See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 3140
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-164) not displayed.
.
.
.
#165. To: farmfriend (#163)
I have a magnet on my fridge with that one on it.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
LOL
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." You've repeatedly claimed there's no negative effect from increases of CO2 while totally ignoring the empirical facts that At NO POINT have you made a point which was salient nor on the line of debate i.e., that fraud known as Glowbull Warming. Since you're clearly unable to use standard English terminology, or make an argument without using your own custom-tailored words and invective, there has never been any debate outside your own addled brain. Throughout this thread you've consistently been the one to jump into warped accusations and sexually tinged names.
I'm far more concerned about what I breathe, than what a greenhouse breathes. That's where I will show my science. Science that relates to me, not purporting to justify some bullshit political/social/economic theoty.
You have stated the beginnings of a thesis however, it is a premise in search of support. I see nothing whatsoever to support it, put it in context, or showing how it is relevant. Your argument, such as it is, is an incomplete tautology and logically false. As for my sometimes acerbic tongue it was you not I that degraded first the level of civility. I'm just better at it than you are. Just admit it - you're jealous.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Again no science.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." But it's not that bad and nowhere near in danger of being that bad outside of an enclosed space.
Currently the Earth is at 380 ppmv. So if even if we double CO2 levels there will be no harm to humans and plants will love it producing more O2. This would be a net benefit to humans. Not to mention less people die in warmer climates than colder ones.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Science (Biology, Respiration):
Jealous of a moron who can't even look up a simple definition of "poison" and use words that conform to its plain English meaning? Dream on.
Not even close.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Ever hear of common law, buck? One maxim of common law, one of the highest, is that no man may be a judge in his own cause.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Almost everything you can think of is deadly to humans given enough of it. Even water can kill you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. "wilful" ignorance seems to be what keeps people on Al Gore's globalone warming bandwagon. The actual science doesn't support it, only "scientists" shown to have engaged in cooking the books and making hockey sticks.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. In any case you will eventually die. True enough. It is also true that you might die today if you drink too much water or take too many aspirins. Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. AUNTIE EM! AUNTIE EM! IT'S A TWISTER! IT'S A TWISTER! LOL! Excellent post, O_I. Keep 'em straight (or as close to it as you can).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. The problem is in the minds of people who buy the bs that Al Gore is selling.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Not even close. Not only can't you rebut anything I say about CO2 being a poison as normal English users use the word, lamebrains, you can't even come up with effective ***science*** to rebut a neat downing of your own kook hotair filled balloon. ZFacts What are your biases? At heart, I’m a scientist; that means I’m a skeptic. I don’t trust easy answers especially from politicians. I also don’t trust extremists, either left or right Why are you building zFacts? I like to figure things out, and I don’t like deceptions or misunderstandings, especially ones that harm people. So with zFacts, I get to investigate many of my interests and perhaps expose some deceptions and clear up some misperceptions. Are you opposed to alternative energy? No, I love the idea of harnessing wind and solar. I’m just opposed to hyping things that don’t work to well-meaning people. Corn ethanol is not working. Brazilian ethanol may be. Home-based solar voltaics are a rip off. The better hybrid cars are a great idea. With my physics and economics background, I’m sorting this out for myself and posting it on zFacts. What about global warming, markets, poverty and neocons? I admit it; I’m curious about a lot of different things. Global warming is looking pretty likely, but the case is not quite closed. No need to wait till we’re 100% sure of getting mugged before we take action. Causes of Global Warming Human emissions of CO2 predict the increased atmospheric CO2 almost perfectly for the last 250 years. Is the earth really getting warmer? Yes, and there is complete agreement among several different temperature records that in the last 30 years it has warmed dramatically. (See the oldest record of measured temperatures. Did the CO2 cause the global warming? We can't be absolutely sure. Here's the best graph of CO2 and global temperature. The only other known contender is the sun, so check that next. Is the sun causing it? We now have 27 years of accurate solar temperature data from NASA satellites. Although the sun has changed climate in the past, it looks like it is not the culprit this time.
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste? We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys.
Did you draw them graphs yourself? They're pretty good for an amateur. BTW, is that a hockey stick I see there??
