What a bunch of tools....is it any wonder congress has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush at his worst?
They're going to pass this sham of "health care reform" with little to no "reform" after months of wasting time and taxpayer money. Reining in the insurance industry? Protecting the middle class? I think not. Now we hear all the rationalizations for why everything was left out, it's going to raise the deficit a hell of a lot more than "one dime" and insurance companies will conduct business as usual. They're ALL (left and right) bought and paid for by special interests and only the people will suffer the consequences....AGAIN. If any person conducted business the way congress does....we'd be arrested, tried and PUT IN JAIL.
"Conservatives have tried to add their input to the issue but every time we are told no. You aren't willing to change anything. You hide behind closed doors and bribe senators but wonder why some of us don't trust you. We are told it has to be your way and you won't hear our side but you blame us."
This is what I don't understand: Conservatives were in power for eight years and ran this country into the ground and, using behind-closed-doors tactics, got us embroiled in an illegal war that we are stilled mired in.
Yes, conservatives have, quite vocally, "added their input,:" and quite rightly have been blamed for the mess their policies got us into. As for your assertion that liberals aren't willing to change anything, I would suggest that the whole platform on which Obama ran his campaign was that we were fed up with the conservative mess and wanted to change just about everything.
Yes, conservatives have, quite vocally, "added their input,:" and quite rightly have been blamed for the mess their policies got us into. As for your assertion that liberals aren't willing to change anything, I would suggest that the whole platform on which Obama ran his campaign was that we were fed up with the conservative mess and wanted to change just about everything.
To respond to the other assertion (that we are giving up too many freedoms), I would agree that the Bush administration made me quail with its Patriot Act, its firing of federal prosecutors who did not follow the party line, its policies regarding torture and the waging of an illegal war of aggression, and so on. Their might-makes-right approach to foreign policy and their win-at-any-cost approach to domestic policy and politics strike me as borderline fascist. However, we have a new administration, and I breathe a sigh of relief. I am not at all concerned that this administration's attempts to ensure health care coverage for all will lead to us giving up our basic freedoms.
First of all did not state 3% increase in CO2 but in fact you stated that it only increased .03% which is a big difference(in which this increase in CO2 happen since the industrial revolution).
Did you even read what I said?! The first guy stated a 3 TIMES concentration increase. I pointed out that it was a 33% concentration increase (.03% CONCENTRATION starting was what I said).
From my ORIGINAL POST: "I'm just curious as to which world you live in where math works out such that concentration levels of .03% (NOTE, that is NOT 3% that is 1/100th of 3%) starting point (1800s) moving to .04% (current) is 'tripling' the C02??? Cause whatever world you are living in... can I send you some money and have your 'triple' my income? Last I checked that is not tripling, that is in fact only 1/3rd more..... Try flipping your math right side up."
You are talking emissions increase; I am talking concentration. That would be like me saying "that bucket of water has 30% more water in it then it did an hour ago." You then reply "No, it has had 3 times more water put into it in the last 15 minutes." I then respond, "you may have put 3times more water into it in the last 15 minutes but it has a big freaking hole in the side so it only has 30% more water in it because most drained out already."
The average Global Tempature has increased 1.4 degress Fahrenheit around the world since 1880.
.....which makes the current temperature average still colder then it was during the period before what is known as the little ice age. In English, we got really cold for awhile, we warmed up a tiny hair and will probably then get cold again.
The 20th centurys last 2 decades have been the hottest in 400years. So yes there is actuall statistics that the Earth is warming.
You sure about that? Since the date you picked, 1880, the 10 hottest years were as follows from hottest to coolest. 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
Four of the hottest years were in the 1930s. Three where in the last 2 decades. The old data bears out what you say, the current data (since you are a fan of current data as your remark in your last post mentioned, and I strive to always use current data) does not bear out what you are saying. After they started correcting for little 'oops' for the last tow decades data (oops like getting months swapped around, realizing one of their man data sample points was seriously skewed due to placement near an air conditioner outlet and so on; but hey, blame the bad data on a Y2K bug).
Now on to what is causing this, this is the only debate and I will debate the fact that we as Humans are a major contribiture to this effect. The facts are based on 2,500 scientist from 130 countries.
People can throw around '2,500' scientist all they want. I hear this number all the time. Then I hear all the time how these scientist are getting pissed at being quoted as being pro-global warming. Let's have some names okay (obviously I am being facetious as you can not get the names nor can I check them, and that is my point; it is hearsay) ? 2,500 real scientist. Al Gore is not a scientist so please don't insult real scientist by including him or any other weather men, politicians or paid propaganda pencil pushers. Last I heard the 25,00 claim had changed to 400, then 350 and now we have a letter in support of the global warming thing they could only get 25 scientist to sign. Of course there is also the lovely tell that 12 of the 26 scientists (oh, and I double checked that number 26 at their own website) who were behind the Copenhagen Diagnosis were also part of the whole climate gate scandal. Amazing how numbers dwindle. They must be melting.
Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface.
I am all about not cutting down all our trees and yes, I agree they play a role in helping maintain the climate. That isn't to say I think we have cut down enough to cause or start global warming.
Don't forget that clouds are natural irises. As the average temperature drops they drop and thin out letting more sunlight in. Average gets warmer they get denser and rise blocking more sunlight.
Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
Wow, good thing we have infallible data to base that conclusion on. Data doubtless as infallible as things like "The top X hottest years were in the last decade, um, make that X years, uh nope, my bad, make it X instead, wait still not right...hold on...."
In reality, if you accept the data we have from previous temperatures then grab a graph of the temperature averages over the last few thousand years, you will see a nice big pattern. Trick is you have to actually look at the whole data, not just zoom in on the convenient part that shows the uptrend. Problem is we can tell there were temperature swings and cycles but somehow people get off on saying 'clearly we are 1.4F higher then this period' and you go really? You can tell that from that tree ring? You sure that tree wasn't shadowed during that time period by, oh, I dunno, another tree or something? We can only get so close to what we believe the temperature was.
Are you starting to see a connection here, you cannot debate that the earth is warming and it is warming at an alarming rate so if we are not the problem what is. Never in Natural history has the earth warmed so fast so what would you account this too.
If by that you mean that I am starting to see a bunch of greedy paranoid and self important people running around screaming 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' while conveniently distracting from anything of real importance... then yes. Oh, and yes, I can debate the idea that the earth is warming at an alarming rate and I can debate the conclusion that there is even a problem.
Do you really believe that humans do not contribute to the problem at all with everything that we dump into our atmosphere and the continuing of deforestization. So please if you know what is causing this please let the rest of the scientific community know so they can solve the problem, unless you believe there is no problem what so ever then I would say to you that they have now discovered the earth is round:)
As I mentioned, not a big fan of hacking down trees and such. I don't think we have an issue at the moment though. A HUGE majority of the scientific community agrees with me and I am not arrogant enough to go run off and correct them. I let my kids, kids write the history books and be sure to remind them to put a side note in on the 'big scare'. As I noted before, global warming got 25 people to sign their last little letter. Over 31,000 scientist on the other hand ACTUALLY signed a letter saying it was baloney. Let's assume for a minute that 2,500 scientist do agree with you and that all but 25 just didn't want to sign that letter. Maybe they were busy buying air conditioners. That still means for every 1 scientist that agrees with you, 12 agree with me. I'll let them explain it to your guys.
I will give you another 3 weeks to watch more fox news to get some out dated data:)
I wasn't the original poster 3 weeks ago, my last post was 2 days ago. But if that is how you do math and gather data points, then odds are good you are staring at your thermometer counting on your fingers going "okay, so it was 12F when I got up, it is now 16F, holy @%@#$ that is a 28 degree rise, that is 14 times what it was this morning. By Noon we are all gonna be bacon!"
Still obviously not getting the point of it all are you?
Let's ignore the Nazis, Finns, Danes, North Koreans and Chinese and let's put it in a way you might understand:
Would you feel as comfortable giving more power to the government to protect the people under your candidates as you would under another administration? Let's say another Bush right wing administration? The more conservative parties are already gaining ground in the polls and will almost certainly be the controlling power in this country again someday. What do you do when you've given government the power and the new parties idea of protection of the people differs from the current controlling party?
You would then be crying about lost personal freedom and the vast right wing conspiracy. Just as I am here today, only I realize it's not one party it's ALL parties.
BTW, I am not a conservative and would most likely be labeled as a liberal leaning libertarian. I voted against Bush and was against going into Iraq, the Patriot Act and corporate welfare (just to name a few) under his administration just as I'm against bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, social welfare and more government control under Obamas administration. I see Obama as the flip side of the same coin. They both want and wanted an easily controlled citizenry and more power to government.
If you want to address rising health care lets quit paying doctors,surgeons and administrators multi million dollar saleries. Lets quit giving sue happy people millions for any little thing. Lets stop paying for un needed cosmetic surgery. Lets make people responsible for having unprotected sex and getting pregnant. They can pay for killing their own child. Why should insurance pay for stupidity? Why do hospitals need all the fancy granite floors and expensive desks just as status symbols? Lets quit pushing so many unneeded drugs on everyone. Why do we pay so much for our med's when other countries can get them for pennies? Then our government started forcing people to get vacines that havent been tested, aren't safe and contain mercury which they tell us is bad for us. How much will that mistake cost us in the future with side affects? How many commercials for ambulance chasing lawyers do you see with lawsuits against drugs? Who do you think pays for all that? Where is the FDA when all these suposedly safe drugs came out? How about all the health issues from bad things in toys and clothes from other countries? We have a government agency protecting us from that but it is still happening. More money wasted on another government program.
