The stimulus is working! [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Cool Beans

07-03-2009, 09:50 AM

Times must be pretty tough when you have to resort to plagiarizing ScottW to get in a lame jab :sleeps::spin: :hihi:

-spence
Okay, maybe you're right, I'll come up with a new nick for you then. I think I'll do this David Letterman style.

My Top Ten nicknames for Spence are:

#10 Spence Kennedy as Spence could probably spin his way out of murder too.

#9 Spence A. Gore because he buys into man made global warming.

#8 Spence Kerry as he can put a room full of people to sleep with his mind powers.

#7 Rev. Spence Sharpton as all of his postings are through a bullhorn and come down from on high. (even though you sometimes don't know what he says).

#6 Spence T. Daschle as Spence would be a good addition to Air America's lineup.

#5 Spence Lieberman as he could probably spin himself into playing both sides of any issue.

#4 Reverend Spence Jackson, as he jumps on certain issues faster than the NAACP.

#3 Spence J. Edwards as Spence can also pass as the "Breck Girl".

#2 Spence R. Limbaugh just because being named after Rush will "cheese" him off!!!

My #1 nickname for Spence is "Spence Lewinsky"
as he seems to do for Obama what Monica did for Bill. :rotf3:

Seriously though Spence, I'm just having fun with you.
I'm sure you're a "great American" and you mean well. We just happen to be on opposite sides on our belief on where our country is headed right now.
If you are correct, in a few years we'll have a worldwide "HugFest" and if I'm right, we may end up like the USSR and broken into little America's. It happened pretty fast over there, and Putin says we are following their footsteps by spending ourselves to extinction.

I kinda hope you're right. Spence Lewinsky. :rotf3:

scottw

07-03-2009, 09:58 AM

So it's not reasonable to assert that things are getting better but it will take time to see more dramatic improvement?

This is what 90+% of the economists are also saying.

-spence

"things are getting better" one of your more brilliant assertions...guess it depends on the meaning of "things" is

"but it will take time to see more dramatic improvement..." wow, that's REALLY going out on a limb....

"This is what 90+% of the economists are also saying." prove it, I'm guessing most economists would be embarassed to have an opinion that inane

spence

07-03-2009, 10:05 AM

Seriously though Spence, I'm just having fun with you.
I'm sure you're a "great American" and you mean well. We just happen to be on opposite sides on our belief on where our country is headed right now.
Actually we're not. You just don't really read any of my posts very closely...

-spence

spence

07-03-2009, 10:09 AM

"This is what 90+% of the economists are also saying." prove it, I'm guessing most economists would be embarassed to have an opinion that inane
Thinking an economist would consider a trend to be inane really demonstrates you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

-spence

fishbones

07-03-2009, 10:19 AM

So it's not reasonable to assert that things are getting better but it will take time to see more dramatic improvement?

This is what 90+% of the economists are also saying.

-spence

Spence, you'll have to show me the economists that are claiming it's getting better. I haven't seen too many saying that.

It's not really reasonable to claim that things are getting better as more and more people are becoming jobless. In fact, I've actually read that the economy has still not bottomed out yet. I'm certainly no expert, but I would think that raising taxes and not creating jobs isn't the best Rx for the economy right now.

Cool Beans

07-03-2009, 10:21 AM

Actually we're not. You just don't really read any of my posts very closely...

-spence

LOL, now you sound like the wife, "You have to read between the lines" and "feel" what I mean. I try to read every word you post, but sometimes it's hard to follow your, kinda like reading writing on tissue paper spinning in the toilet.:kewl:

spence

07-03-2009, 10:35 AM

Spence, you'll have to show me the economists that are claiming it's getting better. I haven't seen too many saying that.

It's not really reasonable to claim that things are getting better as more and more people are becoming jobless. In fact, I've actually read that the economy has still not bottomed out yet. I'm certainly no expert, but I would think that raising taxes and not creating jobs isn't the best Rx for the economy right now.

I don't think anyone would expect the unemployment situation to precede business growth for two reasons:

1) Companies are not going to increase payroll until they can afford to, and believe they have enough stability to make a longer term investment in training etc...

2) Cash flow stress demands that companies streamline their business and processes allowing them to do more with less. Those that survive will have an increased ability to grow revenues with a smaller workforce. In other words, they don't need to hire back as quickly. The hiring will come as the business expands which may take more time.

Nearly every article I've read in the past 30 days has said many economic statistics from housing to cars appear to have bottomed out, that the economy should show growth later this year.

A recent [June 19th, 2009] Reuters poll finds economists predict an average of 0.4% GDP growth in the U.S. in the third quarter and 1.6% growth in the fourth.

If true this would mean the recession technically would end Q1, 2010 even though unemployment would still be high.

That's not to say that unemployment will rebound as rapidly. Most from what I've also read agree that rising unemployment will be a problem well into 2010, and that this will put a drag on economic progress.

-spence

RIROCKHOUND

07-03-2009, 10:41 AM

I would be Gore by the way..

and it isn't buying in...
it is about reading the SCIENCE and educating yourself, instead of believing we have no impact on the planet...

but I don't want to hijack...

spence

07-03-2009, 10:42 AM

LOL, now you sound like the wife, "You have to read between the lines" and "feel" what I mean. I try to read every word you post, but sometimes it's hard to follow your, kinda like reading writing on tissue paper spinning in the toilet.:kewl:
No, it just means you can't apply your bias filter to every post. A good amount of the time I'm not advocating any position, but trying to present rational counter arguments to provide perspective and context.