We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys. Carbon dioxide and health Carbon dioxide is essential for internal respiration in a human body. Internal respiration is a process, by which oxygen is transported to body tissues and carbon dioxide is carried away from them. Carbon dioxide is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival. The buffer system in which carbon dioxide plays an important role is called the carbonate buffer. It is made up of bicarbonate ions and dissolved carbon dioxide, with carbonic acid. The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm#ixzz0qdcu2QJL
They're from zFacts I linked to.
Unfortunately, the outrageous claims being made here, are not that CO2 should remain at status quo, but that increased CO2 in the world atmosphere, combined with daily reduction of hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation capable of processing this CO2, combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs, is somehow beneficial because of an irrational conspirokook theory about Bilderburgers or similar bogeymen.
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers. I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that.
We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys. Are you really that dense? Our bodies give off carbon dioxide and, as has been pointed out to you, the plants use that and in return give us oxygen AND food. It is becoming pretty obvious that you don't understand the nature of symbiotic relationships. I am going to have to quit working with you, you wub me the wong way as Elmer Fudd says in the Geico commercial.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. I don't believe his data either. And anyone who posts that thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph should be shunned like the Al Gore acolyte they appear to be.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. It's not my data. I linked to a completely new website with dozens of sources and citing 2 historical figures going back to the 1800's who predicted global warming as a direct consequence from the Industrial Revloution: John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. The predictions of Tyndal and Arrhenius about global temperature increases are being fulfilled even faster then they stated. Are you going to choose being oblivious and shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, hum to yourself to drown out the sound, or look at something that is supported and goes back over 100 years?
Do you mean that See BS is not a reliable source? I'm shattered.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The reports of CO2 destroying coral reefs were originally published in a paper contributed to by the science panels of scientists of 69 countries, you brainless zombie. The media then reported the conclusions of this international scientific conference, which is their job. You shamelessly lie as if this statement of CO2 destroying coral reefs, and the science panel's prediction of marine habitat being irreversibly destroyed by 2050, were invented in some news media office. The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic because of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is faster than at any other time since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the scientists said in a joint statement issued today in advance of this week's pre-Copenhagen conference on climate change in Bonn. As carbon dioxide increases in the air above the ocean, more of the gas gets dissolved in the surface water of the sea, creating carbonic acid. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the acidic activity of the oceans has increased by 30 per cent. At current rates, they will become so acidic that few shell-forming organisms and coral reefs will be able to survive by mid-century
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base. They have always been base and will always remain base. Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. And remember, computer modeling is not science.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Cuz' Al, the great Carbon Profit, Gore sez' so that's why. Don't fergit' "Earth in the Lurch". You mean they're fallible? Even a Sooper Computer? That the inputs, which control the model's output, are subject to the same kind of data manipulation as was done at that great fiction factory known as the Climate Research Unit where good'ol Phil Used to work?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
A panel of scientists from 69 countries has stated in its report released at an international conference in Europe that the increased supply of CO2 in the atmosphere - predicted over 100 years ago by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius - will irreversibly destroy marine habit and biodiversity by 2050. In your usual manner, you blithely dismiss anything which contradicts your own point of view, while demanding science from others. Hers is the link: Again.
Repeating the same crap doesn't make it true. From your link: As I said before, computer models are NOT science. The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." D-d-d-d-oes that mean that Tron wasn't real? Computer modeling is wholly dependent for its outcome upon the design of the modeling software and the input parameters and assumptions made by the modeler. You could make a model quack like Daffy Duck with the right controlled inputs. The integrity and the accuracy of Climate Modeling for CO2 in particular, given the revelations of the CRU e-mails and the campaign of fraudulent science they promoted for over a decade, the backtracking of the IPCC, Algore's repeated lies, etc., ANY Computer Model coming forth from the interested parties MUST be presumed to be false and manipulated until proven otherwise by at least one or two independent sources.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Gavin Schmidt used to post on the climate forum but stopped when the guys just tore him apart over the modeling. Of course he is the one who started Real Climate which is nothing more than a propaganda arm designed to push AGW. And yes he was involved in the CRU climategate. BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." That is your own false cherry picked definition of science. Tens of thousands of real scientists use computer models, including the scientists of 69 countries attending an international conference. False. There is much more in the report than computer projects. There are actual empirical measurements that were reported. Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw. So we have another completely unsupported character assasaination of people who rebut you. Another lie in your endless litany of lies.
