If "W" sent in 35k troops in the beginning instead of pussy footing around they would have gotten Bin Laden and the other high level goons at Tora Bora 8 years ago.
Printable View
If "W" sent in 35k troops in the beginning instead of pussy footing around they would have gotten Bin Laden and the other high level goons at Tora Bora 8 years ago.
El Queso,
Insightful comments. I also have thought this and am glad to see someone else articulate it.
I would still argue though that despite fundamental differences in values, there is still plenty of room for intelligent discussion.
For example, saying or implying "big government is bad" is as empty as the opposite "big government is good". Instead of such sweeping generalizations, it would be more constructive to explain why a specific proposal involving the government is / is not a good idea.
Let me just add that this whole idea that Obama is for big government is a big distortion. He is for incremental involvement of government where it is needed or otherwise makes sense to achieve certain objectives. A strong private sector is still a key component.
BTW, I am 100% convinced that if the GOP had won the election there still would have been a stimulus package involving government spending.
Esten,
I appreciate your comments, and it is posible to have intelligent conversation on many of these issues, but the big government vs small government is a fundamental "meme" that conversation, even with plenty of examples, can't move one way or the other, in my opinion.
You can't tell me that Obama is not interested in growing the government to the point where it will have the say on how things are run. The biggest example is what his party is looking to put forward for healthcare, FORCING everyone to pay in one way or another for healthcare instead of truly making tort reforms (as an example) and other reforms that are desperately needed.
I have yet to see anyone name a single successful government program that really helps people and at the same time is cost effective. I'm not talking about something that just gives things to people. Those are the WORST sort.
Having lived in Argentina and seeing up close and personal what happens when government tries to control things to make things fair, instead of making laws and then making sure people obey them (which in my opinion is what government should do) to make things fair. It's a cluster fuck and the US is headed that way too. Too many special interest groups on both sides want to vote money and honey to their constituents so they keep getting elected.
There is NO interest in getting things right, not really. There is only a bunch of crap emmitted on both sides, scaring the shit out of everybody, to force people to think that they need things that they don't really need.
I see big corporations, who actually operate much more efficiently than the government can possible operate. I've been on the inside and I've worked with these corporations from the outside. I'm often amazed that they can make money, but yet they still do. But it's because they are FORCED to at least be efficient enough to make some money or they go bankrupt (or the leaders who are screwing things up are forced out by share holders, etc). Unless big brother comes in and wastes OUR money to prop them up, causing more and more problems down the line until things get too bad to deal with any more.
Government is many times larger than what I've seen in these corporations (Chevron being my biggest personal example of a company that is so screwed up on how they approach their problems and still manage to make money) and the government runs many times less efficiently.
I don't need examples of how government can make things better, because, firstly there are none, and secondly, if there happens to be an example that someone actually comes up with that turned out to be a good thing, it's the exception that proves the rule.
Government simply cannot and does not create wealth. People are not better off giving up some of their own responsibilities to the government instead of being responsible for themselves.
Most of the people who follow the Democratic party who are on the receiving end of government (I'm not saying everyone who is a democrat is like this, I'm talking about the people who vote democratic because they sense that they are "left behind" and get benefits from the government in some fashion, perceived or real) ***** and moan that they have no opportunities. But I remember having to work three freaking jobs to pay my way through school, on top of student loans I was able to get (but I was a white guy with parents who were not poor, even though they refused to pay for my college, so the loans I got were very small) and just working my ever-loving ass off the get where I wanted.
Now that I actually am making money (sometimes) and living fairly comfortable, after 25+ years of hard work, why would I ever be comfortable with giving my hard earned tax dollars to people who don't work as hard as I do to get ahead?
These are things that no example can sway from the mind. These are things that I look back on and say "you know, I did work my ass off, I sacrificed for decades, and there is no one in the US who should not be capable of doing the same if they so choose. " I don't need anyone to force me to have healthcare, and I'm not going to be someone who is a drag on the system because I present myself to a hospital without money expecting proper health care.