Example:

Obama gets blasted for a record 1+ trillion deficit. I argue that he's inherited a huge % of this from President Bush, which is a fact.

This doesn't mean I'm endorsing large deficits, even if I argue that there are situations where borrowing to solve problems might be in our best long-term interest.

What I'm not hearing from the peanut gallery here (or anywhere for that matter) is how free market principals can be pragmatically applied to solve real problems today. I don't care how things might have been better had we behaved in a more conservative manner 70 years ago, tell me how we can adapt to the current situation and steer the ship.

-spence

spence

07-03-2009, 10:44 AM

and it isn't buying in...
it is about reading the SCIENCE and educating yourself, instead of believing we have no impact on the planet...
Rush Limbaugh has taught us that MAN can not destroy the planet because it was made by GOD.

What don't you get? :lasso:

-spence

RIROCKHOUND

07-03-2009, 11:33 AM

We can't?
We sure as %$%$%$%$ can over fish and pollute, right? We just can't warm the planet by changing the atmosphere... seems kind of contradictory to me there Spencay-atollah
:D

detbuch

07-03-2009, 10:19 PM

What I'm not hearing from the peanut gallery here (or anywhere for that matter) is how free market principals can be pragmatically applied to solve real problems today. I don't care how things might have been better had we behaved in a more conservative manner 70 years ago, tell me how we can adapt to the current situation and steer the ship.
-spence

When the ship drifts off course, the remedy is to steer it back on course, not just to go off on some uncharted destination. The ship of state is temporarily adrift because the captain has discarded the map. He has heard of a brave new world, a utopian place where the harsh natural place from whence he sailed holds no sway. It is a land of total fairness and good feeling, where all suffering is healed, where enemies have been vanquished by conciliation and discussion, where the tree of academe and its advanced postmodern method has deconstructed away all tracts, treatises, manifestos, constitutions, and all so-called concrete foundations that are over 70 years old. Ancient things no longer apply there. Not even values, principles, or concepts. All that matters there is the comfort, convenience, ease of access to all that sustains, at little to no cost. Cost is an ancient concept, value, principle. Especially attractive about this new land is the absence of the ancient, so-called "free market" values, principles, concepts. Economic "predators" have been eliminated there. The People, not persons, rule there. Personality breeds dissent, confusion, differing values, principles, concepts. All, in their wonderfull diversity, have been schooled by a superior pedagogy into a like-minded deferral to the great becefactor--the State.

Actually, plastic surgery and lasik, medical procedures not covered by insurance, but paid by the ancient "out of pocket" method, and which used to be expensive, have seen tremendous drops in price and are now "more affordable" due to ancient "free market" principles, values, concepts of competition. (Walmart, that competitive pit bull that liberals and unions love to hate, also comes to mind.)

The private insurance thing has inflated out of hand and is about to unecessarily morph into a bigger public form which will deliver less at higher costs, monetarily and socially. It is probably not "pragmatic" to instantly abolish all insurance (nor constitutional), but we can let the air out more gradually by reverting toward "out of pocket" plans like health savings accounts.

Cool Beans

07-03-2009, 10:24 PM

Rush Limbaugh has taught us that MAN can not destroy the planet because it was made by GOD.

What don't you get? :lasso:

-spence

That comment made by Rush is silly, Man can mess it up if we tried (nukes work well). The part I think is ridiculous is how CO2 is the main pollutant they seem to be concentrating on. Al Gore and "cow farts"! Cow farts help plants and trees grow, they do not add to global warming! Carbon monoxide from cars do contribute but without CO2 life would not exist. CO2 emissions have increased significantly over the past 10 years while global temps have leveled off and actually went down. I am a strong believer that solar activity is the main factor behind this. It is natural climate shifting, it has happened many times before. We are starting a period of global cooling not warming. We should be good stewards of our environment, but handcuffing our industry, we empower China and give them that much more control of our economy. Tax them enough for their emissions and they will leave.

As for the Stimulus, less than 10% of the stimulus has been spent! Most of it wont be seen until 2011-2012. Unemployment is through the roof and average hours worked per worker is 32hrs. That means many people are either forced to work part time or forced furlough days. We are far from the bottom of this and the Stimulus is a total waste of time and money!

spence

07-04-2009, 08:02 AM

Cow farts help plants and trees grow, they do not add to global warming!
Cow farts contain a lot of methane which is a significant greenhouse gas. I've read some studies where they estimate 15-20% of greenhouse gases are from livestock alone.

As for helping plants grow, anything can kill you in the right quantities. Remember as well that as emissions rise there's incredible deforestation going on globally.

Carbon monoxide from cars do contribute but without CO2 life would not exist. CO2 emissions have increased significantly over the past 10 years while global temps have leveled off and actually went down. I am a strong believer that solar activity is the main factor behind this. It is natural climate shifting, it has happened many times before. We are starting a period of global cooling not warming.
This has been discussed here before, but a look at the last few years doesn't show the trend that's causing concern. Yes, it does look like we're in a period of global cooling, but it's a short 10 year cycle. If it follows the pattern of the past century we'll see a very sharp temperature rise at the end of the cycle that will set new average records.

We should be good stewards of our environment, but handcuffing our industry, we empower China and give them that much more control of our economy. Tax them enough for their emissions and they will leave.
Which is exactly why many have been looking for a global solution that treats everybody equally. Also, you can't have it both ways. Being a good steward doesn't mean you ignore what is still considered pretty compelling evidence that man is influencing climate change.