Good. That was out and out criminal fraud. It blows my mind that people so gullibly take as factual the results from easily manipulated computer modeling. And I do mean E-A-S-Y. The results of a model can be changed, slanted, stilted, manipulated, and deformed by simply controlling the input parameters to the program model. The mode is NOT reality. In honest usage it is at best a tool to look at and explore questions of "what if"? What IF the CO2 levels double does not mean the CO2 levels are going to double. It is an assumption and an input parameter designed for exploring a variety of scenarios of which none may come to pass. One can go further and point out that computer models, particularly ones on climate, NEVER account for all of the variables. The "Butterfly Effect" is always present, and any "Model" may leave unaccounted for any number of "Butterflies" as well as including "Butterlies".
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I linked to a completely new website with dozens of sources and citing 2 historical figures going back to the 1800's who predicted global warming as a direct consequence from the Industrial Revloution: John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. The predictions of Tyndal and Arrhenius about global temperature increases are being fulfilled even faster then they stated. Are you going to choose being oblivious and shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, hum to yourself to drown out the sound, or look at something that is supported and goes back over 100 years? Since you have opened the door, utilizing the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy shamelessly toward other posters when you were getting “pwned” (as you predictably then *projected* back upon others in such a trendy way), in the possibility of your edification and others, I will indulge in a little psychological observation, offered in a sincere, though possibly searing, effort to provide useful feedback. Anyone who actually lives up to the rigor of the scientific method or even the standard of Reason, is clear that cherry picking the facts, throwing out data that does not fit your preconceived theory, however cherished, is piss poor science and even more dishonest reasoning. Citing from a select group of authorities to win the debate for you is fallacious; argument by authority, nothing more. If you cannot detect the intellectual dishonesty and childishness of throwing fallacies around in a petulant tantrum to get your way in the discussion, I suggest either that your training in reason is lacking or there are integrity issues. In fact, the recent discrediting and disgrace of the CRU and the entire AGW lobby highlights this violation of reason and the scientific method for everyone, if they have eyes to see! However, you may take some comfort from being in good company, among poor scientific practitioners throughout the history of Western science, following their peers instead of the experimental facts, staying within the politically current rather than pushing the envelope of knowledge through discovery, getting those corporate/government grants rather than breaking fragile edifices of theory. In the context of other posts, when you share the mindset of the majority of 4um posters, your piling-on to the theme of the threads appears to be rational and reasonable. When your thinking process is challenged, you regress back to a defensiveness that can only come from ego issues, not reason. Without boxing the dialog into the old binary contrast game that appeals to the level of the vestigial reptilian brain, such as false dichotomies of liberal/conservative, R vs. D, fight or flight, good/bad, black or white, I observe that the modern, self-identified progressive tends toward instant regression when confronted with reason. This may be expected since the “progressive” mindset is dominant in the media-Matrix, into which the herd is being led, manipulating those who conform into believing that they are in fact the superior enlightened members of society and the only problems retarding progress come from the fact that there are too many other poor deluded Americans who insist upon resisting “progress”. Of course in point of fact, the problems are systemic not subverted by the disenfranchised people; ALL truly intractable problems are the result of the bureaucratized agendas of the government/financial/corporate oligarchs. Though there is some pandering in the media-Matrix to the false opposite of the “progressive” ideology, with the condescension for the “unenlightened” resisters to the forward march of the State-ist religion of Big Sister, the true mainstream of accepted PC “thought” in the u.s. is collectivist, with a dash of sentimentality, the I-am-so-righteous-I-feel-sorry-for-those-who-are-not-me meme that appeals to white-guilt-ers and other varieties of the self-deluded. In other words, the shock of awakening from the unthinking delusion that being part of the PC in-crowd of the “intelligentsia”, holding the allowed beliefs of the herd inculcated insidiously by the years of exposure to the massage of the media-Matrix, confers an honorary degree in Reasoning (like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz), causes such a severe case of cognitive dissonance that the “progressive” instantly loses all cool and reverts to name-calling and derisive labeling to regain their unearned feeling of superiority! Since reasoning, especially the rigor of scientific reasoning, REQUIRES the experience of cognitive dissonance, the balancing of two opposing theories and the juggling of