Well that is the problem, people felt that they were boxed into those two candidates, meanwhile a man by the name of Ron Paul who was truly running on a platform of change, but because the major tv outlets didn’t cover him, few people knew about him. Check him out, and also check out Dennis Kucinich, some of the last true politicians left.
Great Speaker
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Yes, it’s a surprise to many.
Do you think we like attacks on civil liberties? I voted for him mainly because I didn’t want to support the party that did so much damage the last time around.
On the Hitler business:
Let’s not get carried away with conspiracies. Obama isn’t genocidal. Global warming isn’t a scam. People have been comparing the president to Hitler almost since Hitler.
But notice: what were the first major actions that Hitler took after becoming chancellor? He suspended habeas corpus, vested legislative powers in his cabinet, and illegalized competing parties (the German Communist Party.) Those are the warning signs: changes in the form of government. We’ve already suspended habeas corpus, so we need to be very watchful for other warning signs.[/quote]
Global Warming is a scam:
Here are a few facts about global warming and Al Gore:
- Al Gore has been sued by the founder of the weather channel and over 30,000 scientist (9000 who have PHDS) on this fraud he is trying to perpetrate
- Human industry started producing tons of carbon dioxide in the 1940s during the post war economic boom and temperatures began to fall for three decades
- IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who support Al Goreâ??s idea of Global Warming (not even as a whole, there are many people in that group who disagree with this) are suppose to be top 1-2000 scientist yet their credentials donâ??t nearly match it and there are quite a few non-scientists on there, but I guess we should trust them over the 30,000 scientist and founder of the weather network
- Temperatures have been falling since 2000
- Extreme weather is not increasing (tornados in the US are decreasing)
- Sea temperatures are way below what they were in the Medieval Warming Period ( A time so hot where sun spots occurred which is dark spots, some as large as 50,000 miles in diameter, move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. These strange and powerful phenomena are known as sunspots)
- Quote from President of Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus â??It is evident that the environmentalist donâ??t want to change the climate, they want to change us and our behavior. Their ambition is to manipulate and control us. Environmentalist speak about â??saving the planetâ??, but from what? And from whom? One thing I know for sure: We have to save it- and us from them.â??
- During the 1600-1650 an ice age in northern Europe occurred where it was actually so cold that the North Sea, German, English and Dutch ports filled with ice. An all time of minimum of sun activity.
- 187 gigatonnes of C02 enters our atmosphere every year, of that 6.5 comes from human activity
- What you donâ??t know about Global Warming is that this â??theoryâ?? is putting lives in danger in developing countries, these countries are told not to touch their natural resources and that they are only allowed to have wind and solar power, which translates into you canâ??t have electricity
- â??Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.â?? â?? UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Kiminon Itoh, an award-winning PHD environmental physical chemist
- C02 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesnâ??t pay to say so.â?? Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, Vice Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research in Japan.
- The earth goes through time periods where it warms and cools and this is all a very natural part of life, yet these people want you to believe other wise, but in the end it is only going to end up costing you money and making them money.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Yes, it’s a surprise to many.
Do you think we like attacks on civil liberties? I voted for him mainly because I didn’t want to support the party that did so much damage the last time around.
On the Hitler business:
Let’s not get carried away with conspiracies. Obama isn’t genocidal. Global warming isn’t a scam. People have been comparing the president to Hitler almost since Hitler.
But notice: what were the first major actions that Hitler took after becoming chancellor? He suspended habeas corpus, vested legislative powers in his cabinet, and illegalized competing parties (the German Communist Party.) Those are the warning signs: changes in the form of government. We’ve already suspended habeas corpus, so we need to be very watchful for other warning signs.[/quote]
The left has done more damage to civil liberties than the right. Just by oppressive taxation. Attacking freedom of speech, and gun owners.
The 1968 gun Control Act is a word for word copy of the Nazi weapons act. This was written by a democratic Senator, Thomas Dodd. Calling a leftist a Nazi is a lot closer than calling a Republican a Nazi. The Nazis were Socialists, btw.
Nik – that’s a weird jumble of information, some of which I can address off the top of my head.
The midcentury drop in global temperatures was due to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants which chill the atmosphere. That was an independent effect, working in the opposite direction as the warming trend. With regulation and technological advancement, most of those pollutants are no longer being produced, and temperatures have reversed.
Global temperatures have not been falling since 2000. 2007 was the second warmest year on record, according to NASA.
Weather is not climate, and the link between climate change and tornadoes is shaky, but 2008 was a record-setting US tornado season. There’s been no decrease in tornadoes. Climate Roundup: Tornadoes, Coral, Drought - The New York Times.