Big government is a scam. We should all be suspicious of ANYTHING our law makers do. Our founding fathers were. In fact, we should absolutely make things as difficult as possible for our law makers for that very reason.
But I'll never convince ANYONE of the correctness of that statement, who believes that government can do things well and actually make things better for anyone (again, except for a small list of things) The examples abound, it's up to everyone to think critically and make the right decisions. Whch is almost impossible to rely on because people see things differently.
Mike Pence mocked the idea of a jobs summit in the GOP Thanksgiving address. His solution? Lower taxes.
No president in any administration should be held 100% responsible for the unemployment rate. There are too many factors over which there is too little control. While many companies had to lay off people, many others are just trimming the bottom line and hoarding cash. Bringing people together to get all the best ideas on the table is a smart idea.
I expect annoucements in the next several months on initiatives stemming from the jobs summit and other subsequent followup meetings. In addition to the ideas themselves, I think there is some amount of 'be part of the team / solution' persuasion that will play a role and this is another good reason for in-person meetings.
The GOP's mocking of this effort is sad but not surprising. It is clear their primary motive is political gain.
Do you think that maybe they were mocking a jobs summit and instead talking about lower taxes because they think (supposedly) that government doesn't create jobs, but lowering taxes and giving companies a break from spending their money on government might give them a chance to hire some people back, thereby actually recovering (even though not creating) jobs?
Again, it's the meme of the government can fix things versus the supposed free market can do a better job.
There can be no real intelligent discussion on this as long as we count an intelligent discussion as something where both sides bring information to the table, exchange it back and forth, and we actually all come away with some changes in our thinking as a result.
Without those sort of results (to a lesser or greater degree) there is no intelligent discussion, merely discussion between intelligent individuals which might be considered a form of mental masturbation.
I've heard the arguments about wasteful government before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I don't believe that government is de-facto, inherently wasteful. It all depends on how its run.
I've heard the arguments about efficient private enterprise before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I'm also aware there are important needs that the private sector cannot, or has not, addressed in a fair and effective manner.
So in trying to address important needs, I do not start with the position that the government should not play a role. What's important is that the needs are addressed in a fair and effective manner. If the private sector can't do so then other options should be considered.
As El Queso has pointed out, e mails from the nazi, neo-com global warming fanatics have shown that these thugs have stooped to cooking the books, throwing out data and destroying the peer review publication process in their attempt to force the ridiculous idea of man made global warming down our throats.
Now the imbecilic United Nations enforcer of global warming says that the peer review system guarantees publication of valid science. What a much of bullshit. The Nazi, neo-com enforcers of man made global warming emphaized in their emails that eliminating reviewers not sympathic to man made global warming was of utmost importance.
Why are these people so determined to ram this bullshit down our throats. The anwer is simple. Greed. Environmentalits have never seen so much grant money and as long a they hold their noses and pretend to accept the nonsense of man made global warming - grant money will appear.
As for Al Gore. That fucking bastard has the social conscience of the crooks in China who sold tainted milk causing hundreds of infant deaths. Gore is the poster boy for out of control greed. He makes Halburton and the other whipping boys of the fucking liberals look like Mother Teresa.
What is Al Gore's favorite Green project. Green in his pocket.
P.S. the global warmin fanatics, who used to have fairy tales about temperature increases of several degrees Centigrade, have now tried to draw a line in the sand. They claim that over the last 150 years, while we were coming out of a little Ice Age, the world's temperature has risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade.
Whoops, that was before they admitted that even 0.8 degrees Centigrade was a completely fabricated number with absolutely no basis in science.
[QUOTE=Esten]I've heard the arguments about wasteful government before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I don't believe that government is de-facto, inherently wasteful. It all depends on how its run.
I've heard the arguments about efficient private enterprise before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I'm also aware there are important needs that the private sector cannot, or has not, addressed in a fair and effective manner.
