American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[AllIWantIsLove]

An interesting article about hospital charges.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...te-4744836.php

But the insurance company pays less than the amount you see on the hospital bill because they have negotiated lower fees. (Certainly our health care is too expensive. But the amount we see on hospital bills exaggerates the cost).

Bob.

[Don B]

therefore, more ice berg formation=further destruction of glazers

the real truth of the matter is that a former usa presidential candidate was sited blasting the polar caps to cuase ice beg formation and a destruction of the polar caps to increase the sluggish sales of his book and videos. the slow economy in the usa hit even the top half of the top 1%

hint:this un-named politician's last name rhythms with the english slang term for puta.[thisisamongeringboardafterall]

===============================================

Miami Bob,

If you're going to bypass the Text Cleanup Scrip, then your text must be letter perfect.

This includes, among other things, correct punctuation and correctly capitalizing the 1st letter in a sentence and all proper nouns.

In other words, this forum is not your fucking cellphone.

For years I've edited your posts to conform with the Forum's Posting Guidelines, but today I've just decided that enough is enough and instead I will let you suffer the public embarrassment of being an grown man who cannot write like he has at least an 8th grade education.

Next time, I'll just delete your post like I do with other members who don't give a fuck about writing correctly.

Thanks,

Jax

My thanks for the post went to Miami Bob and I meant it for Jax hence this post.
Don B

[Miami Bob]

therefore, more ice berg formation=further destruction of glazers

the real truth of the matter is that a former usa presidential candidate was sited blasting the polar caps to cuase ice beg formation and a destruction of the polar caps to increase the sluggish sales of his book and videos. the slow economy in the usa hit even the top half of the top 1%

hint:this un-named politician's last name rhythms with the english slang term for puta.[thisisamongeringboardafterall]

===============================================

Miami Bob,

If you're going to bypass the Text Cleanup Scrip, then your text must be letter perfect.

This includes, among other things, correct punctuation and correctly capitalizing the 1st letter in a sentence and all proper nouns.

In other words, this forum is not your fucking cellphone.

For years I've edited your posts to conform with the Forum's Posting Guidelines, but today I've just decided that enough is enough and instead I will let you suffer the public embarrassment of being an grown man who cannot write like he has at least an 8th grade education.

Next time, I'll just delete your post like I do with other members who don't give a fuck about writing correctly.

Thanks,

Jax

[Gandolf50]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...greenland.html

The Largest ice berg ever? This shows that glaciers are growing (or at least that one) which means it is not warming! If there are no glaciers (and yes some are receding) forming or growing, that would show "global warming". Record breaking ice bergs shows that "global warming" is NOT happening! This is common sense. But you can't see past the lies.

[WorldTravel69]

An interesting article about hospital charges.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...te-4744836.php

[WorldTravel69]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...greenland.html

Show me hard data, not conjecture that says otherwise. I still own ocean front property in NY and the levels have NOT changed in the last 45 years!

[Tres3]

There's an annual contest at the Griffiths University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was. 'political correctness'.

The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.

Tres3.

[HiLife]

Thanks Tres3.- I think this was the article that appeared in the leftist NYT, no??

If you ask Siri (I just did) and let her search the web, the second hit is from National Geographic that said 0.13" per year for the past 20 years. (the site actually made a math errors equating 0.13 inches to 3.2 mm, they did not move the decimal over one more...

That means that over the past 20 years we have seen a 2.6" rise in sea levels, which jives with what is being reported everywhere else. The real question is what is the timetable froward looking like? Again the NYT has a good article, if you believe that leftist publication: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/sc...sea-level.html.

Denial is a lot easier than facing the difficult facts and thinking through solutions. I guess denial and de nile are put us and Egypt a lot closer than we think. That said, 230+ years of a relatively stable democracy will be hard to undo, even for determined Republicans / Tea partiers that use their political affialiation as cover for anarchy. We might as well call it out for what it is, the elephant in the room. Here here!

[Tres3]

I am sorry for the long quote, but I was unable to cut and paste the link.

A leaked draft of the UN's next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unabated, The New York Times reported Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report is also more confident that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are the chief cause of the atmospheric warming seen since the 1950's. The report's authors say it is at least 95 percent likely that humans are behind this warming, according to an initial report from Reuters last Friday.

This confidence is reflected in the study's language. It's "extremely likely" that humans caused "more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," the Times quoted from the draft report.

The IPCC outlines several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet.

The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's 2012 State of the Climate report, released earlier this month, showed global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record high in 2011, and estimates suggest the record was broken again in 2012.