The IPCC is not all scientists, and that’s common knowledge. They don’t do research, they assemble reports from the primary research.
The issue with the developing world actually is a serious question. We don’t know whether the burden of climate change mitigation is worth it. This is the one point where I’m not completely sold; if what it takes to reduce carbon is to make the world poorer on net, I think we should call it quits. But that’s where the debate is – the cost-benefit analysis – and not on whether all the geophysicists are swindlers.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Nik – that’s a weird jumble of information, some of which I can address off the top of my head.
The midcentury drop in global temperatures was due to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants which chill the atmosphere. That was an independent effect, working in the opposite direction as the warming trend. With regulation and technological advancement, most of those pollutants are no longer being produced, and temperatures have reversed.
Global temperatures have not been falling since 2000. 2007 was the second warmest year on record, according to NASA.
Weather is not climate, and the link between climate change and tornadoes is shaky, but 2008 was a record-setting US tornado season. There’s been no decrease in tornadoes. Climate Roundup: Tornadoes, Coral, Drought - The New York Times.
The IPCC is not all scientists, and that’s common knowledge. They don’t do research, they assemble reports from the primary research.
The issue with the developing world actually is a serious question. We don’t know whether the burden of climate change mitigation is worth it. This is the one point where I’m not completely sold; if what it takes to reduce carbon is to make the world poorer on net, I think we should call it quits. But that’s where the debate is – the cost-benefit analysis – and not on whether all the geophysicists are swindlers.[/quote]
Global warming is a scam.
How can you be so sure the indicators these “scientists” use actually could predict temperatures in a repeatable and falsifiable fashion. In fact, they cannot.
No scientist I know believes these lies paid for by Al Gore and the American tax payer.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Nik – that’s a weird jumble of information, some of which I can address off the top of my head.
The midcentury drop in global temperatures was due to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants which chill the atmosphere. That was an independent effect, working in the opposite direction as the warming trend. With regulation and technological advancement, most of those pollutants are no longer being produced, and temperatures have reversed.
Global temperatures have not been falling since 2000. 2007 was the second warmest year on record, according to NASA.
Weather is not climate, and the link between climate change and tornadoes is shaky, but 2008 was a record-setting US tornado season. There’s been no decrease in tornadoes. Climate Roundup: Tornadoes, Coral, Drought - The New York Times.
The IPCC is not all scientists, and that’s common knowledge. They don’t do research, they assemble reports from the primary research.
The issue with the developing world actually is a serious question. We don’t know whether the burden of climate change mitigation is worth it. This is the one point where I’m not completely sold; if what it takes to reduce carbon is to make the world poorer on net, I think we should call it quits. But that’s where the debate is – the cost-benefit analysis – and not on whether all the geophysicists are swindlers.
Global warming is a scam.
How can you be so sure the indicators these “scientists” use actually could predict temperatures in a repeatable and falsifiable fashion. In fact, they cannot.
No scientist I know believes these lies paid for by Al Gore and the American tax payer.[/quote]
Their own models to prove it predict wrong when you put in past weather data.
If I’m shooting and the scope says I’m on and I’m missing, I re zero the scope. I don’t keep missing.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Nik – that’s a weird jumble of information, some of which I can address off the top of my head.
The midcentury drop in global temperatures was due to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants which chill the atmosphere. That was an independent effect, working in the opposite direction as the warming trend. With regulation and technological advancement, most of those pollutants are no longer being produced, and temperatures have reversed.
Global temperatures have not been falling since 2000. 2007 was the second warmest year on record, according to NASA.
Weather is not climate, and the link between climate change and tornadoes is shaky, but 2008 was a record-setting US tornado season. There’s been no decrease in tornadoes. Climate Roundup: Tornadoes, Coral, Drought - The New York Times.
The IPCC is not all scientists, and that’s common knowledge. They don’t do research, they assemble reports from the primary research.
The issue with the developing world actually is a serious question. We don’t know whether the burden of climate change mitigation is worth it. This is the one point where I’m not completely sold; if what it takes to reduce carbon is to make the world poorer on net, I think we should call it quits. But that’s where the debate is – the cost-benefit analysis – and not on whether all the geophysicists are swindlers.
Global warming is a scam.
How can you be so sure the indicators these “scientists” use actually could predict temperatures in a repeatable and falsifiable fashion. In fact, they cannot.
No scientist I know believes these lies paid for by Al Gore and the American tax payer.
Their own models to prove it predict wrong when you put in past weather data.