Conservatives have tried to add their input to the issue but every time we are told no. You aren't willing to change anything. You hide behind closed doors and bribe senators but wonder why some of us don't trust you. We are told it has to be your way and you won't hear our side but you blame us. Has anyone actualy read and understood the entire bill? Most of the people voting yes on health care are either doing it because Obama says so or they were bribed. They have no idea what the fine print says. And you somehow think this is right?
You are corect in one point though if it passes we will all pay out the nose for it. It will likely bankrupt the country. But I guess that is what you want. Total government control, No freedom and one world government telling us what to do and how to do it.
Most Americans do not want this but our lying politicians don't care what we want. Lets show them next election.
Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
Are you starting to see a connection here, you cannot debate that the earth is warming and it is warming at an alarming rate so if we are not the problem what is. Never in Natural history has the earth warmed so fast so what would you account this too. Do you really believe that humans do not contribute to the problem at all with everything that we dump into our atmosphere and the continuing of deforestization. So please if you know what is causing this please let the rest of the scientific community know so they can solve the problem, unless you believe there is no problem what so ever then I would say to you that they have now discovered the earth is round:)
The point being the Nazi party and Hitlers totalitarian regime was enabled by their socialist agenda. More and more power was given to the government on the basis they were protecting the german people and the german state. The only difference between the Nazi socialist party and the current socialist party, is the leaders and the level of power they have over the people. The slow loss of personal freedom in exchange for protection of the people is the path to the next totalitarian regime. Once that's in place it only takes one sociopath to create the next holocaust.
"Unfortunately, we did away with laws that keep morons like you from voting. Better luck next time."
Now this sounds like a Nazi-Socialist, Her Fuhrer.
""I'm just curious as to which world you live in where math works out such that concentration levels of .03% (NOTE, that is NOT 3% that is 1/100th of 3%) starting point (1800s) moving to .04% (current) is 'tripling' the C02??? Cause whatever world you are living in... can I send you some money and have your 'triple' my income? Last I checked that is not tripling, that is in fact only 1/3rd more.....
Wow you couldnt be more wrong I would love to see the charts where you got your information but here are the actuall numbers.
Global Carbon Dioxide emmisions from fossil fuels stood at a record 8.38 gigatons of carbon 20% above the year 2000, in which was a 3.1% increase in emissions per year ."
Emissions maybe, but I am talking average concentrations. My numbers were based on average concentration. BIG difference, and the basis of many arguments on how much an increase in output affects standing levels. You can emit more, but if plants etc just use it faster etc then the actual levels don't go up much more. Either way, EVEN assuming that your conclusion that output equals standing levels, 3.1% is not the same as 3X. You would have to multiple that about 97 times to get 3x. BIG difference. It's like Verizon charging 3cents per megabyte vs 3% of a cent per megabyte.
"Ice core records indicate that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any point in the last 650,000 years.In 2007, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 384 parts per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution.(Francis c Moore)."
On the surface that seems straight forward; dividing 384/280 you get about 1.3 times. Certainly not 3X as claimed, but higher then the 3% I mentioned. The problem is that the diffusion of C02 through the ice they are sampling assumes constant temperature, a known starting level and many other variables while ignoring numerous other ones.
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, in combination with other greenhouse gases, have already raised global average temperature by 0.8 degrees Celsius, with more than two thirds of that increase coming since 1980. This warming is already affecting natural systems around the world: climate scientists have documented trends of more heat waves, longer and more-intense droughts, higher sea level, more-frequent heavy rain events, and stronger hurricanes.
Ah, see now we disagree on the cause. I believe this is part of the temperature cycles, the same ones observed for centuries, the same ones that cause the same warming cycles that we get the term 'indian summer' from (notice it is indian, not al gore summer so it must predate him a wee bit doncha think? in fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record this century.) and so on. As for things like stronger hurricanes and such... just cause the news says it doesn't make it true. Look it up, do the numbers, that one is just a bunch of baloney and something scientists themselves have repeatedly corrected and said 'no, we didn't say that and wouldn't." This year for example was very quiet as far as that went. In fact, if you look you will see that we started spiking around 89, then started dropping again after the end of 98 and got pretty low in 01 before we climbed back up again until 05/06 and are currently once again on a downward slope. Doesn't fit the whole global warming thing so well, but then again neither do many of the real data points. Oh well, I recommend accidentally on purpose deleting them because somehow in todays day and age you have run out of space to store the real figures. Hey, it apparently makes for a good excuse...
