says it is crap. He says if they want to try to do that, at least they ought to speak of medians and not averages.

Thus earth is so enormous that to average it means nothing at all.

But if you want to cling to that myth, at least deal with the fact that a whole lot of heating happened over time and no human had a hand in it. What do you think took place so the glaciers melted leaving the great lakes? Who gives a shit anyhow. This earth is always changing.

"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. "

here's a balanced article about climate change

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all

Robert A Whit

02-12-2013, 06:31 PM

"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. "

here's a balanced article about climate change

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all

You bet your sweet ass he accepts climate science. But he does not blame it on humans.

We all agree that water vapor is a green house gas. We agree that methane is as well.

Now what the hell does this have to do with humans?

That is not what he told me. Look, suppose the actual impact is 10000 of one percent, that doe4s not means that humans are doing it.

bingster

02-12-2013, 06:40 PM

Let me ask you a question, bing...

If only 30 incidents of voter fraud could be proven, should it be overlooked?

30 incidents over millions of votes cast? Yes, I think it's too minor a concern to inconvenience or cost money to millions of others.

bingster

02-12-2013, 06:51 PM

You bet your sweet ass he accepts climate science. But he does not blame it on humans.

We all agree that water vapor is a green house gas. We agree that methane is as well.

Now what the hell does this have to do with humans?

That is not what he told me. Look, suppose the actual impact is 10000 of one percent, that doe4s not means that humans are doing it.

Water vapor is a green house gas but it isn't one anyone is worried about.

"He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate".-that's your guy!

You picked the right scientist to quote, I'll give you that. According to the article link I gave you, Dr. Lindzen is pretty much the most credible scientist out there who disputes the hazards of climate change, but he doesn't dispute it at all. Much of his science takes advantage of how little we know about how effective clouds are in either increasing climate change or slowing it.

Most scientists feel that his theories have been completely discredited though. And, according to the article:
"Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk."

But Dr. Lindzen continues to be a star among the critics, sited by Republican politicians everywhere, and I can't help but wonder how much money he makes.

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 06:52 PM

"as opposed to the scum on the left who feel it's an American right to fuck with elections." -That's just a Republican talking point that is utter horse s***!

Don't like it, huh? Are you the only one allowed to continually post your parties retarded rhetoric, but horseshit when others toss it back at you? tsk tsk

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 06:53 PM

30 incidents over millions of votes cast? Yes, I think it's too minor a concern to inconvenience or cost money to millions of others.

As I figured, ok with fraud, so long as you get to choose the acceptable level. Some of us would like to ensure elections are fraud free, and others would like to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen - liberals.

bingster

02-12-2013, 07:08 PM

I was right. Dr. Lindzen has worked for both oil companies and tobacco companies. For the tobacco companies, he disputed proof that tobacco use has any link to health problems.

bingster

02-12-2013, 07:42 PM

I always figured there's a hell of a lot more money in disputing global warming that promoting it:

Here's an excerpt of the December 1995 Harpers Magazine

Financial motivations of the 5 most major scientist skeptics of climate change:
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer

"But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first time. Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels. Over the last six years, either alone or with colleagues, Balling has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. Balling (along with Sherwood Idso) has also taken money from Cyprus Minerals, a mining company that has been a major funder of People for the West—a militantly anti-environmental "Wise Use" group. Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Singer, who last winter proposed a $95,000 publicity project to "stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use," has received consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil, and has warned them that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone. "It took only five years to go from... a simple freeze of production [of CFCs]," Singer has written, ". . . to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out—all on the basis of quite insubstantial science."
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm#1
more on Lindzen
http://www.alternet.org/story/50494/newsweek_hides_global_warming_denier%27s_financial _ties_to_big_oil

(http://dieoff.org/page82.htm#2)

bingster

02-12-2013, 07:45 PM

As I figured, ok with fraud, so long as you get to choose the acceptable level. Some of us would like to ensure elections are fraud free, and others would like to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen - liberals.

Dude, I already said I'd be ok with the ID's. I'm just flabbergasted that you deny the political intent of this. And mark my words: Republicans will not touch this issue until mid 2016 when they will have an opportunity to disenfrachise some Democrats. I want to be wrong, but I'm not.

jimnyc

02-12-2013, 09:06 PM

Dude, I already said I'd be ok with the ID's. I'm just flabbergasted that you deny the political intent of this. And mark my words: Republicans will not touch this issue until mid 2016 when they will have an opportunity to disenfrachise some Democrats. I want to be wrong, but I'm not.