If I’m shooting and the scope says I’m on and I’m missing, I re zero the scope. I don’t keep missing.[/quote]
Even if you get it to hit at a certain distance, you don’t know why it is now hitting. Was it scoped propery before for a different distance? Are the hash marks inncorrect for the ballistics of the cartridge you are firing? Is the barrel bent? Will a different bullet weight and charge refuse to stabilize due to the twist rate of the barrel?
Even if they get a model to work, they have no way of pinpointing what is causing the results.
Another point i’d like to add is … who says global warming is a bad thing? Wasn’t the planet much hotter during the time of the dinosaurs? In order for lifeforms to get so large, you needed more energy on the surface of the planet. So Why would making a world where there is more plantlife, more useable water, bigger animals, bigger plants, why would this be bad? Because some of the species we have now would die off? Who cares, species have come into and out of existance since day 1, why is everyone so hell bent on keeping every species that is alive right now alive forever. If they can’t take the heat, guess what, get the hell out of the kitchen, Besides. Upstate NY is too fucking cold in the winter. I want to play golf year round without moving south.
V
Sometimes you folks are exhausting, you know that?
There are times when I think you just don’t like being told what to do.
There’s a similarity here between macroeconomics and climate, I think. Both of them are really complicated systems modeled very imperfectly. And in both cases there are skeptics – usually on the political right – who want to scrap the results of the models. The scientists don’t know what they’re doing, so we (as a country) shouldn’t act on that data. Leave me alone and let me do what I want.
A few thoughts on that, recognizing that I’m not an expert in either field:
-
If your position requires you to reject the majority of the science being done on an issue – if you have to disagree with most climatologists and most economists, and in particular those at the top of their fields – then the research on your side will be sparser and more politically motivated. Maybe a scientist taking an NSF or DOE grant is biased, maybe an economist sitting on the CEA is biased, but there’s a world of difference between that and a scientist or economist taking money from a think tank (which form the sources for many climate skeptics and heterodox economists.)
-
In that vein: science is better than no science. Maybe that’s a kind of faith on my part; so be it. I think a partial empirical explanation tells us more than no explanation.
-
Doing nothing is a choice, and not necessarily the cheapest choice.
-
When we have true uncertainty – that is, an unknown probability distribution – then there’s a theorem that says (in layman’s terms) that we have to worry more about rare, catastrophic events than we would under any known probability distribution. This is Martin Weitzman’s “Dismal Theorem.”
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Sometimes you folks are exhausting, you know that?
There are times when I think you just don’t like being told what to do.
[/quote]
Why would I want to be told what to do with no reasonable explaination why?
If they cannot identify how the inputs to the model are created in influenced, why on earth would we take action based on these models? Especially when the consequences are far reaching and potentially disasterous.
One differense is that gov’t action can have a huge effect on economics and very little on the climate.
So the scientists and research can not be politically motivated? Also, science and reality are altered by popularity. 100% of scientist or economists wishing a particular outcome will not make is so.
It doesn’t matter where the money comes from. If a certain conclusion causes the money to dry up, what do think the conclusion will be? That’s why you look at facts and not some stamp of approval.
incorrect science or politically manipulated science is worse than accurate or intellectually honest sceince.
As soon as we prove this, or even provide a logically sound arguement, I will be ready to right the check.
Should we turn the economy upside down to action not likely to change a thing?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Sometimes you folks are exhausting, you know that?
There are times when I think you just don’t like being told what to do.[/quote]
No. We certainly don’t like being told what to do by people whom are incorrect.
No, actually. Economics is human action and climate is completely physical. Whereas ultimate cause and effect relationships of human action can be found there is no such ultimate causal relationships that can be predicted in the physical world. What this means is there is no way to prove any cause and effect relationships in the physical world. On the other hand, human action does not need to be tested (and in fact cannot be) because our free will makes it impossible to predict what humans will do. We can, however, use logic to analyze the causal relationships between human action and their economic consequences.
For example, what happens in a world where there are no savers? It is pretty easy to imagine the state of such a world. There would be no capital accumulation and everyone would live at subsistence levels. Does this need to be tested in a scientific manner? No doubt it could not be anyway.
By contrast in the physical realm, what happens to the temperature if a certain percentage of CO2 is emitted above “current” levels? Can one be certain it will go up or down? How does one know which is the cause and which is the effect (for example, warmer temperatures allow more CO2 to be absorbed into the atmosphere).
The science of climate change is very problematic.