So in trying to address important needs, I do not start with the position that the government should not play a role. What's important is that the needs are addressed in a fair and effective manner. If the private sector can't do so then other options should be considered.[/QUOTE][Commence Rant] One of the larger differences between the public and private sector is that the laws of supply and demand apply directly to private enterprise but not to governments. It's sort of like Darwinian economics at play.
Businesses must compete directly against other businesses. Those that are more efficient in greater business aspects -- cost control, sales, innovation, etc. -- tend to survive and thrive. Those that are less efficient tend to fail. Survival of the fittest. I know that sounds simple, but it definitely applies to most businesses. There are exceptions, and there are different rules at play when large enterprises are competing against small enterprises. But, these are the unwritten rules that everyone in business understands, even if they aren't always good at any of these business fundamentals.
Governments, by contrast, need not play by these rules. States compete against other states for employers only at the margins, just as cities don't really compete much with other cities. The federal government really doesn't compete against anyone directly. For this reason, governments tend to be inefficient. Why? Because they don't have to be efficient.
Why would anyone trust anything the government has to say about job creation? What do politicians and bureaucrats know about this? Virtually nothing. If they did, they would be in the private sector creating jobs and running businesses. Those who can, do. Those who can't, run for office or seek public sector work where the laws of supply and demand are suspended.
As but one example, take a look at public sector employees in California. The unions full of public sector employees negotiate with politicians and bureaucrats over salaries, cost of living increases, pensions and health care. In reality, there is no real negotiation, as evidenced by the amount of pensions many of these folks leave the system with after 20-25 years of work. It is truly appalling, but it goes on and on until the state goes bankrupt. But for the fact that California is constitutionally prevented from filing for bankruptcy, it would already have done so. The state is truly messed up, and the majority of the cause are the set-asides allocated to public employees and a failing school system. The notion that anyone involved in this train wreck in California over the past 30 years has the faintest notion of how to run a business borders on the absurd. Is the federal government any better? Hardly. The only difference is that those rogues can print money and raise taxes with near impunity.
The health care mess is just the latest impending debacle. I'm too cynical to believe that the vast majority of Democratic politicians think they will really be doing anything that benefits anyone. Instead, they want to create a new entitlement constituency that they can count on in future elections, even if it does bankrupt the country. Likewise, I don't believe in any Republican do-gooders on this issue. They're not trying to prevent financial collapse. They just don't want to see the Democrats succeed in creating a new dependency that votes largely Democrat.
At base, the questions I ask are these:
1. When have taxes ever really gone down? There may have been blips here and there over the past 90 years, but the answer is "Never."
2. Have higher taxes really helped anything? Are roads better? Are schools better? Are social services more effective? Are we a more competitive country, overall? Does the postal system work better? How about medicare, medicaid and social security?
Will cap and trade help? Will health care "reform" help? Perhaps to some, the answers are not so obvious. For me, there is no doubt. Reagan had it right: Government [u]is[/u] the problem.[/ End Rant]
Stan, very elegantly stated.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Plus a lotta bullshit! Is this a CHANGE he promised? Oh well, ''he is a really smart guy''! It must be a ''smart'' idea! --------Synical Sid[/QUOTE]Actually, this is one of the changes he promised. He's been pretty consistent all along that the focus needs to be on Afghanistan -- from the campaign trail to now. There's nothing inconsistent with what he outlined last night. You may disagree with it, but this is exactly the change he promised.
I hope Obama has finally realized that job creation will occur in the private sector. Government does not create one new sustainable job by throwing money at sidewalk repair, mowing lawns or collecting garbage.
Jobs, real jobs, are the domain of the private sector. For crying out loud, reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so that businesses do not have to lay off workers and consumers have disposible income.
Somebody tatoo on Obama's forehead - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM
At the same time we can send Pelosi, fucking Barney Franks and the idiot Reid from Nevada on a 50 year factfinding mission somewhere in the depths of the Amazon - wearing only Speedos.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]I hope Obama has finally realized that job creation will occur in the private sector. Government does not create one new sustainable job by throwing money at sidewalk repair, mowing lawns or collecting garbage.