As for the Stimulus, less than 10% of the stimulus has been spent! Most of it wont be seen until 2011-2012. Unemployment is through the roof and average hours worked per worker is 32hrs. That means many people are either forced to work part time or forced furlough days. We are far from the bottom of this and the Stimulus is a total waste of time and money!
I would think that if you don't like the bill you'd be happy that we're not going to spend the bulk of the money up front. Perhaps it can be allocated towards better uses, or better yet, not spent at all.

-spence

Cool Beans

07-04-2009, 08:19 AM

I would think that if you don't like the bill you'd be happy that we're not going to spend the bulk of the money up front. Perhaps it can be allocated towards better uses, or better yet, not spent at all.

-spence

I Strongly believe that it is set this way on purpose, so the bulk will be spent during the 2 years prior to the next presidential election, so the masses will see the effect then and it will be in their minds when it comes time to vote.

It was such a big emergency to get it passed so quickly, and then we spend a tiny percentage of it now? It was set up this way for political reasons, not economical reasons.

Also, a lot of politicians that helped Obama, got a lot of their pet projects into that bill. kind of like a "thank you present".

Not Spent At All? Once the government has it, it may not be spent on its intended purpose, but IT WILL BE SPENT! No freaking chance in hell it will come back to the taxpayers!

spence

07-04-2009, 08:57 AM

I Strongly believe that it is set this way on purpose, so the bulk will be spent during the 2 years prior to the next presidential election, so the masses will see the effect then and it will be in their minds when it comes time to vote.
That's a perfectly good political argument, irony intended.

The flip side of course is that you shouldn't spend money until it's been well planned out. Ongoing civil infrastructure projects (i.e. shovel ready) were a good first target as most communities are ready to go but just lack funding.

Also, a lot of politicians that helped Obama, got a lot of their pet projects into that bill. kind of like a "thank you present".
Certainly the Dems took the opportunity to spend money on projects they've not been able to for quite some time. I would have liked to see a lot of this eliminated and the actual stim bill be about 1/2 as large. I did think doing something was in order.

Not Spent At All? Once the government has it, it may not be spent on its intended purpose, but IT WILL BE SPENT! No freaking chance in hell it will come back to the taxpayers!
My guess is that if the Republicans eliminate the Dem super majority in the mid-term elections, which is very likely, there will be room to make some changes. I doubt they'd be able to kill the rest of the spending (as Obama would simply VETO the new bill) but they will have the muscle to negotiate how it's appropriated. Obama will be looking for a second term and will need to cooperate more with the GOP so he doesn't get boxed in...just like Clinton did.

-spence

Cool Beans

07-04-2009, 09:59 AM

hmmmmm..... Spence Lewinski and ElRush Beans seem to almost agree on that last post.

Can't agree on man made global warming/cooling, but seem to agree on the Stimulus Bill for the most part.

RIROCKHOUND

07-04-2009, 10:21 AM

hmmmmm..... Spence Lewinski and ElRush Beans seem to almost agree on that last post.

Can't agree on man made global warming/cooling, but seem to agree on the Stimulus Bill for the most part.

El Beans...
does your opinion of climate change (dislike the term global warming..) come from an extensive review of the scientific literature?
Just curious...
show some of the data or articles you are basing your opinion on in a new thread so we don't hijack this one...

justplugit

07-04-2009, 04:16 PM

The stimulus already has 1 Billion earmarked for climate research.

On top of that,the Cap and Trade Bill would tax industry and energy users, us,
with additional taxes estimated at a 19% increase on home electricity alone, forget about gas and oil..
We are supposed to set the example for the rest of the world, like China, India and Third World countries are going to follow. :rolleyes:

With the little manufacturing we have now being taxed to the hilt, they will run, not walk, to other countries where they won't be taxed and there goes the loss of who knows how many more jobs.

This whole thing is a runaway train, act in haste repent at leisure. Let's see what the 1 Billion stimulus will do first ,before we go over the point of no return.
The whole stimulus plan was based on emergency, emergency now we are being told by some scientists, not all, we are headed for climate doomsday unless we do something yesterday.

Let's hope some of the 1 Billion is spent on researching machines that could extract carbon dioxide from the air as proposed by Wallace Broecker, Columbia University Oceanographer.
Worth a try before killing our economy completely.
Slow and steady.

RIROCKHOUND

07-04-2009, 04:48 PM

Let's hope some of the 1 Billion is spent on researching machines that could extract carbon dioxide from the air as proposed by Wallace Broecker, Columbia University Oceanographer.
Worth a try before killing our economy completely.
Slow and steady.

Broecker does have some good ideas...
I'm sure many are being researched...

RIROCKHOUND

07-07-2009, 08:18 AM

El Beans...
does your opinion of climate change (dislike the term global warming..) come from an extensive review of the scientific literature?
Just curious...
show some of the data or articles you are basing your opinion on in a new thread so we don't hijack this one...

???????

JohnnyD

07-07-2009, 11:27 AM

???????

Good luck getting actual supported facts and not a emotional, from the gut opinion.

Anyway, Cool Beans is too busying driving around in his truck waiting for Palin to speak again so he can find me laying in traffic.

Cool Beans

07-07-2009, 05:06 PM

Good luck getting actual supported facts and not a emotional, from the gut opinion.

Anyway, Cool Beans is too busying driving around in his truck waiting for Palin to speak again so he can find me laying in traffic.