Many of those in the (R) party who support the voter law changes pretty much speak the same on the issues as I do. I guess I'm part of "fixing" the election too, since I would want to eliminate any possibility of fraud, which BOTH parties consistently blame the other of being involved in. Some of us simply want safeguards in our elections. The talk of disenfranchising and such is a load of crap. Like I said - SHOW ME the masses who do not already have an ID. And setup a way for the indigent who claim "disenfranchisement" a way to get the ID for free.

The hilarity is in someone seeing every last thing in life as republican/democrat and there is always blame instead of working on solutions. This type of thinking is exactly why Congress is fucked right now.

We don't play the honor system banks/airports/federal/bars/schools/.... It's time the honor system was done away with in our screwed up elections. I think lots of changes and enhancements should be made to protect the integrity of the vote, starting with the voter.

glockmail

02-12-2013, 09:13 PM

Democrats claim that Republicans commit voter fraud yet the examples that arise are almost always Democrat voters, and Democrats are the ones fighting voter ID laws. Odd.

bingster

02-12-2013, 10:34 PM

As I figured, ok with fraud, so long as you get to choose the acceptable level. Some of us would like to ensure elections are fraud free, and others would like to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen - liberals.

I need to rewrite my post to this. 30 fraudulent votes out of 100 million is not only a small problem, let me throw it back at you. What problem is smaller than that? Please, tell me what could possibly be a smaller problem than 30 fraudulent votes out of 100 million?

I think it's a bigger problem to make 2 or 3 million go out and get an ID that they don't constitutionally have to get. It's just not required in this country and it shouldn't be! Many of the posters on this forum seem to have this "black helicopter" conspiracy point of view on every subject you throw at them. And you think we, in America, should nationalize a "papers please" law? Isn't THAT a bigger problem than a .000000003 fraud rate?

If you say you don't agree, you're just being difficult. You don't believe it either. It's just politics.

again, if it's a problem, come up with a smaller problem- anything smaller than that isn't called a problem.

Robert A Whit

02-12-2013, 11:50 PM

Water vapor is a green house gas but it isn't one anyone is worried about.

"He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate".-that's your guy!

You picked the right scientist to quote, I'll give you that. According to the article link I gave you, Dr. Lindzen is pretty much the most credible scientist out there who disputes the hazards of climate change, but he doesn't dispute it at all. Much of his science takes advantage of how little we know about how effective clouds are in either increasing climate change or slowing it.

Most scientists feel that his theories have been completely discredited though. And, according to the article:
"Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk."

But Dr. Lindzen continues to be a star among the critics, sited by Republican politicians everywhere, and I can't help but wonder how much money he makes.

I posted what he actually believes on a different thread. Just read the man's words and evidence and please, do not misquote him again. He is the Einstein of climate Change. The Sir Issac Newton of explaining it. The Charles Darwin of understanding Climate change.

But you go on ahead. Study him first. Hell, I more than studied him, I chatted with him by mail.

logroller

02-13-2013, 01:18 AM

I posted what he actually believes on a different thread. Just read the man's words and evidence and please, do not misquote him again. He is the Einstein of climate Change. The Sir Issac Newton of explaining it. The Charles Darwin of understanding Climate change.

But you go on ahead. Study him first. Hell, I more than studied him, I chatted with him by mail.
He's no Einstein. Not even close. Does he even have a testable theory; let alone one that redefined our approach to the physical universe? Seems to me he just restated what others have said, concluding, "we don't really know." not exactly groundbreaking theory on par with special and general relativity. Maybe seventy years when his theorem (which is, essentially, we dont know) remains un-disproven, you can classify him with the likes of Einstein-- until then, he's just a tool of industry power-players who object to any consideration of pollution mitigation and resource conservation. I dont blame the guy for turning a buck, but I can list innumerable benefits to climate change mitigation efforts that, surreptitiously perchance, have nothing to do with whether or not climate change is anthropomorphic. In fact, even if it all proves true, America and other industrialized nations will be able to adapt when and if it happens; and its very likely that even if it is true that we caused it, there's nothing we can do to change it back. So with respect to the inconvenient truth, the symptoms are more manageable than the cause. In either respect, it is that management in which we engage to achieve some benefit; those who focus on the causes are, IMO, unable to see the forest for the trees. Its a far greater issue than prognostications of sea levels and desertification. That's just a fear tactic employed for its immediate effects. No different than telling everybody a huge storm is coming so that they'll get prepared, when they should be prepared anyways. Instead they blame the government for levies failing, inundating the homes which are precariously below sea level. I don't attempt to explain such insolence, but I can tell you it takes more than reason and prudence to convince such people to act accordingly; they usually need a push.
Please tell me a policy or practice aimed towards reduction of GHG that you have a problem with and allow me to explain its benefits regardless of climate change mitigation.