"It's good to see that the IPCC has moved in the right direction this time by at least trying to account for the key contribution to sea level rise from melting ice sheets," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an emailed statement, explaining that it was ignored in the previous IPCC report from 2007.

"However, the projections they provide are still overly conservative, with an upper limit of roughly one meter by 2100, when there is published work that suggests the possibility of as much as two meters (six feet) sea level rise by 2100," he added.

"This fits a pattern of the IPCC tending to err on the side of conservative, in part--I believe-because of fear of being attacked by the climate change denial machine.

Describing the IPCC's projections, Climate Progress' Joe Romm wrote on Sunday, "Like every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can't model.

A recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that with only 15.75 inches of sea level rise by mid-century, losses due to flooding in 136 of the world's coastal cities may approach $1 trillion annually, reported Climate Central.

IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the leaked drafts, but told the BBC on Monday, "We are not trying to keep it secret." He said, "After the report is finished we are going to publish all the comments and response so that people can track the process.

Reuters' breakdown of the IPCC draft also draws attention to the apparent slowdown in warming observed since 1998, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. Romm contends the slowdown "turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up.

The Times emphasizes the international scientific panel's further confidence in the future effects of unchecked emissions and notes, the experts "largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change contrarians, as probably related to short-term factors.

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report is set to be released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.

Tres3

[Rev BS]

Is it just possible that at some point, we could be in the condition that Egypt faces today? 44% of Republicans polled (Farleigh-Dickinson) seem to think that armed rebellion might be necessary. Isn't all that talk about the 2nd amendment underlies that there are people preparing for action against the government? Nine days after Obama's relection, petitions for secession sprouted in all 50 states. As a distraught Egyptian wailed, "we have stopped talking and listening to each other". So there it is, that's where we are.

[Tiny12]

The environmental folks must face the reality that global population is growing, and that population will demand more power. Wind and other alternative sources cannot meet that demand

And I agree with you. What Bjorn Lomborg has written on the subject makes a lot of sense to me. There's not a lot we in the USA and Europe can do about global warming and sea level changes in the short-to-medium term, except solutions like Singapore's - building dikes or whatever. CO2 emissions in the USA are dropping because of greater usage of natural gas. Emissions in the European Union are stabilizing or dropping because of economic stagnation. (Aside: I guess maybe there are some advantages to economic policies like those favored by Obama). The future is in the hands of people in India, China and other developing countries. Stabilizing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would cost their economies trillions of dollars, and benefits to them (and to us) would be considerably less.

P.S. To be fair some of the cuts in Europe are from greater use of renewables. In certain instances, these have backfired though, like the government promoting solar in Spain -- that's been a big boondoggle, that the Spaniards wish had never happened.

[Tres3]

In the short-to-medium term, on a global scale, the only economically viable way to do what you want to do is to generate more power from natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. A big impediment are environmental fanatics on the left, who are a lot like the anti-abortion fanatics on the right. They've gotten hydraulic fracturing banned in France and New York so far. And after the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan, they've got public opinion on their side on the nukes.

I agree with you. The environmental folks must face the reality that global population is growing, and that population will demand more power. Wind and other alternative sources cannot meet that demand, and Obama would like to ban all coal fired plants, even the clean ones where investment in clean emissions has totaled billions of dollars. The environmental folks have to wake up and realize that you cannot have a cleaner world over the short-to-medium term. They are just as bad as the global warming deniers.

Tres3.

[Tiny12]

. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..

In the short-to-medium term, on a global scale, the only economically viable way to do what you want to do is to generate more power from natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. A big impediment are environmental fanatics on the left, who are a lot like the anti-abortion fanatics on the right. They've gotten hydraulic fracturing banned in France and New York so far. And after the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan, they've got public opinion on their side on the nukes.

[Gandolf50]

Maybe we should start a new thread? .

[Gandolf50]

The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County would disagree with you. Miami-Dade is considering moving a sewerage treatment plant rather than upgrade it because they expect the current site to be under water before the new bonds are paid off. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..

Tres3.

Try reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. While it is fiction, it is based on fact. Filled with foot notes to support all points of views. Very interesting. The fact is, there is and has been "warming"and then "cooling" periods since day one. I'm not saying that mankind should not clean up its act. But the whole global warming campaign is a bit of a sham. Read the book and get back to me. The temperature for the 70 years (a period of accurate records) actually shows, if anything a very slight decline in average temperatures.