LOL, that is funny as hell:rotf3::laugha:!!!
Nope I've been working a lot these past few weeks and haven't had a lot of time to sit behind my pc at home. I haven't forgotten your questions on my Man made global climate change position and will get back with you on it as soon as I get a bit more time on the computer.

RIROCKHOUND

07-07-2009, 05:10 PM

OK.
Remember, SCIENCE not opinion or press articles, but science..

scottw

07-08-2009, 07:44 AM

Just curious...
show some of the data or articles you are basing your opinion on in a new thread so we don't hijack this one...

Don't need scientific literature, Rock, have you been outside at all this year?....if 1998 was the hottest year on record and we have far more CO2 in the atmosphere 10 or 11 years later and Al Gore's giant graph on Oprah recently with the gigantic arrow pointing straight upward is correct...then how is it that we are consistently 20-25 degrees BELOW the recored temps every single day, most of which were set in the 30's and 40's.. if Al Gore is right then this is simply impossible!! I pull up the NBC 10 weather chart every day which shows high/low... average high/low and record high/low and we are consistently under....HOW!!!....WHY!!! you only prefer "climate change" because it covers your ass either way...here's a bulletin...THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING...always has, always will...
I should not be out fishing at night in July and freezing my ass off...but it's worth it :rotf3:
if this is the result of GLOBAL WARMING...bring it on!

I'm worried about the guys that were posting here over the holiday weeekend rather than fishing:drool:

RIROCKHOUND

07-08-2009, 08:30 AM

Nice schoolies Scott. :D

Man-made climate change instead of global warming is the more scientific term, because it doesn't warm everywhere.
And yes, it changes all the time, but it boils down to the rate and amounts of change we are seeing in a relatively short time, that isn't seen in the historical, or geological past.

Remember, weather patterns and climate are two vastly different things.
This summer has been screwed up by a pervasive shift in the jet stream that has been pumping low pressure systems at us non-stop.

I just find it completely illogical how people can think we have zero impact on the earths climate.

scottw

07-08-2009, 08:48 AM

I just find it completely illogical how people can think we have zero impact on the earths climate.

noone is saying this Rock, Australia has figured it out, much of Europe is figuring it out, China and India just gave the middle finger...this is "Cap and Screw"...cap capitalism and screw the populus..nothing to do with the environment but a global assault on capitalism and it's fine because while these people can certainly lie and decieve they can't control the weather no matter how much they tax the crap out of people...yet another overreach and nature will not cooperate with the doomsday propoganda , and Al Gore is a compulsive liar and a remarkable hypocrite

scottw

07-08-2009, 09:50 AM

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;699146]

This summer has been screwed up by a pervasive shift in the jet stream that has been pumping low pressure systems at us non-stop.

Australia too? just call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" blame humans and commence massive taxation because that always solves everything :rolleyes:

Minus 13 degrees - the coldest it's been in April
Brett Dutschke, Wednesday April 29, 2009 - 14:58 EST
A new Australian record was set early this morning, a temperature of minus 13 degrees, at Charlotte Pass on the Snowy Mountains.

This is the lowest temperature recorded anywhere in Australia in April and is 13 below the average. Nearby at Perisher it dipped to minus 11 degrees and at the top of Thredbo it dipped to minus 10.

Across the border, on the Victorian Alps April records were broken at Mt Hotham where it chilled to minus eight degrees and Mt Buller and Falls Creek where it got as low as minus seven.

A few other locations set April low temperature records also. In Tasmania Lake Leake was as cold as minus six, Sheffield and Dover both reached minus one and Flinders island got to zero. Hobart had its coldest April night in 46 years, recording a low of 1.7 degrees, seven below average.

spence

07-08-2009, 10:55 AM

Global climate change is a fraud because it was cold in Australia.

Yea Bryan, he's really got you there :bounce:

-spence

JohnnyD

07-08-2009, 12:17 PM

Global climate change is a fraud because it was cold in Australia.

Yea Bryan, he's really got you there :bounce:

-spence

It goes right in line with my opinion of how the average American follows any news item.

They perceive what is happening right this moment, and that observation is fact. Have an unseasonably cool month in June - there's no way Global Warming exists. Longer than typical Indian Summer in February - Global Warming is going to murder our children tomorrow.

The average person doesn't have the capability to look at trends - here-and-now emotional responses are all many are capable of.

Perfect example is the direct corollary some people use when comparing what the stock market has done *today* and how the economy is doing. Market goes up, and the economy is improving. Next day the Market goes down, and we're headed for a depression.

There's very little critical thinking, just single observations then comments.

scottw

07-08-2009, 12:26 PM

Global climate change is a fraud because it was cold in Australia.

Yea Bryan, he's really got you there :bounce:

-spence

as usual Spence, you completely invent a fraudulent statement, where is your integrity? "Global Climate Change" is occuring all of the time(this may be alien to you) it began changing as soon as the atmosphere was formed and will continue until a wayward meteor destroys the planet unless we do it first.....the POINT is that 1998 was deemed the hottest year ever and has been followed by year after year where the "culprits" of supposed global warming have increased every year in the atmosphere and the planet has cooled????...I cited Australia to show that not only here but across the planet(even on the other side) RECORD cold temps for extended periods are constantly being recorded ...this cannot possibly be occuring if "THE PLANET HAS A FEVER" that began ten years ago when the planet was the hottest that it has ever been and it was "only going to get worse" ...NOT...it's that simple, you can throw out all of your gobligook but you cannot explain this fact....you are perpetuating the greatest SCAM in the planet's history...SHAME ON YOU! :nailem:

JohnnyD

07-08-2009, 01:11 PM

[COLOR="Blue"]as usual Spence, you completely invent a fraudulent statement, where is your integrity

fraud (frôd) n.
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

How exactly?

