American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[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.