seemingly contradictory facts, those who have not been practicing this skill and training their minds to handle the sharp awareness that confronting Reality always brings are taken by surprise when moments of cognitive dissonance intrude upon their slumber. This emotional shock and its cascade of visceral reaction explains the intense vitriol of the “enlightened progressive” when confronted with uncomfortable facts and superior critical reasoning. Oh, but where are the sources for these assertions? Where are the official talking heads confirming this so that I can select from multiple choice to decide my opinion on this? First, even if I were to compile an exhaustive list of thinkers supporting this perceptual and conceptual modeling of the world, the reason-resistant mind would merely select one whose point triggered a reflexive revulsion and in a towering display of illogic, deduce that if “fault” is found in one of the timbers supporting the intellectual edifice, then the entire structure can be dismissed with one easy label: Radical, Crackpot, Wingnut, Heretic, Conspiracy Theorist or shudder: a Denier! In addition, I would be encouraging the continued use of intellectual crutches, the leaning upon argument by authority, instead of emphasizing the use of the faculty for critical thinking, long atrophied among self-styled intellectuals or the “ignoratti” as someone has coined. If you are still reading along, I would like to add one more point, appealing to your sense of manhood in the hope of inducing a cathartic gut check: There are several outstanding posters of the female persuasion who grace this forum, including this site’s esteemed hostess, who show more maturity and balanced reason at all times in their discourse than you have displayed in this thread. Since self-knowledge is the essence and goal of the human game and since (assuming that you are male) you do not have the natural advantage of motherhood to deepen your understanding of yourself, may I advise you to emulate these exemplary woman in your style of discourse and stop disgracing yourself in, dare I say it, the clichéd fury of a woman scorned? Of course, if your main motivation is merely to "win" the debate and score ego-surfing points, instead of clarifying the truth for the greater good through reasoned discourse and dialog, then you will continue to spew on, in a demented defense of your sense of self.... You may reply to the thread but I will not engage; this post was a courtesy, nothing more. Learn from the posters who have schooled you or not, that is always our choice; to grow or to regress, there is no hovering for long in life.
And therefrom came a new branch of scientific inquiry i.e., "Chaos Theory". The original models from which it sprang were early climate models which, as they ran, began to diverge further, and further, and further, from what the modeler thought he was doing. Thus we also get the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" and the "Butterfly effect" which simply stated is that a minor variable in any model, and particularly climate, can, over a period of time cause greater and greater randomity in the running of the model. The principles, and mathematics arriving from it, have had a rather profound affect on how we see and understand things - and not just climate.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Comments (206 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#166. To: Original_Intent (#164)
I could hear him announce to his wife in acid dripping tones "honey here is someone else that could benefit from your opinion".
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#167. To: Original_Intent (#155)
(1) Human and animal bodies expel CO2 as waste,
(2) Increasing consumption of toxic waste CO2 makes people and animals increasingly sick, culminating ultimately in death,
(3) Attempting to twist and conflate plain English definitions of the word "poison" which completely agree with my own terminology used here, and
(4) Distracting from these facts by throwing around pet phrases among people equally dishonest and delusional as you. One thing you have proven though - you are NOT a gentleman.
#168. To: farmfriend (#156)
I've talked about actual gas levels in ppmv, infrared absorption, historic CO2 levels and current levels in greenhouses. You have countered none of it
#169. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, wudidiz (#167)
(Edited)
(1) Human and animal bodies expel CO2 as waste,
(2) Increasing consumption of toxic waste CO2 makes people and animals increasingly sick, culminating ultimately in death,
(3) Attempting to twist and conflate plain English definitions of the word "poison" which completely agree with my own terminology used here, and
(4) Distracting from these facts by throwing around pet phrases among people equally dishonest and delusional as you.
#170. To: AGAviator (#168)
I'm far more concerned about what I breathe, than what a greenhouse breathes. That's where I will show my science. Science that relates to me, not purporting to justify some bullshit political/social/economic theoty.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#171. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, farmfriend (#167)
(2) Increasing consumption of toxic waste CO2 makes people and animals increasingly sick, culminating ultimately in death,
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#172. To: wudidiz, AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo (#171)
(Edited)
But it's not that bad and nowhere near in danger of being that bad outside of an enclosed space.