Anyone can find specific locations where temperatures have been statistically low for a period of time. It doesn't change the fact that the Average Global Temperature is up.

RIJIMMY

07-08-2009, 01:22 PM

uhhh stimulus, budgets, waste............lets try to stay on topic here boys. Damn scientist always going off on tangents...... anyone hear that there are no bunker around????????

scottw

07-08-2009, 01:31 PM

How exactly?

Anyone can find specific locations where temperatures have been statistically low for a period of time. It doesn't change the fact that the Average Global Temperature is up.

Jimmy, time to move onto "another(the next) stimulus"...should be a winner:spin:

JD...10 years after the planet began burning up there should be NO record low temperatures ANYWHERE...the problem with liars (Al Gore) is that they have to constantly lie to cover up the big intitial lie, while it's be immensely profitable for him, it is global deceit and will be proven so, the AGW nuts are just hoping to shove their agend up your butt as quickly as possible so that they can take credit as the cooling continues for magically fixing everything as we all shiver because oil is banned and the windmill won't turn

you must have a really high IQ ?

JohnnyD

07-08-2009, 01:44 PM

JD...10 years after the planet began burning up there should be NO record low temperatures ANYWHERE...the problem with liars (Al Gore) is that they have to constantly lie to cover up the big intitial lie, while it's be immensely profitable for him, it is global deceit and will be proven so, the AGW nuts are just hoping to shove their agend up your butt as quickly as possible so that they can take credit as the cooling continues for magically fixing everything as we all shiver because oil is banned and the windmill won't turn

you must have a really high IQ ?

10 years? In global climate terms, 10 years isn't even a speck on the radar.

scottw

07-08-2009, 01:59 PM

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;699221]uhhh stimulus, budgets, waste............lets try to stay on topic here boys. QUOTE]

here ya go Jimmy, "if at first you don't succeed, bankrupt yet another generation"...maybe they'll have a big, expensive party and work everything out...print more money, more deficit spending, higher taxes, strangle industry, these guys really know what they're doing...

Democrats Split on Stimulus as Job Losses Mount, Deficit Soars By Matthew Benjamin

July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats who control the levers of power in Washington are divided over whether to push for more deficit spending to end the recession and stem job losses(that assumes more deficit spending will accomplish this), complicating the possibility of a second stimulus bill.

“We need to be open to whether or not we need further action,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered that “there is no showing to me that another stimulus is needed.” (yet)

President Barack Obama underscored the dilemma by addressing both sides of the argument.(fence) In an interview with ABC News yesterday, he said unemployment approaching 10 percent (wait, he said the first stimulus would keep it at 8%, emergency, emergency!) is something “we wrestle with constantly.” He added that spending more borrowed money is “potentially counterproductive.” brilliant stuff?...you know he really wants to..
The split reflects two major challenges facing the Democrats: Record budget deficits that make additional spending much tougher to pass and a 26-year-high unemployment rate of 9.5 percent that is expected to rise to double digits. (spending money that they don't have and more government dependents, Dems should be quite happy)

“They’re between a rock and a hard place,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

The U.S. economy lost 467,000 jobs in June(but the trends are POSITIVE), exceeding economists’ forecasts, while the federal budget deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to top $1.8 trillion this year(that's nothing) and $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010. That’s provoked criticism of the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February as either wasteful or not large enough. (how about STUPID)

Borrowing Surge (the SURGE has failed)

The Treasury is increasing debt sales to pay for the spending. After more than doubling note and bond offerings to $963 billion in the first half, another $1.1 trillion may be sold by year-end, according to Barclays Plc. The second-half sales would be more than the total amount of debt sold in all of 2008.

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the bill approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to Obama during last year’s presidential campaign who now sits on the White House’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. (one Trillion...do I hear Two Trillion??(should be twice as effective)...Barney bids 3 Trillion!!...do I hear 3.5 Trillion???

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat whose home state has a 12 percent jobless rate, told ABCNews.com that a second stimulus is “probably needed.” Action by Congress would “probably take place towards the end of the year,” Whitehouse said. (stop talking moron)

With the White House and congressional Democrats focused on a major health-care overhaul(destruction and govt. takeover) and a climate(scam) bill, some lawmakers expressed pessimism about the likelihood of such legislation. (yeah, right...we really didn't want to stimulate again but it was an emergency)

Will there be a third stimulus...right before the depression officially begins?

spence

07-08-2009, 05:10 PM

as usual Spence, you completely invent a fraudulent statement, where is your integrity? "Global Climate Change" is occuring all of the time(this may be alien to you) it began changing as soon as the atmosphere was formed and will continue until a wayward meteor destroys the planet unless we do it first.....the POINT is that 1998 was deemed the hottest year ever and has been followed by year after year where the "culprits" of supposed global warming have increased every year in the atmosphere and the planet has cooled????...
You sure got me Dr. Science. I guess the fact that 2008 saw one of the warmest months on record and that the yearly averages look like this:

http://theenvironmentshow.com/wp-content/uploads/global-temperature-rise-since-the-industrial-revolution-from-nasa.jpg

Seem to support your sceintific theory that the Earth is indeed entering a dramatic period of cooling contrary to increasing output of greenhouse gasses.