First of all I need to explain something. I am not the type of person to ask for hand outs. I work and would work two or three more jobs if I could. In the last three months my family and I have been placed in a situation that we (my three children & myself) didn't ask to be put in. I personally myself sent in for the Santa Fund because I knew my children needed to have a Christmas and I would have to decide if we needed heat & food or for Santa to come. I also was approached by a friend of mine that told me she also placed my family in for the Santa Fund. Today the Santa Fund was delivered but not to my house. Christmas is in less than three days away. What am I suppose to do? Why is my family going to suffer? I don't often get on Craigslist but after the article in the newspaper I thought I would voice my opinion to the idiot that had to place a stupid post on here on how to scam the "Santa Fund". I really hope you are happy. I now have to explain to my youngest two children that Santa couldn't come this year. I personally over the years have given to different agencies my hard earned money to help people and in turn when I need the help can't get it. I am sure that my hard earned money bought your fake kids a gift or two over the years. Thanks a lot to the "Santa Fund Scammer" for hurting my children on Christmas.
They advocate stong Central Government, they claimed they were protecting its people. The Nazi party was very much against democracy they felt it was a destabilizing force, they were against capitolism.
National Socialism, became the successful challengers to communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed .
The Nazis’ use of pro-labor rhetoric appealed to those disaffected with capitalism by promoting the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits.
to the influx of immigrants! They can no longer maintain the level of social progams without going bankrupt this is why the social Dems lost their majority. If you think our economy is bad here check out the economy .
Anybody want a free dog? No re-homing fees! I'll even throw in a dog bed, leashes and collars, half a bag of food, 6 months of Heartguard, a large crate and half a bag of doggie breath treats!
Danish country has become overwhelmed by immigrants(Somalians, Ethopians, Muslims etc) that wanted a piece of the largest European Welfare system, Which is going to Bankrupt the
I hate bullies. I don't buy Buy anything owned by Viacom anymore because they too used bullying tactics to get their way. You have not only swayed my opinion to NOT having a Hannaford here, but you have lost a loyal customer. From now on, it's Shaws, Middlebury Natural Food Co-Op, and Pricechopper for me. Yes, I understand that we may not have a grocery store because you are buying out GU, but that's a small price to pay for sticking to principles. It's not like I haven't been driving to Rutland or Middlebury before this anyway.
Well, indirectly, they were responsible for the conditions that led to that event:
(1) The Clinton administration forbade the FBI, CIA and other intelligence organizations to share information.
(2) The Clinton administration had several chances to seize OBL and put him on trial.
(3) The Clinton administration treated the 1st World Trade Center bombing like a criminal event, not a terrorist act.
(4) The Clinton administration presided over a major downgrade of the military and the CIA over an 8 year period.
(5) The war in the Baltic Region was fought by the USA with the fucking UN in charge of the administration of the war.
and most importantly, the then president of the USA was more interested in having his pecker drained than protecting the country!
Third, the fact that you scoffed at the person who brought up the tens of millions of lives snuffed out by abortion, illustrates perfectly how little liberals value human life.
You can say whatever you like, but killing your unborn child and then throwing it in the garbage is about as spiritually and morally repugnant as it gets.
Capitalism has raised the standard of living for more people on this planet than any other system ever designed by mankind.
Leftist Political Ideologies have caused more suffering for more people than any other system ever designed by mankind.
And they happily piss off liberals like you on a regular basis because there are so damn happy.
Problem is, conservatives have something to live for in their lives.
Liberals only have someone else's money to live for if/when they take it away from them.
Besides, who is spewing hate of late ---- Obama and his henchmen/henchwomen.
(1) Against civil rights during the 40's, 50's and 60's -----> Democrats
(2) Against social security during the Rosevelt adminstration ------> Democrats
(3) Against funding the Interstate System in the 50's ------> Democrats
(4) Against funding the startup of NASA (the biggest source of technological advancement in human history) ------> Democrats
(5) Against TR Rosevelt's founding of the National Park System (providing tree huggers today with something to do) -----> Democrats
If the Republicans/Conservatives of the USA are supposedly the party that wants no change, how come the Democrats/Liberals seem to want to keep people/advancement down to a minimum.
Liberals are all about telling people what they can't do, while conservatives are all about helping people be all they are able to be.
Liberals are all about providing people a hand-out, while conservatives are all about provide people a hand-up.
Finally, why are most liberals always outraged and angry, while most conservatives are always cheerful and happy?
Personally, I think it has to do with liberals always seeing the glass half empty, while conservatives always see the glass as half full.
]]>