Other human data: Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975].
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#173. To: farmfriend (#170)
Again no science.
(1) CO2 is a ***poison*** expelled by the body
pwned
(2)***Poisons*** are defined in simple English as substances having no benefits from their initial consumption, and whose increasing consumption leads to increasing levels of lack of wellness/sickness.
#174. To: Original_Intent (#169)
Just admit it - you're jealous.
#175. To: AGAviator (#173)
pwned
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#176. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#129)
Because I nailed Original_Intent .... EVERYTIME.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#177. To: AGAviator (#131)
How many times have you repeated your "hissy fit" mantra now while sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly to yourself to try to blot out my statement that CO2 is poison?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#178. To: AGAviator (#132)
The wilful ignorance of the thread hissy fitter in completely disregarding the needs of even plants for oxygen is getting to the level of some sort of emotional psychosis.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#179. To: AGAviator (#134)
In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#180. To: Original_Intent (#135)
OH MY! The world is going to come to an end. We are going to breathe to death.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#181. To: farmfriend (#139)
I guess the question becomes: If man does very well at higher concentrations and plants do exceptionally well at higher concentrations, where is the problem?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#182. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#175)
(Edited)
pwned
Who’s behind zFacts, oil companies or what? Nope. I’m Steve Stoft and this is my web site. I’m building it with a little help from my friends and volunteers, but so far, it’s mostly my work. I’m a Ph.D. economist and my day job is consulting for electricity markets—California, PJM, ISO-NE. That provides 99.9% of the funding for this site. (Google ads are now providing about $12 / day). My professional web site is stoft.com, my blog is zReason.
But I don’t think these are biases; they’re based on observation. It’s hard to know your own biases, but I believe openness, information, and clear thinking are helpful—maybe those are my bias. So put these neat little rebuttals of your kookblather into your crack pipes and smoke them. They will still leave you slightly better than that CO2 you've been hitting on.
#183. To: James Deffenbach (#179)
Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
#184. To: AGAviator (#182)
#185. To: AGAviator (#183)
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
#186. To: randge (#184)
Did you draw them graphs yourself
#187. To: randge (#185)
The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening.
#188. To: AGAviator (#187)
#189. To: AGAviator (#183)
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#190. To: randge (#188)
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#191. To: AGAviator (#187)
combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs,
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#192. To: randge, buckeroo (#188)
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
#193. To: farmfriend (#191)
You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
#194. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#191)
CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
Rising acidity in oceans is leading to a global catastrophe that would be unparalleled in tens of millions of years, according to the national science academies of 69 countries which want governments to take the issue more seriously in the run-up to the December climate change conference in Europe.
What a shameless liar you are pretending to be seeking debate and scientific facts, then dismissing scientific facts that rebut your kookblather as "media reports." The only suitable word to describe your intellectual dishonesty is "disgusting."
#195. To: AGAviator (#194)
(Edited)
The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#196. To: farmfriend (#195)
Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet.
And remember, computer modeling is not science.
#197. To: farmfriend (#195)
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base
Cut emissions or acidity will kill coral reefs, scientists say: 'Underwater catastrophe' is imminent without action
#198. To: AGAviator (#197)
"Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 parts per million ... model projections suggest that by mid-century, CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years," the panel said.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#199. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, all (#198)
(Edited)
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#200. To: Original_Intent (#199)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#201. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#198)
(Edited)
As I said before, computer models are NOT science
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#202. To: farmfriend (#200)
BTW, the Michael they were talking about in the "hide the decline" email was Michael Mann of the infamous hockey stick. There is a DA going after him now.
#203. To: Original_Intent (#202)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#204. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, Original_intent, randge, James Deffenbach, Mind_Virus, christine, abraxas, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, GreyLmist, gengis gandhi, earthchild, TwentyTwelve, Horse, wudidiz, ada, Googolplex, all (#192)
(Edited)
It's not my data.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#205. To: farmfriend (#203)
One of biggest problems with climate modeling is they don't take into account clouds. Since they can't model water vapor and clouds they can't possibly be correct in the climate "predictions". Some models have shown clouds to be a positive feed back while some show a negative feed back.
.
.
.