I'm guessing you either stopped your education at the 8th grade, or really didn't pay attention in high school statistics.
I cited Australia to show that not only here but across the planet(even on the other side) RECORD cold temps for extended periods are constantly being recorded ...this cannot possibly be occuring if "THE PLANET HAS A FEVER" that began ten years ago when the planet was the hottest that it has ever been and it was "only going to get worse" ...NOT...it's that simple, you can throw out all of your gobligook but you cannot explain this fact....you are perpetuating the greatest SCAM in the planet's history...SHAME ON YOU! :nailem:

Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point.

RIROCKHOUND sure called that one.

-spence

scottw

07-09-2009, 07:01 AM

Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point.

RIROCKHOUND sure called that one.

-spence

you have it backward, this is all about politics and has very little to do with science, is Al Gore a Politician of a Scientist?...why is the solution massive government take over of industry and meddling into every aspect of our lives together with massive taxation??? Because this is nothing more that a STATIST tool to acquire more power...

there are an awful lot of PHD idiots running around that dipute this data and "SCIENCE", but just like welfare, it's become a cottage industry for the left....time will tell, just hope we can recover from the damage that will be done ....

BTW..it's GLOBAL WARMING, climate change is a cop out, this began as global warming, didn't you see the movie?... and is not new, the left has run with coming ice ages and then the global burning up every 25 years for the last century, they've tried this crap before, just can't seem to make up their minds...

[COLOR="Red"]NOPE, WE"RE SCREWED....OBAMA RULES THE PLANET TEMPERATURES
Philip Webster, Political Editor, in L’Aquila
President Obama and other leaders backed historic new targets for tackling global warming last night in an agreement designed to pave the way for a world deal in the autumn.

For the first time, America and the other seven richest economies agreed to the goal of keeping the world’s average temperature from rising more than 2C (3.6F).

They also agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 as they strove for a worldwide deal at Copenhagen in December.
better start "eliminating" a lot of people

JohnnyD

07-09-2009, 11:14 AM

you have it backward, this is all about politics and has very little to do with science, is Al Gore a Politician of a Scientist?

I don't know why you continue to reference Al Gore. Aside from by you, he hasn't been referenced once in this post. And no, I didn't see the movie.

You, sir, are conflating the topic.

As a note, a PhD doesn't immediately make you the definitive source for reliable information.

spence

07-09-2009, 04:52 PM

That's because ScottW has been blinded by the punditry. He doesn't understand the difference between science and politics so to him they are one in the same. All a fraud...

Classic ostrich head in the sand syndrome.

Wow, Bryan sure nailed this one.

-spence

justplugit

07-09-2009, 05:07 PM

As a note, a PhD doesn't immediately make you the definitive source for reliable information.

:agree: :hihi:

detbuch

07-09-2009, 10:28 PM

You sure got me Dr. Science. I guess the fact that 2008 saw one of the warmest months on record and that the yearly averages look like this:

http://theenvironmentshow.com/wp-content/uploads/global-temperature-rise-since-the-industrial-revolution-from-nasa.jpg

Seem to support your sceintific theory that the Earth is indeed entering a dramatic period of cooling contrary to increasing output of greenhouse gasses.

I'm guessing you either stopped your education at the 8th grade, or really didn't pay attention in high school statistics.

Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point.

RIROCKHOUND sure called that one.

-spence

Actually, there are many such graphs of varying and similar time periods that conflict with yours. And there are various "interpretations" of your and other graphs. There is an immense amount of information and chatter, pro and con Global Warming/Climate Change. You can pick and choose whatever suits your agenda, leaving out contradictions and make a solid appearing argument either way. Most of the studies actually contradict your position.

In geologic time, 120 years is also too short to prove anymore than what occured in that 120 years, wherein, by the way, man-made use of fossil fuels were not a problem for half the graph. Also, the beginning of the graph enters on a downstroke indicating a higher level of warming before MMGW. It also shows another drop and leveling of temps at the time when MMGW might reasonably begin to show some effect. Then a big 20 YEAR spike and then the beginning of the present temp drop into a predicted 30 year cooling. This graph has no significant indication of Man Made Global Warming.

Global temps peaked in 1998 and have been cooling each year since. The warming and cooling were predictable due to HUNDREDS OF YEARS of historical trends and observation of the impact of variations in solar activity on global temperature. Global temps are falling even though atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded at the end of 2008. When adding the April 2009 ice extent at both polls together, there was the same amount of polar ice as 30 years ago. According to NASA, the earth's oceans have been cooling since 2003 and may be entering a 30 year cooling period.

Here are excerpts from a few abstracts in peer reviewed studies and/or major scientific journal articles disputing Man-Made Gobal Warming (CAPS are mine):
(1) "Some researchers say the data make SOLAR VARIABILITY the LEADING HYPOTHESIS to explain the 1500 YEAR oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few years."
(2) "A review of the recent referred literature FAILS TO CONFIRM quantitatively that CO2 radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years . . . atmospheric CO2 variations generally FOLLOW changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them."
(3) "The authors indentify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the earth's clilmate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gasses to the world ocean and the atmosphere , and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere . . . the writers SHOW THAT HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATIC CHANGES ARE NEGLIGIBLE."
(4) "Several recent studies claim to have found evidence of large scale climate changes attributed to human influences. These assertions are based on increases of correlation over time between general circulation model prognostications and observations as derived from a centered pattern correlation statistic. We argue that the results of such studies ARE INAPPROPRIATE because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that THE RESULTS OF MANY STUDIES EMPLOYING THESE STATISTICS MAY BE ERRONEOUS and, in fact, SHOW LITTLE EVIDENCE OF A HUMAN FINGERPRINT IN THE OBSERVED RECORDS."
(5) "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, ESSENTIALLY DESCRIBES A FICTITIOUS MECHANISM, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump . . . according to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SUCH A PLANETARY MACHINE CAN NEVER EXIST. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology . . . it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real . . . in this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and . . . THE ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE CONJECTURE IS FALSIFIED.