Jobs, real jobs, are the domain of the private sector. For crying out loud, reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so that businesses do not have to lay off workers and consumers have disposible income.
Somebody tatoo on Obama's forehead - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
At the same time we can send Pelosi, fucking Barney Franks and the idiot Reid from Nevada on a 50 year factfinding mission somewhere in the depths of the Amazon.[/QUOTE]Of course he knows the importance of the private sector; to suggest otherwise is absurd. The stimulus package was designed as a temporary measure, with multiple objectives.
As I recall, it was government that stepped in to stabilize the financial crisis, avoiding a significantly more dire scenario.
Very likely, the administration's engagement of the private sector on the jobs issue is going to lead to some creative and effective initiatives. And there is the 'team' element I mentioned before. The train has arrived and soon people will realize they have an opportunity to get on board. Then some people will get on board, followed by others. Momentum will pick up. At some point, many will determine the risks of not getting on board outweigh the risks of doing so. This will be the major topic of 2010 and we will see the goverment playing a key role in facilitating the process.
I see the GOP thought the jobs summit was such a good idea, they had one themselves. Accompanied by the usual partisan attacks and efforts to seize on any angle they can to portray the administration's efforts in a negative light. How pathetic. Now is the time to be working together, not attacking.
[QUOTE=Esten]Now is the time to be working together, not attacking.[/QUOTE]Then why didn't Obama invite the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or the National Association of Manufacturers to attend the "Jobs Summit"?
Failing to invite the three largest business organizations in the country to a "Jobs Summit" is like failing to invite the NFL to a "Football Summit".
Thanks,
Jackson
Did you hear that analogy on FOX? I did. If you want to play that analogy then I would say they invited the team owners not the NFL commissioner.
According to one report, this was not out of line with the administration's established approach — speaking directly with top CEOs instead.
Let's wait and see how things develop and what involvement such organizations may or may not eventually have, before rushing to judgement.
[QUOTE=Esten]According to one report, this was not out of line with the administration's established approach — speaking directly with top CEOs instead.[/QUOTE]That only illustrates my point: The Obama administration mistakenly believes that it's more productive to talk about job creation with the top CEOs of a small number of huge, bailout prone corporations instead of talking with the owners of 1.7 million small and medium size business who in fact actually create 70% of all the jobs in the country.
[QUOTE=Esten]The stimulus package was designed as a temporary measure, with multiple objectives.[/quote]The so-called "stimulus package" would have been more accurately titled as "The Government Employee Job Security Act", which allowed state governors and city mayors to avoid making politically difficult decisions about their own government payrolls, but which unfortunately did nothing to stimulate private sector economic growth.
[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]
Thanks,
Jackson
==============================================
For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Rebublican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.
- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
[QUOTE=Jackson]Then why didn't Obama invite the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or the National Association of Manufacturers to attend the "Jobs Summit"?
Failing to invite the three largest business organizations in the country to a "Jobs Summit" is like failing to invite the NFL to a "Football Summit".
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Do not think it can be said the US Chamber of Commerce has been ignored or shut out. Sounds as though their President (Donohue) has worn his welcome out and would not of had anything new to offer at the jobs summit.
"One of the most frequent visitors [to the White House] was U. S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue"
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503772.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Jackson]That only illustrates my point: The Obama administration mistakenly believes that it's more productive to talk about job creation with the top CEOs of a small number of huge, bailout prone corporations instead of talking with the owners of 1.7 million small and medium size business who in fact actually create 70% of all the jobs in the country.
The so-called "stimulus package" would have been more accurately titled as "The Government Employee Job Security Act", which allowed state governors and city mayors to avoid making politically difficult decisions about their own government payrolls, but which unfortunately did nothing to stimulate private sector economic growth.
[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]
Thanks,
Jackson.
==============================================
For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Rebublican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.
- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.[/QUOTE]I totally agree with what your saying, Obama is not interested in creating any jobs that are NOT under union control. Small business is the enemy (their the fat cats and didn't vote for him) and are probably employing mostly white folks.