red states rule

02-13-2013, 03:42 AM

and this has actually happened

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10709720130212120100.jpg

Voted4Reagan

02-13-2013, 11:18 AM

and this has actually happened

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10709720130212120100.jpg

But RSR... According to the Drug Smoking, Tree Hugging, Liberal Bunny Lovers arent you aware that before it gets warmer it has to get Colder?

LOL

The only thing that has raised the Ocean level here in NY/Long Island was a Hurricane...

Not Global Warming

bingster

02-13-2013, 11:23 AM

tailfins

02-13-2013, 11:33 AM

To be painfully honest I don't want to study him. He has been discredited. I'd rather study the 97% of the scientific community that thinks he's a big oil and big tobacco tool.

They're prognosis is easy to read and believe also. Just because he's easy to believe or understand doesn't mean his theories are correct. It only means he's a good show for $2500 a pop.

Even if we concede everything you say about "climate change" (the term du jour), why don't lefties show any interest in not disrupting the economy. One only need to compare housing costs on the MA side of the border to those on the NH side of the border for a quick example. I'm sure others here can cite jobs lost over a single project's "climate change" impact, even though minimal even by environmentalists standards.

bingster

02-13-2013, 11:40 AM

Well, Bingster, I saw a slug on my back porch in Maryland last night Feb. 11 ---- and also we didn't get the snowstorm here, so I'm soft on global warming at the moment.

If we get snow, though, forget it. I have my standards.

Also, I am committed to the concept that global warming happens in the PAST, not the future. Because the future, you know, the data is so bad and hard to collect from there. As for global warming in the past, there was some for several years around 1000 in Europe, but as for here and now, the data isn't especially convincing that anything much has happened recently.

Maybe it will, but if global warming requires being sure awful things will happen in the future, I'd say wait and see if they do.

If they can't predict the weather next week, they sure can't predict the climate.

That's only why it's so easy to discredit the notion.

But the polar ice caps are melting. The hole in the ozone is getting larger.

Doesn't it make logical sense that billions of people dumping their weight in waste every 4 days into our environment, plus the depleting of the rainforests, plus all the other nasty stuff we're doing to the air and water might have some conceivable effect on our earth?

I think it's utterly ridiculous to believe we're all too small to hurt this huge earth. I think it's much more naive to believe we have no effect on the earth than to believe 97% of the climate scientists. No, of course they can't predict the whens and exactly hows, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to believe damage is happening-it is, so why don't we do something?

I'll tell you why. Because trillions of dollars are made by industries that don't want you to believe the claims of damage. All of the politicians (libs and cons) are bought and paid for by big oil and industry.

The guy I discredited on this thread that Robert brought up gets $2500 a pop by the oil industry to turn people against climate change even though he's helped write and support writings that has supported climate change in the past. He even made a few bucks testifying for the tobacco companies denying evidence that cigarette smoking has any relations to health hazards. These are the type of scientists out there supporting big oil, industry, and Republican politicians.

glockmail

02-13-2013, 11:43 AM

tailfins

02-13-2013, 11:46 AM

One argument that stops the Warmers in their tracks every time: nuclear power. It's clean, safe and reliable, but they don't want it. Obviously they have a different agenda: mankind is a blight on their god, mother earth. :laugh:

Outstanding! Outstanding! Outstanding! Environmentalism IS Pagan Earth Worship. Environmentalism is a religion. Which is exactly why it should not be taught in schools. My kids get excluded from environmentalist lessons in government schools for exactly that reason. I am shocked that they actually make that religious accommodation.

bingster

02-13-2013, 11:47 AM

Even if we concede everything you say about "climate change" (the term du jour), why don't lefties show any interest in not disrupting the economy. One only need to compare housing costs on the MA side of the border to those on the NH side of the border for a quick example. I'm sure others here can cite jobs lost over a single project's "climate change" impact, even though minimal even by environmentalists standards.