31,000 American scientists signed a petition against global warming.

According to the National Climate Data Center, 2008 temperatures in the U.S.A were below the 115 year average.

April 2009 temps were 0.8f below the 20th century average.

scottw

07-10-2009, 07:07 AM

[

Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point.

RIROCKHOUND sure called that one.

-spence

the problem with your statement and thinking Spence is that YOUR definition of "SCIENCE" is only that science that you agree with or that forwards your position/agenda, you completely ingore and impune a wealth of science and scientists that disagree with Manmade Global Warming Theory, a completely media and politically motivated and driven agenda...whose head is in the sand?

buckman

07-10-2009, 08:35 AM

Al Gore and "climate change" makes Bush and oil look like nothing. He's the biggest fraud and scam artist since Madoff.

RIROCKHOUND

07-10-2009, 12:34 PM

In geologic time, 120 years is also too short to prove anymore than what occured in that 120 years, wherein, by the way, man-made use of fossil fuels were not a problem for half the graph.

31,000 American scientists signed a petition against global warming.

I don't have time to go point by point right now.

1. Are you a geologist?
2. I hate this quote. a. How many of the 31,000 were/are have a background in climate, climatology, geology or some other science where this is THEIR field... b. how many WOULDN'T sign it!

scottw

07-10-2009, 01:00 PM

that's just American scientists...but go ahead and find a way to dismiss them all....they're probably all idiots...right Spence and JD?:banano:

JohnnyD

07-10-2009, 01:06 PM

Al Gore and "climate change" makes Bush and oil look like nothing. He's the biggest fraud and scam artist since Madoff.

Wait for it.....

Wait for it....

At least no wars were started by Gore over climate change.

I'm only kidding. I never really liked that argument.

spence

07-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Most of the studies actually contradict your position.
What's my position?

-spence

scottw

07-10-2009, 01:14 PM

What's my position?

-spence

hands on the ankles? :jester:

sorry ..too easy, have a great weekend buddy, try to go fishing, OK?

JohnnyD

07-10-2009, 01:26 PM

that's just American scientists...but go ahead and find a way to dismiss them all....they're probably all idiots...right Spence and JD?:banano:

Never said that. I said having a PhD doesn't make you a definitive source. Hell, there is a whole list of reputable scientists that either think Global Warming is not happening, is a natural occurrence, or could possibly benefit us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Keep in mind, there was also a laundry list of scientists that argued man would never walk on the moon or develop a cure for cancer (we're pretty darn close).

However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "It was 46 degrees outside last night in the middle of July. There's no way Global Warming exists."

scottw

07-10-2009, 01:40 PM

RECORD COLD IN THE ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING

NEW ZEALAND

May the coldest on record, Niwa figures show
Matt Stewart | 10th July 2009

Wairarapa certainly played its part in the record-breaking chill that gripped the country during May, with Martinborough plunged into gloom courtesy of a paltry 92 hours of sunshine.

Niwa senior climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said May "broke records from one end of the country to the other - it was the coldest May on record", and there was nothing much to toast in the South Wairarapa wine village, which registered 69 percent of normal sunshine hours for May - the lowest figure for the town since records began.

scottw

07-10-2009, 01:44 PM

Keep in mind, there was also a laundry list of scientists that argued man would never walk on the moon or develop a cure for cancer (we're pretty darn close).

However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "It was 46 degrees outside last night in the middle of July. There's no way Global Warming exists."

name one...I would think that most scientist are optimists and WOULD believe that cures for cancer exist and that man COULD walk on the moon, where the hell do you get that, again, NAME ONE...another straw dog...you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me:rollem:

JohnnyD

07-10-2009, 02:23 PM

name one...I would think that most scientist are optimists and WOULD believe that cures for cancer exist and that man COULD walk on the moon, where the hell do you get that, again, NAME ONE...another straw dog...you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me:rollem:

For one, please cite some examples of me calling someone an idiot merely because they disagree with me.

Second, I was saying that people that say things like, "there can't be global warming, look how cold it has been this summer" are idiots.

spence

07-10-2009, 02:35 PM

you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me:rollem:
And again he resorts to placing words in people's mouths.

Never said such a thing, read my posts again.

-spence

scottw

07-10-2009, 03:18 PM

so what you are saying is that you both referred to people that disagree with you as IDIOTS(which you both did) in this thread but neither of you ever called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with you....I think I'm starting to figure you two out....:smash: and...Obama was clearly not checking out that little girls ass...but if he was, it's perfectly OK ....:rolleyes:

JohnnyD

07-10-2009, 04:28 PM

so what you are saying is that you both referred to people that disagree with you as IDIOTS(which you both did) in this thread

One again, where exactly?

spence

07-10-2009, 04:40 PM

One again, where exactly?
I don't see it.

Unless ScottW agrees that his logic is idiotic and is feeling tremendously guilty for it.