For the record, Howard Galganov is an extremely unsuccessful ex-political candidate / radio host in CANADA and pretty extreme in his views (He ran for the separation of Quebec from Canada in 2008) I wonder where some of the stuff on your mailing list comes from some times Sid. Also, I'm not trying to hate on you or your postings but wasn't there a recent posting standard that banned straight copy paste jobs from the forum?
[QUOTE=Guestrex]For the record, Howard Galganov is an extremely unsuccessful ex-political candidate / radio host in CANADA and pretty extreme in his views (He ran for the separation of Quebec from Canada in 2008) I wonder where some of the stuff on your mailing list comes from some times Sid. Also, I'm not trying to hate on you or your postings but wasn't there a recent posting standard that banned straight copy paste jobs from the forum?[/QUOTE]He may be all of those things and more, but that does not mean that what he writes is wrong. Not being a US citizen, I have followed Obama's election and period in office probably more objectively than those who he represents. Howard Galganov doesn't appear to be too far off the truth from where I am dispassionately observing the "Obama Show". Just about all the US political commentators think he hasn't achieved a great deal and most also think many of his economic decisions have failed in what he wanted to achieve.
Argento
Argento,
I'm not saying Obama is a great, or even a good president. I was just commenting on the absurdity of Galganov's editorial and its fear inducing overtones (calling him Emperor, his wife an Amazon, questioning his citizenship, and implying his is anti-christian). If you have been on the receiving end of Sid's mailing list you would understand that I was just commenting on the nonsensical nature of some of the forwards. It reminds me of the some of the stuff that my Left-wing uncle sends me (Alex Jones conspiracy theories etc). But on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
And Sid, I'm not complaining about your posts. I just have the belief that this thread is much more interesting when people are voicing their own views or at least hand-me-down views _in their own words_. Also, don't let my post count dishearten you, I've been a member of this forum since 06' and have personally known you longer than that. My lack of posts.... Well, thats my own problem. I'm posting now aren't I?
[QUOTE=Sidney]Ignore if you choose! Many of us are trying to help newbies.[/QUOTE]Help newbies do what? No one is coming to this board looking for Fox News recaps.
[QUOTE=Schmoj]Help newbies do what? No one is coming to this board looking for Fox News recaps.[/QUOTE]That's insulting to Fox News.
These posts, on the other hand, are pure drivel. I can't speak to whether anyone likes to read this lunatic fringe stuff or not. But, if newbies think that this sort of stuff is representative of a monger board, then I'm afraid the membership roster is going to be stagnant for quite a while.
I read a magazine called Analog Science Fiction / Science Fact. The magazine is edited by a well-respected scientist named Stanely Schmidt. Most of the fiction stories are "hard" science, which means that the stories contain real science for the most part, as far as we know today. In it they have two "regular" science fact articles per month. There are often more written, but as they are submitted - these two are always there and one of them, called the "Alternate View" is alternatey between two authors, one of whose name is Jeffery Kooistra.
Kooistra is a skeptic on global warming.
In the November issue, Kooistra talks about a serious flaw in the gathering of temperature data across the US. A meteorologist he knows was wondering if anyone really looked at these official weather stations and validated that they are performing correctly. Of course, the data they collect are a large part of the world-wide system that is used for global warming calculations.
Here is the article:
[url]http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml[/url]
Read what it says. It's interesting. Particularly the last sentence, which I love:
"What's really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we're appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles."
Whatever your political beliefs, there can be no excuse for accepting fraud as the basis for something that will cost Americans trillions of dollars and perhaps millions of jobs.
I have been an environmentally conscious individual since the early seventies and have always tried to do my part to be a good steward of the earth. I considered persuing a post graduate degree in environmental studies, but did not. I have not, however, ever bought into any of this global warming baloney not due to political bias or ideology but simply because global warming is neither true nor is it based on facts. I came to my conclusions long ago independent of any political persuasion and long before I had any idea of the magnitude of the potential global financial damage Warmist may do. Global warming has been a dishonest premise from the beginning. What then happened is that it became a religion for the godless on the left and became the runaway train that it now is.