Your posts are usually well thought out, but I think that one sucked. Politicians do what politicians do. Sometimes the time is right to fight climate change, sometimes it isn't. No democratic politician wants to disrupt the economy. I don't see how changes in home prices have anything to do with liberals or climate change-educate me if I'm wrong. Jobs will be lost to fighting climate change, but it's for the sake of our earth. Is there a more important reason?

Not to mention, I love how Obama shouted out to John McCain during the SOTU last night. He was a leader in Cap n Trade until the 2008 primary, when he flipped. This has not always been a liberal issue, even Reagan said he believed in it.

bingster

02-13-2013, 11:50 AM

One argument that stops the Warmers in their tracks every time: nuclear power. It's clean, safe and reliable, but they don't want it. Obviously they have a different agenda: mankind is a blight on their god, mother earth. :laugh:

Obama supports nuclear energy and I'm coming around also. Nuclear is safe when it's not melting down like it did in Japan a couple of years ago. They even went so far as to commit to getting away from Nuclear energy in 50 years, although they're starting to back off of that during the recession.

"mankind is a blight on their god, mother earth" is a stupid shot. Want some Bible verses that command us to be good "stewards" of the earth?

tailfins

02-13-2013, 11:50 AM

Your posts are usually well thought out, but I think that one sucked. Politicians do what politicians do. Sometimes the time is right to fight climate change, sometimes it isn't. No democratic politician wants to disrupt the economy. I don't see how changes in home prices have anything to do with liberals or climate change-educate me if I'm wrong. Jobs will be lost to fighting climate change, but it's for the sake of our earth. Is there a more important reason?

Not to mention, I love how Obama shouted out to John McCain during the SOTU last night. He was a leader in Cap n Trade until the 2008 primary, when he flipped. This has not always been a liberal issue, even Reagan said he believed in it.

Ask a housing developer how hard it is to build in Mass. vs NH due to state environmental regs. When you can't build, you get a shortage and prices go up.

jimnyc

02-13-2013, 12:01 PM

I need to rewrite my post to this. 30 fraudulent votes out of 100 million is not only a small problem, let me throw it back at you. What problem is smaller than that? Please, tell me what could possibly be a smaller problem than 30 fraudulent votes out of 100 million?

I think it's a bigger problem to make 2 or 3 million go out and get an ID that they don't constitutionally have to get. It's just not required in this country and it shouldn't be! Many of the posters on this forum seem to have this "black helicopter" conspiracy point of view on every subject you throw at them. And you think we, in America, should nationalize a "papers please" law? Isn't THAT a bigger problem than a .000000003 fraud rate?

If you say you don't agree, you're just being difficult. You don't believe it either. It's just politics.

again, if it's a problem, come up with a smaller problem- anything smaller than that isn't called a problem.

Out of perhaps 100 million gun owners - how many are criminals?

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:06 PM

Outstanding! Outstanding! Outstanding! Environmentalism IS Pagan Earth Worship. Environmentalism is a religion. Which is exactly why it should not be taught in schools. My kids get excluded from environmentalist lessons in government schools for exactly that reason. I am shocked that they actually make that religious accommodation.

Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

Ezekiel 34:10. 0 shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock.

Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?

Isaiah 24:4-6. The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt.

Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

James 5:5. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Mark 4:19. ...and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and it becomes unfruitful.

Any questions?

tailfins

02-13-2013, 12:07 PM

Out of perhaps 100 million gun owners - how many are criminals?

WOW, Jim! I couldn't make a more off topic post if I tried. Not that I'm complaining, just surprised.

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:08 PM

Out of perhaps 100 million gun owners - how many are criminals?

Not applicable. Even the voter "fraudulent" people only voted one at a time.

jimnyc

02-13-2013, 12:11 PM

Not applicable. Even the voter "fraudulent" people only voted one at a time.