-spence

RIROCKHOUND

07-10-2009, 05:03 PM

RECORD COLD IN THE ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING NEW ZEALAND

THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.

read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.

Pick up and read "The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.

Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .

Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.

Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science... Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.

Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...

I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.

And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right. :smash:

Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...

spence

07-10-2009, 05:40 PM

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right. :smash:
Yea, what do you know?

If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.

But what does global warming have to do with the ocean floor? Nothing? I thought so :smokin:

Perhaps a more important questions is, what does the microtidal coast look like in NEW ZEALAND? Or more importantly, what are New Zealanders wearing this time of year?

It should be warm so if they're wearing sweaters or polar fleece Global Warming must be a fraud. Then again, if they're wearing shirts it's possible there's a short term trend towards warmth so Global Warming must be a fraud.

-spence

RIROCKHOUND

07-10-2009, 07:40 PM

Yea, what do you know?
If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.
-spence

What did you do, google me? :buds:

scottw

07-11-2009, 05:06 AM

read your posts idiots...I highlighted yours if red Johnny, geeze

JD... "However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "

SPENCE..."Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point."

Johnny you routinely roll with he "most people are ....(fill in the derrogatory slur)
and Spence's arrogant condecension is unmatched and remarkably boring...

with you two it's always the same thing, you make quite a couple:love:

this was written for you two...

July 10, 2009
The Audacity of Conceit
By Victor Volsky

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.

Worse yet, they idolize each other, sticking up for one another out of class solidarity.

If the people who formulate the administration's economic policy are so smart, why is it so disastrous? Last January, these wizards of smart predicted that if Obama's stimulus package were passed, the unemployment rate would not go beyond 8 percent by the end of the year. At this point, it is nearing 10 percent and shows no sign of slowing down. How could they be so wrong with their vaunted brilliance?

It is a common mistake of intellectuals to confuse IQ with common sense and verbal fluency with leadership qualities. They are simply unable to comprehend that academic success does not necessarily translate into a firm grasp on reality; the knack for endlessly bloviating on an abstruse subject does not automatically imply administrative ability; an academic degree is not a substitute for practical experience; and a professors' lounge is not a corporate boardroom.

Nobody would deny that the members of Obama's circle of economic advisors are indeed academically adept, well-spoken men and women. But have any of them ever run a lemonade stand, much less a bona fide business? Have they ever met a payroll? Do they know what it means to toss and turn in bed, worrying over the coming rise in vendor prices? They may have academic theories and marshal vast amounts of data, but have little practical knowledge of how things work in the real world.

So what do they bring to the administration other than long resumes and fearsome reputations as intellectual polemicists? All these brilliant academics have been brought on board for the sole purpose of lending an intellectual veneer to Obama's political schemes and validate his power grab. Hence the pitiful sight of these noted intellectuals being trotted out to the microphones to bleat pathetically in defense of the administration's agenda.

Karl Marx memorably said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Obama's economic policy, which amounts to an all-out assault on the U.S. economy, repeats history as a farce -- which would be hilarious, if we didn't have to live with the consequences.

scottw

07-11-2009, 05:10 AM

THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.

read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.

Pick up and read "The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.

Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .

Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.

Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science... Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.

Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...

I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.

And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right. :smash:

Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...

everyone you listed is on George Soros' payroll..

JohnnyD

07-11-2009, 10:30 AM

justplugit

07-11-2009, 10:42 AM

July 10, 2009
The Audacity of Conceit
By Victor Volsky

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.

I like that.

Book learning is great, but unless tempered with experience and
wisdom it only offers a very small part of a person's intellect.

scottw

07-13-2009, 08:48 AM

Yet you find it appropriate to cite "there are an awful lot of PHD idiots running around that dipute this data and 'SCIENCE'," as though having a PHD automatically makes someone an authority. If a PhD is a "muti-degreed moron" and "divorced from reality", what does that make someone like you who mindlessly follows what they say?

here's the SIDE that I'm on with regard to this JD, first...I'm NOT on the side that has determined that the "Science is Settled", the "DEBATE IS OVER" and anyone who disagrees is a "flat-earther", "holocaust denier" and is in the pocket of BIG OIL...this is the constant montra of the AGW supporters from AL GORE on down....there has been NO scientific debate for the last 10 years, the "other side" has been told to shut up and has been routinely impuned while the population had been pummeled with green propoganda....Al Gore has refused to debate(thought he was the magnificent debater?) anyone or answer questions from anyone beyond adoring suck up media....the Republicans were refused by the Dems to bring a witness to respond to Gore in the Cap/Trade hearings....is this how open and honest debate takes place in a democratic society? NO...this is how STALINISTS forward an agenda...I'm on the side that says...hold on...there's far more to this than what Gore and the left are trying to ramrod down our throats, you only need to look at the countries that rushed in to this lunacy to see the results....this is the mother of all trumped up left wing scare tactics created crisis used to frighten the masses and further seize power...but that's just my uneducated opinion so take it for what it's worth...noone told me to say that...

you are cranky again, now I know you didn't catch anything, head south one of these days and I'll take ya out fishing, we'll have fun....

scottw

07-28-2009, 09:18 PM

I don't have time to go point by point right now.

1. Are you a geologist?
2. I hate this quote. a. How many of the 31,000 were/are have a background in climate, climatology, geology or some other science where this is THEIR field... b. how many WOULDN'T sign it!

hey Rock, this guy is a GEOLOGIST...

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.