I believe that anyone with an open critical mind will come to the same conclusion. And that the discussion needs to start over with facts.
I will share with you four anecdotal items that cover a few of the bases, but by no means are the complete body of work.
ElQueso highlights one of many problems. How was the data gathered? What is the data.
As it pertains to US temperatures, Anthony Watts conducted a study (I think I first read about it in late 2006) that found:
"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating / reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited."
Similarly, one of the key global warming models (and arguments) is built upon the tree ring data (using very old trees in Siberia, I think) whereby the density of tree rings is considered to be directly correlated to ambient temperatures. Warmists believe that they can accurately deduce from these tree rings, climate data from 2000 years ago (obviously we don't have any instrument climate data from back then against which to compare it) The only problem is that since we have had instrument climate data (150 years or so) we have noticed sustained periods where tree ring patters are both correlated and inversely correlated with temperatures. Of the 150 years of data, the last 50 years (1/3 of the time) show that the tree rings have been inversely correlated to temperatures. The only thing we can really prove is that correlation does not imply causation.
Further, look at the actions of warmists and the outcomes of warmist policies such as the compact fluorescent light bulb. We are being forced to use these and there are threats to outlaw the incandescent light bulb. Why? We are told because they are more efficient. Oh, ok. However, the efficiency data is murky and in my experience they do not last as long as incandescent bulbs and cost much more. Further, the dirty little secret that gets swept under the rug is that CFLs, like all fluorescent bulbs, contain mercury. "Due to health and environmental concerns about mercury, it is unlawful to dispose of fluorescent bulbs as universal waste in the states of California, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Spent lamps should be properly disposed of, or recycled, to contain the small amount of mercury in each lamp, in preference to disposal in landfills. In the European Union, CFLs are one of many products subject to the WEEE recycling scheme. The retail price includes an amount to pay for recycling, and manufacturers and importers have an obligation to collect and recycle CFLs."
You could look at hybrid cars for another example where the environmental impact of manufacturing the cars and disposal of the nickel metal hydride batteries outweigh the reduced emissions of the car itself. The warmist also exclude from their calculations the actual emissions caused by the car since they do not factor in the increased demand for coal burning electric power generation to recharge the batteries (yes, the power that comes out of the wall socket has to come from somewhere)
Lastly, if you start out with something called "global warming" that is going to cause the "End of Days" in a matter of years, why would you change the name of it to "Climate Change?" The same reason why the Soviets left the crosses on the turrets of the Kremlin.
Please don't bother responding with generalities that I am spouting rightwing or GOP talking points. If you can refute specific elements of my thinking or can show me where I am being political and not analytical, please feel free.
WW, you're on the right track for sure. As far as global warming / climate change goes, I (and others) have been posting about it for quite awhile, little tidbits here and there.
After I posted the previous post on Kooistra's article about Watts and his efforst to show how the data collection was bad, I found a paper (which I accidentally lost when I closed my damned browser) that was talking about the "hockey stick" controversy.
This was written back in 2005 and talked about how the data and graphs from one of the big warming proponents, Mann, was requested by a group wanting to see his raw data that he processed in 1998 and try to arrive at the same conclusions that Mann did. They couldn't do it. Mann gave them the data and they tried and failed. After telling Mann of their difficulties, they were told that they were using the wrong data sets (even though they used what he gave them) They got access to his FTP site (newly discovered after Mann told them they had the wrong data) and reviewed the datasets there and still couldn't arrive at the same conclusions. The Mann told them that they ddin't have the code that he wrote to process the data and that was why they failed. Of course, at that point, he refused (and still refuses today) to share his algorithms.
The "Hockey Stick" controversy is directly related to Mann's data showing that there is a sharp rise of temperatures in the early 20th century, culminating in 1998, which was supposed to be the hottest year in 1000 years!
The IPCC had a graph at one time, based on Mann's data, that showed the reality was that from 1000 AD to about 1400 AD, things were MUCH HOTTER than 1998, by far. That part of the graph was later removed, conveniently starting at about 1450 AD when the temperatures had dropped already (what's known as the "Little Ice Age") and began rising slowly again, to rise into modern times.