Yeah, sure - why punish the masses when only a few are guilty. That's EXACTLY what you propose with the sub-IQ gun control.

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:12 PM

Ask a housing developer how hard it is to build in Mass. vs NH due to state environmental regs. When you can't build, you get a shortage and prices go up.

That makes sense and I'm sure we have wackos on our side, also. But again, we're talking about our planet here.

tailfins

02-13-2013, 12:12 PM

Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

Ezekiel 34:10. 0 shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock.

Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?

Isaiah 24:4-6. The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt.

Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

James 5:5. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Mark 4:19. ...and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and it becomes unfruitful.

Any questions?

Interesting Bible study, duly noted. It would be even better if you didn't use an apostate version of the Scriptures. I just looked up one in a real Bible and the meaning is the same.

Isaiah 24

4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:13 PM

Yeah, sure - why punish the masses when only a few are guilty. That's EXACTLY what you propose with the sub-IQ gun control.

I don't think a background check is punishment, and if you're comparing tens of thousands of deaths per year to 30 or 40 voter fraud cases in the last 13 years, that's just silly.

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:15 PM

Interesting Bible study, duly noted. It would be even better if you didn't use an apostate version of the Scriptures.

Just two points
1. It's Christian to give a damn about the earth.
2. Not all Liberals are atheists and I find that insinuation offensive.

jimnyc

02-13-2013, 12:15 PM

I don't think a background check is punishment, and if you're comparing tens of thousands of deaths per year to 30 or 40 voter fraud cases in the last 13 years, that's just silly.

Nope, we're talking about law abiding citizens being treated like criminals. You want to ban certain guns and demand BG checks and registrations when it comes to guns and law abiding people - but the honor system is ok when it comes to voting for the president. I find that odd.

tailfins

02-13-2013, 12:19 PM

Just two points
1. It's Christian to give a damn about the earth.
2. Not all Liberals are atheists and I find that accusation offensive.

I didn't call you an atheist, all I said was that your quotes were from an apostate Bible version. The only non-apostate widely used English Bible is the 1611 Authorized King James.

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:24 PM

bingster

02-13-2013, 12:25 PM

I didn't call you an atheist, all I said was that your quotes were from an apostate Bible version. The only non-apostate widely used English Bible is the 1611 Authorized King James.

I referred to the earlier post saying that Environmentalism is "Pagan Earth" worship.

tailfins

02-13-2013, 12:34 PM

I referred to the earlier post saying that Environmentalism is "Pagan Earth" worship.

Let's look at the definition of worship, shall we? The below sure fits many Environmentalists that I have seen.

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+worship&qpvt=define+worship&FORM=DTPDIA

1.
transitive and intransitive verb treat somebody or something as deity: to treat somebody or something as divine and show respect by engaging in acts of prayer and devotion

2.
intransitive verb take part in religious service: to take part in a religious service

3.
transitive verb love somebody deeply: to love, admire, or respect somebody or something greatly and perhaps excessively or unquestioningly

jimnyc

02-13-2013, 12:34 PM

I referred to the earlier post saying that Environmentalism is "Pagan Earth" worship.

It would be more correctly labeled as "guesswork". I find it funny that BOTH sides come out with studies and such supporting their THEORIES and no one can ever agree. That's because what is happening has happened for a billion years now and will happen again.

tailfins

02-13-2013, 12:36 PM

It would be more correctly labeled as "guesswork". I find it funny that BOTH sides come out with studies and such supporting their THEORIES and no one can ever agree. That's because what is happening has happened for a billion years now and will happen again.

The age of the Earth is measured in thousands, not billions of years, unless of course you think you descended from a monkey.

jimnyc

02-13-2013, 12:39 PM

The age of the Earth is measured in thousands, not billions of years, unless of course you think you descended from a monkey.

Of course, I'm part monkey, the cute ones. And this climate change crap has been happening for like 60,765 krillbillmillzillion years.

glockmail

02-13-2013, 01:17 PM

The age of the Earth is measured in thousands, not billions of years, unless of course you think you descended from a monkey.

Sorry, but is something like 9 billion. Jesus often spoke in parables to explain complex matters to a wide audience. What makes you think that God didn't use the same technique in the story of His creation?

bingster

02-13-2013, 01:20 PM

Let's look at the definition of worship, shall we? The below sure fits many Environmentalists that I have seen.