Question for the global warming denialists: what do you think about the theory of evolution? If you reject it, why? If you accept it, how is accepting the scientific consensus here different from accepting it on climate change?
[quote]kilonewton wrote:
Question for the global warming denialists: what do you think about the theory of evolution? If you reject it, why? If you accept it, how is accepting the scientific consensus here different from accepting it on climate change? [/quote]
As a theory evolution is perfectly acceptable. I highly doubt the notion of one common ancestor because that would just be silly. If one strain of life had the ability to come into existence then no doubt many other strains of life could also have had the same opportunity. For example, plants, fungi, viruses, and animals could all have come from their own strains of life. There is no way this will ever be known with any current understanding or technology.
The notion that life can change over time is not so hard to understand though it is very hard to measure. For that reason, there is not enough proof to corroborate these ideas. It will remain a theory for a long time, I am afraid.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Sometimes you folks are exhausting, you know that?
There are times when I think you just don’t like being told what to do.
[/quote]
You think?
What part of “libertarian” gave it away?
[quote]kilonewton wrote:
Question for the global warming denialists: what do you think about the theory of evolution? If you reject it, why? If you accept it, how is accepting the scientific consensus here different from accepting it on climate change? [/quote]
There is 100 years of acccumulated data to support the theory of evolution.
There is anecdotal evidence at best to support man made global warming.
The fact that the IPCC is and always was a political pressure group does not help and neither does the fact that the same people who were wrong all along (Club of Rome, et al) jump on board to finally ram their agenda through.
Should there be global warming the debate is far from over though because it could still not make sense to try to act against it. The horror scenarios have not come true so we could prevent a negligible amount of warming at ridiculously high costs. No doubt that some would benefit, but definitely not we all as a whole.
Not that we could do anything as long as Brazil, China and India are not on board because they have more pressing problems right now.
Plus, what are we denying?
Please describe the mechanism that leads from more CO2 to higher temperatures and why it could not possibly be that warmer oceans mean more CO2 in the atmosphere.
You’ve really never heard of the greenhouse effect?
CO2 is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation. Light from the sun passes through the atmosphere, and strikes the earth, which emits most of the energy back as infrared radiation. If the light isn’t absorbed, it passes through the air back into outer space. If it is, it instead warms up the molecule it strikes, ultimately warming the whole earth. The more C02 in the atmosphere, the more this happens. All of this can be demonstrated very easily in the lab.
You know I remember there used to be a ton of info out there where almost every major scientist was agreeing that global cooling was happening. Its just another sky is falling trick to scare the masses nothing more.
The earth goes throw cold and hot periods, to think we can significantly alter this is laughable at best.
hell if the weather man can’t even tell me how its going to be in the next 7 days why the hell would I believe him when they say what it will be like in 100 years.
Now on to the topic. This is just plain bad policy. I hope this piece of shit gets shot down.
[quote]FrankNStang wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Since the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed requiring people to obtain licences in order to excercise this right would set a terrible legal precedent. What comes next? Will we have to get freedom of speech or freedom of assembly or freedom of religion licences?
This is worse than socialism, this is communism.
Totalitarianism/olgarchy is the governing model we are following. Communism is an economic model.[/quote]
No, communism is more closely a political model, socialism is an economic model. Communism, the political ideology did use a socialist economic system, so they are related, but socialism does not directly indicate communism. So his insinuation does logically make since. It would mean that the Marxist ideologies are touching more than just our economic model.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Sometimes you folks are exhausting, you know that?
[/quote]
LOL. Welcome to PWI, where Obama’s birthplace is a constant debate (oh, and he’s really Indonesian), Global Warming is not (it’s a hoax), and conspiracy theories flow like beer in Wisconsin (most involving those damn homosexuals). Sit back and enjoy the show.
[quote]John S. wrote:
You know I remember there used to be a ton of info out there where almost every major scientist was agreeing that global cooling was happening. Its just another sky is falling trick to scare the masses nothing more.
[/quote]
This is a common conservative talking point but completely baseless. A few scientists thought there might be global cooling in the 1970s, but the theory was never widely accepted and soon disproved by new evidence. By contrast, the evidence for global warming has gone from “strong” 30 years ago to “very strong” 15 years ago to “indisputable by intellectually honest people” today, and essentially all scientists in the relevant fields accept it.
[quote]
hell if the weather man can’t even tell me how its going to be in the next 7 days why the hell would I believe him when they say what it will be like in 100 years.[/quote]
“If you can’t even tell me whether the next spin of the roulette wheel is gonna be red or black why the hell should I believe you when you tell me that gambling is a bad idea???!1”