One thing this paper mentioned was that there may actually be benefits to rising temperatures. As the CO2 level increases, that also menas that growing seasons and biomass increase, and that fertile soils from all this rotting vegetation will come about. It appears more and more that temperature rise causes the CO2, not the other way around.
Also, the paper mentioned that it appears the best estimate for man-made contribution to greenhouses gases can be no more than 5% of natural processes that already contribute the CO2 that exists and will exist.
To me, all of these bastards have various reasons to keep supporting this fallacy of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by humans. Many of the scientists are caught up in not wanting to go against the consensus of those in their field - career suicide. Others want the money that the governments are putting out for this. Others probably honestly believe that global wamring is man-made and are trying to tailor their data to remove what is, to them, some uncomfortable inconsistencies.
But people like Gore are the worst of all. Purporting to understand the science, which is obviously way over his head, investing in companies that will make him hundreds of millions of dollars, and then going around and telling everyone that we're fucked if we don't spend all this money on projects that could never be commercially viable without the stupid politicians throwing money out there.
People like Gore and the others who are only interested in scaring the shit out of people so they can control them like little sheep.
Anyone want to talk about nuclear fusion and the idiocies that the US government continues to perpetuate with grants to study Tokamak fusion reactors? Decades of money thrown away because the government has decided that this is the way to go, based on some influencial scientists that had a stake in the matter in terms of grants and keeping everyone thinking this was the only way to go. When programs that are much smaller and more efficient actually produce better results, but can't get enough funding to finish because it all goes to the Tokamak guys.
Science isn't any better off today than it was in the time of Galileo.
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison
[QUOTE=Sidney]Lunatic Fringe Sid[/QUOTE]A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Nothing could be more correct or obvious. Governments by definition are wolves. If Castro and Chavez are not wolves I don't know who is. They have one goal: obtain power and turn their countries into slave plantations.
The wolves in the United States would be our Senators and Representatives who shove a health care system down our throats that they, the Senators and Representatives, want nothing to do with.
In many town hall meetings the wolves were asked why they, the wolves, didn't ditch the all inclusive health care they receive as Senators and Representatives and accept the health care system they are trying to shove down our throats.
Fatso, fucking Barnie Franks answered that question as follows: We, your elected officials (wolves) are more important than you and deserve better health care. You (the sheep) have to accept whatever crumbs we decide to give you i.e. an inadequate health care system.
And there are people who don't understand that government IS the problem.
Pardon my "religious reference", but I'd say God has a sense of humor.
[quote="Bloomberg. Com"]Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.
"Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days," Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark's Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. "There's a good chance of a white Christmas."
Delegates from 193 countries have been in Copenhagen since Dec. 7 to discuss how to fund global greenhouse gas emission cuts. U. S. President Barack Obama will arrive before the summit is scheduled to end tomorrow.
Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn't had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI's definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit)
DMI defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24. [/QUOTE]I wouldn't wish any serious harm on the participants; but if Obama, Pelosi, [I]et al.[/i] come back with a severe case of the sniffles - I will get a severe case of the giggles.
[QUOTE=Westy]Pardon my "religious reference", but I'd say God has a sense of humor.
I wouldn't wish any serious harm on the participants; but if Obama, Pelosi, [I]et al.[/i] come back with a severe case of the sniffles - I will get a severe case of the giggles.[/QUOTE]Let's hope he comes away with a outcome similar to those garnered by his 'valiant' efforts to prop up the Chicago mob visa vi the Olympics.
It is one thing to support American organized crime but quite another to fund it around the world (but it's only $100B per year under this deal.)
Why does Pelosi need to be there? Why did she need between 2 and 5 jets to get there?
If you redeployed the millions of dollars wasted sending Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg and Swartzeneger to this farce, you could put lots of people to work.
This is more egregious and tone deaf than the car execs taking private jets to DC to plead for money from the Govt.