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+worship&qpvt=define+worship&FORM=DTPDIA

Not a semantic argument! Ok, you didn't call me an atheist, you called me a worshiper of the Environmentalism Religion. I don't think that's God, but I guess you do, if you don't think you're calling me an atheist.

Try arguing the thread!

bingster

02-13-2013, 01:22 PM

The age of the Earth is measured in thousands, not billions of years, unless of course you think you descended from a monkey.

I think you lost your credibility to argue science.

bingster

02-13-2013, 01:23 PM

Of course, I'm part monkey, the cute ones. And this climate change crap has been happening for like 60,765 krillbillmillzillion years.

But the biggest stuff has happened in the last hundred.

glockmail

02-13-2013, 01:28 PM

Obama supports nuclear energy and I'm coming around also. Nuclear is safe when it's not melting down like it did in Japan a couple of years ago. They even went so far as to commit to getting away from Nuclear energy in 50 years, although they're starting to back off of that during the recession.

"mankind is a blight on their god, mother earth" is a stupid shot. Want some Bible verses that command us to be good "stewards" of the earth?

This is hilarious, a lib lecturing me about the Bible. :laugh:

The Obama is giving lip service to nuclear power. He's not issuing any new permits to build, and he's not moving forward with Yucca Mountain either. Once he's gone we'll be eight years further down the road to our nuclear fleet aging out and nothing else. The only thing that you can be sure of with his policies is that more freebies will be given to more folks who contribute the least to this country, hence more Democrat voters which is his only goal.

jimnyc

02-13-2013, 01:30 PM

But the biggest stuff has happened in the last hundred.

Hey, if you guys want to believe that crap, so be it. I can continue to produce scientific evidence to dispute the scientific evidence you post to prove it. That, the people busted lying and fraud. I'll keep living my life the way I want to. If you guys want to change on what you believe, have at it, just don't try and force me to do things that you like.

bingster

02-13-2013, 01:41 PM

Hey, if you guys want to believe that crap, so be it. I can continue to produce scientific evidence to dispute the scientific evidence you post to prove it. That, the people busted lying and fraud. I'll keep living my life the way I want to. If you guys want to change on what you believe, have at it, just don't try and force me to do things that you like.

Most of your scientists are in the pockets of big oil. Live your life as you want but 97% of climate scientists call this science, not guesswork. I'll go with the science.

tailfins

02-13-2013, 01:47 PM

Most of your scientists are in the pockets of big oil. Live your life as you want but 97% of climate scientists call this science, not guesswork. I'll go with the science.

Stewardship is one thing, deprivation is another. How much poverty is a fair trade for "environmental responsibility"?

Robert A Whit

02-13-2013, 01:57 PM

Most of your scientists are in the pockets of big oil. Live your life as you want but 97% of climate scientists call this science, not guesswork. I'll go with the science.

I did not know I had scientists, but thanks for the offer.

Oil is not the problem you are claimng it to be. Even whack jobs should understand that the COAL and not oil is the problem.

I keep reading your so called side has 97 percent of the scientists in your hip pocket.

I don't to this day get that. What kind of scientists?

If you mean actual climatologists, they do not accept this by any 97 percent.

Did you actually study the link I posted to Dr. Lindzens full explanations in laymans terms?

I have some of his very technical papers that are very complex. But that report I gave to the forum puts it into plain english.

If you got a 1 degree rise over 150 units (years) why should the years be on a tiny scale but temperatures on a huge scale? They got the hockey stick with that fraud.

That hockey stick is the biggest fraud I ever saw. The scale is not correct. If they used the true scale, the line wouild almost be perfecly flat. Even Lindzen with a different approach shows that clearly on his work.

Robert A Whit

02-13-2013, 02:02 PM

It's science. It should be taught in science class.

it has been a long time ago that I took general science as a high school freshman but I simply do not recall the teacher teaching weather science. Then in physics a couple years later, no weather science.

What science course do you mean that has to include weather science? In college in my physics courses, I can't recall weather science.

I got my weather science around 1980 as I trained to become a pilot. Pilots must really understand weather and even climate to be handed our licenses.

Besides Democrat 101, what courses have you taken to get you to speak only with the democrat forked toungue? It is not that I blame you, I blame those who educated you.

I must return and finish an important point.

We pilots did not merely learn weather of our area, or of our state, or if the USA. We were trained as to what causes weather and to understand this, one has to engage in the study of global weather. Climate is all kinds of weather all over the globe. I can still explain with no turning to my books on weather just how weather moves around this planet. I can explain how hot air travels to the poles and returns and why they do not retuen in a straight line, but curved lines. I understand the various global jet streams, the various fronts and much more.

I got suspicious of this crap called global warming only because of my actual professional given weather science courses.

I wish they had included pilots on their meetings over global climate and changes.

Not one of my weather courses ever mentioned global warming.

Gee, maybe the Feds just forgot to mention it, ya think?

If you think the feds forgot, dummy.

tailfins

02-13-2013, 02:07 PM

Most of your scientists are in the pockets of big oil. Live your life as you want but 97% of climate scientists call this science, not guesswork. I'll go with the science.

I do have a good understanding in business and economics enough to know that "studies" generally magically reach conclusions in synch with whomever is providing the funding whether it be oil companies or the Obama regime. You may laugh at my opinions about science, but I know they, like any other profession, skew their work in accordance with where their bread is buttered.

bingster

02-13-2013, 02:56 PM

Stewardship is one thing, deprivation is another. How much poverty is a fair trade for "environmental responsibility"?

Oh now poverty is due to climate control?!!! I'll bet an oil or coal guy taught you that.

bingster

02-13-2013, 03:09 PM

I do have a good understanding in business and economics enough to know that "studies" generally magically reach conclusions in synch with whomever is providing the funding whether it be oil companies or the Obama regime. You may laugh at my opinions about science, but I know they, like any other profession, skew their work in accordance with where their bread is buttered.

Your opinion about science (earth measured in thousands) is not science, it's faith. I'm not going to second guess your faith, it's yours and none of my business.

Science is about facts that determine the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old and all scientists are not atheists. One of the other posters pointed out that the Bible need not be taken literally in every measure and that settles well with those of us who believe you can have faith and believe in science at the same time.

Your right about studies, surveys, and polls. I told Jimny once that I would never argue this subject because every study I can produce (and there's plenty) that prove climate change will come from sights that believe in climate change. That's just how it works. There is no way to prove anything to anyone if they believe the source is biased. But, everything that goes against climate change is also biased to industry-check their bios.

The ugly problem in this country, though, is that the cynics are holding us back from leading the world on this issue. In the world outside of America, something like 92% of people believe in climate change and countries like China and Germany are kicking are asses in solar and smart grids. We're falling behind because the mega-rich oil and coal companies are outspending the environmentalists to dumb down our citizenry. The environmentalist's millions of dollars is chump change to the billions of dollars bet against them by all of industry.

bingster

02-13-2013, 03:19 PM

it has been a long time ago that I took general science as a high school freshman but I simply do not recall the teacher teaching weather science. Then in physics a couple years later, no weather science.

What science course do you mean that has to include weather science? In college in my physics courses, I can't recall weather science.

I got my weather science around 1980 as I trained to become a pilot. Pilots must really understand weather and even climate to be handed our licenses.

Besides Democrat 101, what courses have you taken to get you to speak only with the democrat forked toungue? It is not that I blame you, I blame those who educated you.

I must return and finish an important point.

We pilots did not merely learn weather of our area, or of our state, or if the USA. We were trained as to what causes weather and to understand this, one has to engage in the study of global weather. Climate is all kinds of weather all over the globe. I can still explain with no turning to my books on weather just how weather moves around this planet. I can explain how hot air travels to the poles and returns and why they do not retuen in a straight line, but curved lines. I understand the various global jet streams, the various fronts and much more.

I got suspicious of this crap called global warming only because of my actual professional given weather science courses.

I wish they had included pilots on their meetings over global climate and changes.

Not one of my weather courses ever mentioned global warming.

Gee, maybe the Feds just forgot to mention it, ya think?

If you think the feds forgot, dummy.

One of the frustrating things about writing on this forum is that people take your quotes away from the quotes you were responding to and then criticize that point by itself. By itself it looks silly but not in context.

I was responding to a poster who said that environmentalism is not taught in schools because it's something like a quazi religion. I corrected that poster and said that it belongs in a science class. No, I don't remember it being taught in a science class, but the response was a reasonable one.

I resent the forked tongue part. I'm not accusing any posters of lying and would rather that respect in return.

I also don't think it would be reasonable for a pilot school to teach you climate change. They taught me water pressure and atmospheric science in my scuba class, but they didn't teach me marine science.

bingster

02-13-2013, 03:23 PM

I did not know I had scientists, but thanks for the offer.

Oil is not the problem you are claimng it to be. Even whack jobs should understand that the COAL and not oil is the problem.

I keep reading your so called side has 97 percent of the scientists in your hip pocket.

I don't to this day get that. What kind of scientists?

If you mean actual climatologists, they do not accept this by any 97 percent.

Did you actually study the link I posted to Dr. Lindzens full explanations in laymans terms?

I have some of his very technical papers that are very complex. But that report I gave to the forum puts it into plain english.

If you got a 1 degree rise over 150 units (years) why should the years be on a tiny scale but temperatures on a huge scale? They got the hockey stick with that fraud.

That hockey stick is the biggest fraud I ever saw. The scale is not correct. If they used the true scale, the line wouild almost be perfecly flat. Even Lindzen with a different approach shows that clearly on his work.

I'm sorry, I know it seems closed minded, but I do refuse to read the guys science. I've read that he has been discredited.

That's like a joke I heard on tv once:

Two politicians are talking and one says
"Bullshit, you're lying!" and the other says
"Of course I am, but hear me out!"

I don't need to read discredited science especially when it seems the source is a shill for oil, coal, and tobacco.

red states rule

02-14-2013, 03:14 AM

I recall well that during the 1970's the liberal media and weather "experts" were screaming how the Earth was getting cooler and we were heading toward another Ice Age

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1973/1101731203_400.jpg

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Robert A Whit

02-14-2013, 05:17 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=617304#post617304)
I did not know I had scientists, but thanks for the offer.

Oil is not the problem you are claimng it to be. Even whack jobs should understand that the COAL and not oil is the problem.

I keep reading your so called side has 97 percent of the scientists in your hip pocket.

I don't to this day get that. What kind of scientists?

If you mean actual climatologists, they do not accept this by any 97 percent.

Did you actually study the link I posted to Dr. Lindzens full explanations in laymans terms?

I have some of his very technical papers that are very complex. But that report I gave to the forum puts it into plain english.

If you got a 1 degree rise over 150 units (years) why should the years be on a tiny scale but temperatures on a huge scale? They got the hockey stick with that fraud.

That hockey stick is the biggest fraud I ever saw. The scale is not correct. If they used the true scale, the line wouild almost be perfecly flat. Even Lindzen with a different approach shows that clearly on his work.

Now the Bingster thinks he made his point:

I'm sorry, I know it seems closed minded, but I do refuse to read the guys science. I've read that he has been discredited.

That's like a joke I heard on tv once:

Two politicians are talking and one says
"Bullshit, you're lying!" and the other says
"Of course I am, but hear me out!"

I don't need to read discredited science especially when it seems the source is a shill for oil, coal, and tobacco. 
Last edited by bingster; Yesterday at 12:24 PM.

You remind me of the guy that farted in church who had a terrible cold. Somebody says to him, is that terrible smell comeing from you?

Hell no he says, I can't smell a damned thing.

So Bingster, you are not by far the only Democrat who refuses to read any of the actual science. Even put into easy to read, laymans terms, you just won't smell your own farts.

See, Lindzen whom you insisted debunks my side, as it turns out you refuse to read.

You sure did read he was discredited. But you did not read him. See, the man collects his paycheck only from MIT and his professional work.

But you NEVER asked him if he collects from oil companies.

But I did ask him. And he gets his pay from one of the very best universities.

Oil has nothing to do with climate to begin with.

No wonder you accept the democrats view. You have never read one bit of science on his unless the scientist aka politician believes as you believe.

Do you ever read what the IPCC says about this, how they do mention they are uncertain?

One more thing. Not Oil, but plain old COAL is claimed to be where the most of the Carbon Dioxide is alleged to come fro m.

What is your plan to stop the Chinese from building coal plants and pump steady CO2 into the atmosphere? You want to tax me for what the Chinese are doing? Democrats are just that irrational.